Chennai Court August 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The National Insurance Company Limited, Tiam House, 4th Floor, 28, Raj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ856; (2000)1MLJ97
ORDER1. National Insurance Company Limited is the appellant herein.2. Challenging the award of Rs.2,86,200, this appeal has been presented before this Court, mainly on the ground of negligence and of quantum.3. During the pendency of the appeal, the claimants filed cross objection, seeking to enhance the quantum.4. The deceased, in this case, is one Rukmangadhan. The claimants, in this case, are widow and daughter of the deceased.5. Deceased was a driver of the lorry on 10.5.1990, at about 2.15 P.M., when he was travelling in the lorry bearing registration No.TMJ 9405 from Madras to Kanyakumari, as additional driver, the driver of the lorry proceeded in a rash and negligent manner, slipped the vehicle from the main road and dashed against an Electric Post. Due to this, the deceased sustained serious injuries on head and leg. He died on the way to the hospital. Hence, the claimants filed a petition for compensation against the owner of the lorry and the insurance company, seeking compen...
Vaithilingam and Another Vs. State by Additional Deputy Commissioner o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC758
ORDER1. Petitioners are two in number and they are the accused in Crime No. 376 of 1992 registered at Triplicane Police Station on 27.11.1992 for offences under Sections 408, 477-A, 468, 471 and 420 IPC.2. The above proceedings came to be initiated under the following circumstances. The first petitioner was the Manager of Tamil Nadu Industrial Co-operative Bank Limited and the second petitioner was the Assistant Cashier in the said Bank during the period 1988-89. 3. Four cheques were drawn on the account of a dead man between 2.12.1988 and 5.1.1989 and the total amount involved was Rs. 8,000. When the matter came to be knowledge of the authorities, an enquiry was ordered and several enquiries were conducted without any result. Ultimately, theinstitution sent a complaint to the Commissioner of Police on 26.5.1992 and the Commissioner of Police in turn forwarded the same to Triplicane Police Station for registration and investigation and accordingly, the above crime came to be registered...
Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1999
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR303]; (2000)IILLJ923Mad
N.K. Jain, J.1. The management has filed this writ petition challenging the award passed by the Labour Court made in I.D. No. 351 of 1989 on April 1, 1991, reinstating the workman without back-wages.2. Necessary facts leading to the disposal of the writ petition are: That the second respondent-workman joined as a junior clerk in the petitioner bank in the year 1963. As serious lapses were found, he was suspended by order dated February 4, 1986. After conducting an enquiry, the enquiry officer, finding that the charges levelled against the workman were proved, dismissed him from service. On appeal, the Labour Court, holding that the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is fair and proper, found that the punishment of dismissal is extreme and ordered his reinstatement without back-wages, as stated. Challenging the same, the petitioner-bank has filed this writ petition.3. Learned Counsel for the management/petitioner contended that charges levelled against the workman have been proved...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Suresh B. Metha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1999
Reported in: [1999]107TAXMAN332(Mad)
ORDER1. A similar reference came up for consideration before this Court in T.C.P. No. 202 of 1996 and this Court by its order dated 15-2-1999 rejected the petition holding that a referable question of law does not arise.2. In that view of the matter, and for the reasons stated therein, this tax case petition is rejected, since we do not consider it necessary to call for a reference....
R. Shanmuganathan and ors. Vs. Appropriate Authority (No. 2)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Mad)576; [2000]242ITR652(Mad)
K. Govindarajan, J.1. By consent of both counsel, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The appellants though succeeded before the learned judge in getting the impugned order set aside and thereby they got the property acquired by the respondent-authority under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, on condition that the petitioners/appellants shall refund to the respondent the entire amount received by them together with interest at the rate of 15 per cent, from the date on which they received the money till the date, they refund the money to the respondent-authority, the appellants have filed the above appeal aggrieved against the direction, directing them to pay interest at the rate of 15 per cent.3. As submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellants, when the learned judge has found that the acquisition of the appellant's property under the provisions of the Income-tax Act cannot be sustained in law, as the respondent-authority has no jurisdiction t...
C. Ramaswamy Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ770
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred the revision aggrieved against the order passed in Cri. M.P.No. 1069/99 dated 19-4-99 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore.2. The case in brief is as follows :The explosive materials seized in Saibaba Colony Police Station in Crime No. 581/98 registered under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, were ordered to be kept in the magazine of the petitioner for safe custody. The petitioner is having a valid licence to deal in explosive substance and he is also having a godown at Sippandikadu, Erode District, attached to Vellithiruppur Police Station. A communication was sent to the petitioner, calling upon him to handover the explosive materials kept in this godown for the purpose of keeping it in another godown named Ashok Explosives Godown at Avinashi Taluk. Now a communication has been sent to the petitioner considering the safety of the materials and also put safely. About 94000 explosive substances have been ...
P. Muthuswamy Vs. State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ140
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The detention order passed in respect of one Solai, son of Periasami, by District Magistrate and District Collector, Karur dated 28-11-1998 dubbing him to be a 'Bootlegger' and directing his detention under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (hereinafter called as Act 14/82) is challenged in this petition.2. The concerned authority has relied upon three adverse cases and a ground case. According to the ground case, the concerned detenu was arrested only on 11-11-1998, when a complaint was made against him by one of his customers that he purchased arrack from the detenu and he felt giddiness and had vomiting sensation and suffered on account of the drinking of that arrack. We are not required to go into the factual details particularly because the learned counsel has restricted himself to only one question. According to the...
Muthukaruppan Alias Velayutham Vs. Deivathadiya Pillai, Hereditary Tru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ574
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 623 of 1996 on the file of Additional District Court, Tuticorin is the revision petitioner. Suit filed by him is one to declare that he is the elder son of 4th defendant and for further declaration that on the death of 4th defendant, he is entitled to act as hereditary trustee. The further relief in the plaint is that defendants 1 to 3 should be restrained from permanent prohibitory injunction and for costs of the suit.2. Fourth defendant alleged to have filed a memo on 4.10.1996 wherein he has admitted that plaintiff is his elder son. On the basis of memo, an application was filed by plaintiff under Order 12, Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure to pronounce judgment on admission. The same was seriously opposed by defendants 1 to 3. First defendant in the suit is the elder son and when 4th defendant died, it is he who performed the last rites and the memo that is filed is collusive and fraudulent.3. Lower court by the impugned order dismisse...
Akbar Ali and 2 Others Vs. Alla Pitchai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC281
ORDER1. Respondents in CMA.2 of 1999 on the file of Vacation District Judge at Perambalur are the revision petitioners in this revision petition.2. Respondents herein filed a suit for partition claiming l/3rd share in the plaint scheduled properties and also moved I.A.No.976 of 1996 for injunction restraining petitioners from putting up any construction in the plaint properties. They also wanted petitioners from not dealing with properties by executing a document in favour of third person.3. A detailed counter was filed by petitioners on 7.3.1999 and as per order dated 23.4.1999. The trial court dismissed the injunction application. Trial Court found respondent has no prima facie case and his right to claim partition was found to be doubtful. Trial Court also held that petitioners have already begun to put up construction and if interim order is granted, petitioners will be put to great hardships. Trial Court further held that respondents has come to Court not with clean hands and even...
T.R. Velayudham and Others Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad439; 1999(3)CTC125
ORDER1. The writ petitions arise under the Land Acquisition Act to call for the records pertaining to issue of Section 4(1) Notification under the LandAcquisition Act made in G.O.Ms.No. 433 Housing and Urban Development dated 14.5.1990 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 11.6.1991 in respect of the petitioners' lands at Sholinganallur village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District and quash the acquisition proceedings in pursuance of the said Section 4(1) Notification and Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The petitioner's case is that their lands were proposed to be acquired for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Neighbourhood Development Scheme by issue of Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No. 433 Housing and Urban Development dated 14.5.1990. The same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazatte on 23.5.1990. The paper publication was made in two daily Newspapers on 4.6.1990. Publication in locality w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »