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.
M. Govindammal Vs. Dr. M. Thilakavathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1073; I(2001)DMC545
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. Petitioner/second accused in C.C. No. 151/98 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Poonamallee has preferred the revision aggrieved against the order passed in C.M.P. No. 1083 of 1999, dated 5.5.1999.2. The case in brief is as follows: The respondent preferred a private complaint against the petitioner and another person for alleged offences under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The first accused had married her on 7.9.1997. His marriage with the complainant is subsisting. Learned Magistrate had framed charges under Section 494, I.P.C., against both accused. The respondent filed a petition under Section 216, Cr.P.C. for alteration of charges to include Section 109, I.P.C. against the second accused and also to include the date and place of marriage in the charge. The respondent was aware of the above said commissions, but she was not a party in the said petition and her name had been omitted and no opportunity as also given to her. Learned Magist...
Kasan Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1020
ORDERA. Ramamurthy, J. 1. Petitioner/accused in SC 88 of 1994 on the file of learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, has filed the revision aggrieved against the order passed on 11-1-99.2. The case in brief is as follows:The petitioner is facing trial for offences under Sections 302 and 324, IPC. The prosecution evidence was completed and the examination of the accused was also over. After hearing the arguments, the case was posted for judgment on 11-1 -99. On the said date, the learned Judge passed an order invoking the power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall the Investigating Officer, already examined to produce and mark the death extract relating to one Sub-Inspector Rajagopal, who is said to have investigated the case in part. Aggrieved against this only, the petitioner has come forward with the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reasons given by the trial Court for...
Kamalammal and ors. Vs. Parvathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ598
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. Defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants.2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:The plaintiff Muthusamy Naicker, Krishna Naicker and Narayana Naicker were brothers and constituted an Hindu undivided family. They -possessed extensive and valuable joint family properties. On 5.6.1951, the four brothers and one Chinnapillai Ammal alias Nagammal entered into a registered partition deed and divided all their family properties. In the said partition A Schedule properties were allotted to the share of Munusami Naicker, the plaintiff Even at the time of the partition, the plaintiff was of weak intellect and poor understanding. His next younger brother Muthusamy Naicker was a very capable and suitable person and the plaintiff allowed his entire share to be managed by the said Muthusamy Naicker after partition. The income from the properties allotted to the plaintiff was considerable. The plaintiff had no children and even Muthusamy Naicker had no children. The latter had ...
A. Selvaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Through Its Secretary, Adi-dravida ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC441
ORDERJudgment pronounced by A.C. Agarwal, CJ. 1. Admit. Mr.D. Murugesan, Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. On application made on behalf of the appellant, Respondent No.3 is deleted. By consent the main writ appeal is called out for hearing and final disposal. 2. By the present appeal, the appellant impugns a judgment and order passed by a learned single Judge on 20.10.1998 whereby his writ petition,being Writ Petition No. 8672 of 1993 has been dismissed. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under: The appellant had obtained an admission for B. Tech(Aeronautic Engineering) being conducted by the 3rd respondent Anna University on the strength of his community certificate which showed that he belongs to Hindu Pallan Community. The said community certificate was referred to the District Collector for verification. By an order passed by the District Collector on 9.4.1993, the District Collector has invalidated the said certificate. Th...
C. Natarajan and Etc. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ728
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issue in all these writ petitions is one and the same, the same are being disposed of by the following common order.2. The petitioners are all hailing from Kanyakumari District. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent, namely, theGovernment of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Tamil Development and Culture Department, rejecting their claim for payment of pension under Tamil Nadu Payment of Pension to Tamil Scholars and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1983, hereafter referred to as 'the Act', the first six petitioners have prayed for quashing of the rejection order and consequently they pray for appropriate direction lo the respondents to sanction and pay the pension to them as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, from the date of their application. The remaining five petitioners have approached this Court lor issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay pension under the Act and the Rules.3. For the...
Guindy Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR262]; (2000)ILLJ287Mad; (1999)3MLJ595
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent dated January 31, 1991 issued under Section 85B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: According to the petitioner they are engaged in the manufacture of machine tools and accessories. The Employees' State Insurance Act applies to the petitioner as per which the petitioner has to defray to the respondent each month certain amount from and out of the salary of each of the employee. The petitioner has been doing so regularly and without any default. While so, they received a show cause notice dated September 19, 1990 from the office of the respondent. Since the issues involved were quite exhaustive and over a period of five years earlier. They wrote a letter to the respondent's office dated September 28, 1990 requesting time for production of the necessary details. Nothing was heard in the matter from the respondent. However they...
Jayram Electricals (P) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ1082Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated December 16, 1991, made by the first respondent Presiding Officer, Employees' Insurance Court (First Additional City Civil Court) in C.M.P. No. 184 of 1991 in EIOP No.... of 1991 (un-numbered) on the file of the said Court and to quash the same.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the same as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, the 'second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them, one after the other, and ultimately they have requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.3. Heard the arg...
Chellappa Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1276
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. Petitioner/first accused in C.C. 15 of 1996 has preferred the revision aggrieved against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli by an order dated 4-11-98.2. The case in brief is as follows : The Inspector of Police, Ambasamudhram laid a charge-sheet against the petitioner as well as two other persons for offences Under Sections 326, 324 and 323, IPC. On 16-6-95 at about 7-15 p.m. in Idaikal Road, Kovilkulam near the Godown belonging to one Rajalingaraja, the accused with common intention to cause hurt to witnesses, the 1st accused armed with Aruval cut one Periyasamy and caused grievous injury. The second accused with Aruval caused simple hurt to one Selvakumar and the 3rd accused beat one Natesan with stick and caused simple injury. P.W. 1 Periyasamy is the father of P.Ws. 3 and 4, P.W. 2 Selvakumar is the nephew of P.W. 1. P.Ws. 1 to 4 have lands in the village at Kovilkulam. On 16-6-95 at about 7.00 p.m. P.W...
Managing Director, Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation Vs. K.M. Raju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1999
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC324
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award passed by the IV Addl. Sub-Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai in M.C.O.P. No. 1218 of 1992 dated 4.11.1993. Transport Corporation is the appellant, in the above appeal.2. According to the claimant, on 24.3.1992 at about 16.15 hours the respondent's bus TN-57-N-0137 was stopped in the Chockalingapuram bus stop. When the petitioner was getting into the bus, the respondent's driver suddenly took the bus as a result of which the petitioner fell down and that the left rear wheel ran over the petitioner's right leg which was completely crushed in the accident. The accident was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's driver. He has sustained multiple injuries and he was taken to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and admitted as inpatient on 24.3.1992 and discharged on 3.7.1992 with the direction to continue the treatment as an outpatient. He had sustained permanent disability...
M/S United India Insurance Company Limited, 1 North Car St, Thirucheng ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC212
ORDER1. On 17.11.1992 in a road accident a minor by name Saravanan died. The claimants are the parents of the deceased Saravanan. They filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Namakkal, claiming a compensation of Rs .75,000 for the death of the minor. Before the tribunal,the second claimant examined herself as a witness besides one other witness. On behalf of the respondent one witness was examined. Exs.A-1 to A-4 and B-1 to B-5 were marked. The tribunal found that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of a van bearing registration No.TAM 5596. The tribunal has quantified the compensation payable at Rs.70,000 and directed the owner, who was the first respondent and the insurance Company, the second respondent to pay the same to the claimants.2. Aggrieved by the said decision, the insurer has now preferred this appeal.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant did not address any argument questioning the findi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »