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.
T.R. Agoram Iyer a Partnership Firm Carrying on Business in Partnershi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC72
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S. No.128 of 1981 on the file of the Sub-Court at Mayiladuthurai is the appellant in this appeal and the respondents herein are the defendants in that suit. That suit was filed for a declaration that the demand made on the plaintiff by defendants 2 and 3 is unjust, improper and illegal; to direct the defendants to refund the value of paddy and rice delivered by the plaintiff to the Corporation, which value was quantified by him at Rs. 29. 316.75 along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. thereon from 2.3.1978 as well as subsequent interest till date of payment and for costs. The learned trial Judge on merits dismissed the suit. The correctness of that judgment is being questioned in this appeal by the plaintiff. In this judgment the parties to the proceedings will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants. The material allegations in the plaint that are necessary and relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:The pla...
Modern Denim Ltd. Vs. Lucas Tvs Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC143
ORDER1. The petitioners who are accused 1 to 10 (in Crl.O.P.2983 of 1998) and 1 to 11 (in Cr.O.P.No. 2984 of 1998) have filed these petitions under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 7080 and 7081 of 1997 respectively on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. The 1st petitioner represented by the 2nd petitioner had availed a grant of an Inter-Corporate Deposit on short term basis to the tune of Rs. Two Crores on 3.3.1997 and the 1st petitioner executed two promissory notes dated 3.3.1997 each for Rs. 1 crore undertaking to repay the said sum with interest at the rate of 20% per annum within 60 days i.e. by 2.5.1997. The 1st accused also issued cheques dated 2.5.1997 for the said sum. As the amount was not paid in time, the 1st petitioner requested for extension of time and issued cheques bearing nos. 138822 and 138934 dated 31.7.1997 for the said sum. The 2nd petitioner executed a personal guarantee and security of shares worth Rs. Two ...
Rathinam Chettiar Vs. Embar Naidu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC394
ORDER1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the trial Court has filed the aboveappeal.2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the 1st defendant on 23.2.1975 agreed Jo sell the suit property to the 2nd defendant free of all encumbrances for a consideration of Rs. 53,000 and he received an advance of Rs. 2,000. It was agreed that the balance of sale consideration should be paid by the 2nd defendant within six months. Accordingly an agreement was entered into between the parties. The 2nd defendant was always ready and willing to pay the balance of sale price and get the sale deed executed. He approached personally and through friends the 1st defendant to get the sale deed executed. The 2nd defendant also telegraphically contacted the 1st defendant to get the sale deed executed. Ultimately he caused a legal notice to the 1st defendant on 17.8.1975 for the said purpose. But the 1st defendant did not send any reply. On 22.2.1978 the 2nd defendant had assigned all his rights under the said agr...
Mary Sumathi, No. 128/5 Emerald Flats, Anna Nagar West, Chennai-40 Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC643
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by I.David Christian, J.1. In the matter of minor Swetha Beulah. Petition filed under sections 2 & 7 to 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.This petition is filed by Mary sumathi mother of the minor alleges that she was given in marriage to the respondent on 4.2. 1989, that the marriage was held in Maranadha Church at Thiruninvavur in Thiruvallar District, that after the marriage they were living together as husband and wife, that the petitioner is a Doctor holding M.B.B.S. degree, that she has also obtained a Post Graduate Diploma, that after the marriage in 1989 they were residing together in Bhuvaneshwar in Orissa. Where the respondent in General InsuranceCorporation, that even from the initial period, the petitioner was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment at the hands of her husband, namely the respondent, that the petitioner came to Hyderabad in 1990 and joined Post Graduate Course and was residing with tier parents in Hyderabad for sometime, that ...
Management, Pallavan Transport Corporation Vs. P.O., Industrial Tribun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ1329Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Corporation herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records in Approval Petition No. 237 of 1984, on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, and to quash its order dated August 30, 1991.2. 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 writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the second respondent a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the allegations levelled against the respondents and justifying the impugned order of the first respondent, he submitted that there is no merit in the writ petition and that, therefore, he requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of the merits.3. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel a...
Management of New Haryana Transport Company Vs. Presiding Officer, Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1436Mad
T. Meenakumari, J.1. This writ petition is filed to quash the award in industrial dispute in Claim Petition No. 2 of 1994, dated November 1, 1994.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that while the second respondent was working at Coimbatore, he was transferred to Erode on May 7, 1992. The second respondent had received a sum of Rs. 600 towards Bonus Advance at Erode. Thereafter the second respondent voluntarily abandoned from attending his duty. By the time the second respondent approached the Labour Court, Coimbatore, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act on the ground that the petitioner/management has not paid wages as directed by the Government in G.O. (2D) No. 14 Labour and Employment Department dated March 19, 1991. In the above G.O., it was ordered that a minimum wage of Rs, 544.75 should be paid, while the second respondent paid only Rs. 500. He claimed the difference wage of Rs. 44.75 and as the difference amount was not paid, he filed claim petitio...
B. Devarajan Vs. State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ116
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The order in challenge is passed on 14-9-1998 against one Murugan dubbing him to be a 'bootlegger'. The order is passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Karur. The authority has reported three adverse cases under Section 4(1)(i) of the TamilNadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and in the ground case an incident dated 31-8-1998 is relied on.2. It is generally stated in the ground case the detenu was an arrack seller and when the arrack sold by him was consumed by one Vallalan, he felt giddy and there was irritation in his chest and his eyes got blurred. Thereby, it is suggested in the ground case that the arrack sold was poisonous arrack and by selling the poisonous- arrack, the detenu had committed an offence under Section 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 in addition to the offence under Section 4(l)(i) of the Act. It is specifically stated therein that the sample of arrack collected from the detenu on 31-8-1998 was chemically tested and it w...
Mr. Kaliyuga Kannan Vs. the Tahsildar, Land Survey and Settlement, Kar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ400
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 236 of 1990, on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court at Karaikal, is the appellant.2. Material facts which compelled the plaintiff to file the suit may be summarised thus: Plaintiff claimed that he is the absolute owner of the suit property, having taken a sale deed dated 2.12.1986 from one Ramachandran. Plaintiff's vendor has purchased the property from its previous owner Bashyam Naidu. as evidenced by Ex.A-1. It is his case that the patta for the property stood in the name of Bashyam Naidu and subsequently he got the patta changed in his name and he has also paying kist to the property.3. The reason for filing the suit was, without notice to him first defendant included the name of fourth defendant also in the patta and now both of them have become joint patta holders. This, according to plaintiff, is invalid and without jurisdiction, especially when the name was inserted without notice to him. He has further said that procedura...
Kasi Naidu Vs. Govindarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ746
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The plaintiff who failed before the courts below in getting a decree for declaration and permanent injunction has filed the above Second Appeal.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the co-owner with respect to the lands bearing Survey Nos. 234/1 and 234/2. There is a well meant to irrigate the said lands. Defendants 1 to 4 are the brothers of the plaintiff/appellant, and the 5th defendant is his mother. The defendants 1 and 5 purchased the lands bearing Survey Nos. 227/6A and 227/6C. According to the plaintiff, the defendants/respondents are not entitled to take water from the suit well to the said lands. So, he filed the suit in O.S. No. 127 of 1983 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Manamadurai to get a decree to that effect. The 1st defendant filed written statement and the defendants 2 to 5 have adopted the same. According to the defendants they have been enjoying the suit lands separately, though no partition was effected between the brother...
V. Venkatachalapathy and Four Others Vs. Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC478
ORDER1. In this five writ petitions the common question that arises for consideration being, whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief of mandamus directing the first respondent to pay the regular basic scale of pay with Dearness Allowance and other attendant benefits at the rate fixed for the Matriculation Schools? 2. With the consent of counsel for the petitioners and the respondents the writ petitions as well as the Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were taken up for final disposal. 3. Heard Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel, for the petitioners in all the writ petitions. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in all the writ petitioner and the Government Advocate (Education) for the either respondents. 4. The petitioners in all the writ petitions are employed in the first respondent school. The first respondent school has been established by the Vellore Cooperative Sugar Mills to cater the educational needs of the children of their staff, worker...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »