Chennai Court January 2000 Judgments
Smt. Vellathai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1826
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges an order dated 31 -5-1999 passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Virudhunagar, under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, directing the detention of one Veerakumar, son of Natarajan. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. There are number of grounds raised in support of the said order and it is suggested that there were two cases pending against the petitioner both involving the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302, I.P.C. all these cases were due to the enmity between two sectors of Schedule Castes i.e., Pallar Community and Parayar Community. It is then suggested that the above Criminal Cases were the result of the detenu belonging to one rival faction and taking active part and there are number of other reasons stated which would not be relevant here. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner first urged that there is a discrepancy in between the Tamil version an...
Tag this Judgment!Govindasamy Vs. the President of India, Government of India, New Delhi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC432
ORDER1. The petitioner is a condemned prisoner, as he was punished under charges framed against him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the Sessions Court, Erode held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the petitioner had committed the offence, the High Court, .n appeal, reversed the said judgment and awarded capital punishment of death to the petitioner. Even further appeal to the Supreme Court, ended in dismissal. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to The President of India invoking His mercy under Article 72 of the Constitution of India, to remit the sentence imposed on him. The same has been rejected by The President of India, which has been informed to the petitioner, under the impugned order, which is now under challenge in this Writ Petition. People's Union for Civil Liberties, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, and the President Co-ordinator, Campaign against death penalty have filed petitions to implead them as parties-respondents in the Writ Peti...
Tag this Judgment!N. Kumarasami Vs. the Collector of Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram and Anot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC398
ORDER1. The writ petitioner is challenging the order of the District Collector cancelling his community certificate showing him as a person belonging to Kondakapu community. Few facts may be necessary to sustain the arguments of learned counsel for the writ petitioner. The petitioner joined the services of the Postal Department on 10.6.1972 on the basis of a certificate produced by him showing him as a person belonging to Kondakapu community. It also appears that there was an enquiry in the year 1981 it is not clear at whose instance, by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer is also stated to have sent a report to the District Collector. The District Collector is also stated to have sent a letter to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kancheepuram Division in whose jurisdiction the writ petitioner was employed stating that the writ petitioner belongs to Kondakapu community.2. While this being so, the District Collector/first respondent again initiated an enquir...
Tag this Judgment!M.M.S. Investments Through Its Managing Director and 4 Others Vs. V. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC538; (2000)IIMLJ59
ORDERJudgement pronounced by K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. In this appeal, the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the learned single Judge in A.S.No.796 of 1987 dated 2.11.1999 is called in question. The order of the learned single Judge appears to have been passed on a preliminary objection raised by the respondents in the appeal.2. O.S.No.247 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai, was filed by one Veerappan, the first respondent for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 23.1.1978. Respondents 2 to 9 were impleaded in the suit as owners of the property and it was alleged that the owners had entered into an agreement with him and as the agreement was not complied with, the suit was filed. After the decree was passed by the trial Court, the defendants through their power of attorney, sold large extent of properties including the subject matter of the suit in favour of certain other persons who are the present appellants. In the mean time, defendants 1 to ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ravi Kumar Vs. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2000
Reported in: II(2000)ACC491; AIR2000Mad367; 2000(2)CTC151; (2000)IIMLJ358
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certionari to call for the records relating to the order of the respondent in R.No.A3/3499/92 dated 4.1.1993 and to quash the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent as well. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would contend that he is the owner of vehicle No.TCZ 9494 which is a medium motor goods vehicle covered, by a public carrier permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Madras (North) to ply in the State of Tamil Nadu and the permit was valid up to 30.9.1993; that the Fitness Certificate was also valid upto 12.11.1990 which was not renewed thereafter; that the tax for this vehicle had been paid upto 30.9.1990; that on 9.8.1990, the vehicle met with a very serious accident at Vikkaravandi and got damaged; that a case in Crime No.509 of 1990 had been registered by the Vikkaravandi Police Station and the vehicle was a...
Tag this Judgment!K. Hamza and Another Vs. M/S Emitici Engineering Limited, Post Box No. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC428; 2002ACJ896; 2000(4)CTC614; (2000)IIMLJ151
ORDER1.This appeal is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, of Labour-11 Madras 6 in W.C.No.61 of 1993 dated 23.4.1993. 2. The claimants before the Commissioner of Labour are the appellants before this Court. 3. According to the claimants, one K.M Hannefa aged about 23 years , a workman employed by a contractor with the opposite party on the 5th day of September 1991 received personal injury as a result of the accident arising outof and in the course of his employment resulting in his death. The deceased was working as a structural welder by a contractor with the opposite party. He had reported for duty on 5.9.1991 and he fell down from an height of about 20 feet. His dead body was found lying in the floor on 7.9.1991 which was in a state of early decomposition. The appellants ate the dependents of the deceased workman being his father and mother. The monthly wages of the deceased amounts to Rs.1200 and hence the applicants were entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,06,000...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ravichandran and Etc. Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2021
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of three Habeas Corpus Petitions, they being H.C.P. Nos. 1495, 1496 and 1497 of 1999, H.C.P. No. 1495 of 1999 has been filed to challenge the order of detention passed, on 30-4-1999, by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, in respect of one Zahir Hussain @ Scientist. The order is passed under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the National Security Act with a view to prevent the said Zahir Hussain @ Scientist from acting prejudicial to the public order. H.C.P. No. 1496 of 1999 is in respect of one Sheik Mohideen and the order has been passed on the same day and by the same authority, i.e. the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. H.C.P. No. 1497 of 1999 is in respect of one Mohammed Kamil, in whose case also the order of detention has been passed by the same authority on the same date. Since the facts pertaining to all the three detenus are common and since the learned counsel has also chosen to address common arguments, we are disposing of th...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Ltd, Branch Office, Dharmapuri Vs. A. G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: II(2000)ACC363; 2002ACJ539; 2000(1)CTC306
ORDER1. United India Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Dharmapuri, has filed the above appeals. Since the question is one and the same in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by the following common order. The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company is that whether the awards passed by the Tribunal in all these cases aresustainable is not? Inasmuch as the lorry-goods vehicle involved in the accident was used as a transport vehicle which is in violation of the statutory provision as well as the insurance policy. 2. In order to find out an answer to the said question, I shall refer the brief facts which are required. It is the case of the appellant- Insurance Company that on 8.12.89 while the respondents claimants were going to attend a marriage at Nariyanapalli in a goods vehicle, namely, lorry DTT 2126, they sustained injuries due to capsizing of the lorry. It...
Tag this Judgment!St. Joseph's Higher Secondary School, Mulagumoodu, Kanyakumari Distric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC238
ORDER1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents not to give effect to the impugned letter sent by the third respondent to the petitioner school in Na.Ka.No.8700/E3/92 dated 16.9.1992 demanding an endowment of Rs.25,000 as a pre-condition for recognition the Higher Secondary Courses run by the petitioner school. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner institution is a minority institution and the respondents by the impugned letter has demanded Rs.25,000 towards the endowment fee to accord recognition to the petitioner school. Learned counsel has also argued that the petitioner institution being a minority institution, the respondents cannot enforce Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974. He has relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4478 of 1974 etc. batch dated 17.12.1975. In the above decision, the Division Benchhas held that Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Subramanian Vs. State and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad491
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent herein in G.O.Rt. No. 2955 Home (Cine I) Department dated 21-8-1992 and 10 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to issue No Objection Certificate to the petitioner to locate a semi permanent theatre in S. No. 31/1A1, 311/1A2, 311/1B and 313/9 at Vikramasingapuram village, Ambasamudram Taluk. Tirunclveli District.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents as well.3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would reveal his case stating that he applied for the grant of No objection Certificate (thereinafter referred to as 'NOC') with the third respondent District Collector to locate a semi-permanent theatre in S. No. 311/1A1, 311/1A2, 311/1B and 313/9 at Vikramasingapuram village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, that the Tahs...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »