Chennai Court January 2000 Judgments
S. Umapathy Vs. Arunachalam Pattankattiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad259; (2000)1MLJ447
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of remand made by the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli in A. S. No. 74 of 1997 remitting the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal. The appellant has filed O.S. 443/88 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli for a declaration that the plaint schedule property is a 'Common Mutham' belonging to him and the defendants. He also prayed for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to remove the walls put up by them in the plaint schedule. The trial Court after trial decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants filed A.S. 74/ 97 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli. The lower appellate Court after entertaining additional documents, remitted the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal, against which the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed.2. When A.S. 74/97 is pending before the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, th...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Peacock Vs. Presiding Officer, I Additional City Civil Judge and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR69]; (2000)IILLJ942Mad; (2000)IIMLJ141
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari or to call the records in C.M.P. No. 203 of 1991 in E.S.I.O.P. SR. No. 55890 of 1990 on the file of the I Additional City Civil Court, Madras, and to quash the impugned order dated July 30, 1992. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would contend that the second respondent herein had initiated proceeding under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act, 1948, by notice No. TN/INS/IV/8868-1II dated December 27, 1985 calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 35,746.99 towards E.S.I, contribution for the year 1977 and upto November, 1978 in respect of various items referred to in the said notice; that during the said period, the petitioner was not the owner and he was not in the management of the said hotel, but it was carried on by Hotel Gokula by its then Directors, Mr. N. Boralingaiah and others; that the petitioner herein had purchased the assets of the said hotel by...
Tag this Judgment!Asoka Betelnut Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.C. Sathyavathy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas603(Mad); [2003]48SCL413(Mad)
B. Akbar Basra Khadiri, J.1. Both the C. M. As. have arisen in this way :The matter relates to Asoka Betelnut Company Pvt. Ltd. The betelnut business was initially started by one Krishna Chetty, who had three sons by name Kuppuraj, Chandrakanth and Ananthakumar. The family members were the three sons and therefore the family members were the directors. Disputes arose between the parties and Chandrakanth filed a petition in C. P. No. 65 of 1987 under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, before a single judge of this court alleging that money is mishandled and the affairs of the company are mismanaged by the other directors, and for winding up of the company. In that petition, a direction was given to the appellant herein. As against that direction, O. S. A. No. 221 of 1996 was preferred before a Division Bench of this court and the Division Bench reversed the orders passed by the learned single judge and dismissed the company petition.2. Now, the wife and son of Chandrakanth...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A. Sharifa Bivi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ378
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner for Labour), Madurai in W.C. No. 234 of 1992. The insurance company, the respondent No. 1 in the W.C. case is the appellant in the above appeal.2. The applicant No. 1, the wife of one Iynool Yekin, has filed the said claim petition. According to her, her husband was working as a driver of the lorry No. TNU 3339 belonging to the respondent No. 2 in the claim petition and the said vehicle was registered with the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 had instructed the deceased to park the lorry at Kalaimalar workshop for rectification of repairs and was also directed further to collect the rental dues from Jani Batcha and Rahman at goods-shed situated at West Veli Street, Madurai and that accordingly, the deceased went to the workshop and after leaving the lorry he returned to the owner's house to inform about the same, that he was directed at the owne...
Tag this Judgment!Selvi J. Jayalalitha Vs. State Rep by Addl. Superintendent of Police, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3074; 2000(2)CTC116
ORDER1. The petitioner/first accused in C.C. No.4 of 1997 and C.C.No.13 of 1997 on the file of XIII Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Chennai has filed the following Criminal Revision Cases:-(1) Crl. R.C. No.406 of 1998 filed challenging the order passed by the Special Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.155 of 1997 in C.C. No.4 of 1997 filed by the petitioner for her discharge. (2) Crl. R.C. No.606 of 1999 filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Special Judge, Chennai challenging the charges framed against the petitioner in C.C. No.4 of 1997 by the Special Judge, Chennai, (3) Crl. R.C. No.929 of 1999 is filed by the petitioner against the order of Special Judge, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No.830 of 1999 dismissing the said petition filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C.; and (4) Crl. R.C. No.930 of 1999 filed by the petitioner against the order in Crl. M.P. No.571 of 1999 filed by the petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for her discharge in C.C. No.13 of 1997.2. The petitioner Sel...
Tag this Judgment!Raju and Another Vs. State by Inspector of Police Erode North Police S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC151
ORDERJudgment pronounced by A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. The accused/appellants were charged for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that on 7.4.1989 at 4.30 AM at Ellapalayam Bypass Road, Erode, due to previous enmity, the first appellant/ A1 stabbed the deceased Kumarasamy on his head and the second appellant/A2 Perumal squeezed the testacles of the deceased and caused death to him.2. The case of the prosecution briefly is as follows:PW2 is the second wife of the deceased Kumarasamy. A2 is the paternal uncle's son of the deceased Kumarasamy. A1 is the son of A2. There is previous enmity between the family of the deceased and the accused. PW2 went to her parents house at Pallipalayam and while she was there, PW4 came and informed her that her husband was lying dead on the date of occurrence due to lorry accident.3. PW2 immediately along with her parents came to the scene of occurrence. When she reached the scene of occurrence, she fou...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Industries Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. Kaleeswari Indus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad205
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. This is a petition filed under Sections 31(1)(a), (aa) and 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 seeking to pass an order against the respondents 2 to 5 jointly and severally to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 40,18,225.05 together with interest at contractual rate from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation and in default to proceed against them personally and their properties and costs. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows :-- 'The petitioner-Corporation was incorporated to grant loan and advances to industrial concerns in the State of Tamil Nadu, on the security among other mortgages, hypothecation, etc. of the moveables and immoveables of such industrial concerns. The respondents 2 to 4, the partners of the registered firm, the first respondent, approached the petitioner-Corporation for term loan for purchase of land, construction of building and for purchase of machineries. The petitioner sanctione...
Tag this Judgment!Sugesan Transport (P) Ltd. Vs. R.R. Construction Company and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad207
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Sugesan Transport Private Limited, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of the amount of Rs. 10,53.759/- together with interest at 36% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 7,39.762/- towards hiring charges (1) 2 No. HM 2021 front end loader, and (2) one number Mobile Crane by entering into an agreement dated 29-1-1998, 20-1-1998 and 11-7-1998 at the plaintiffs Madras Office. 2. This Court in A. No. 1803 of 1999 seeking for attachment before judgment by issuing prohibitory order to the garnishees passed an interim order on 21-6-1989 prohibiting the fourth respondent, Deputy Chief Engineer, Gauge Convertion, Southern Railway. Egmore, Chennai from disbursing money due to the respondents 1 to 3 for the contract work done by them. 3. The respondents 1 to 3 filed an application before this Court in A. No. 2418 of 1999 to vacate the said interim order dated 21-6-1999. The plaintiff/applicant again filed another application in A. No...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. Employees' Provident Fund T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2000
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ1160Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J. 1. All the above writ petitions were ordered to be consolidated as the points involved in the writ petitions are identical.In W. P. No. 11226 of 1998, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari in the nature of a writ calling for the records of the third respondent made in TN//1963 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS 6029/C4/SDC/SRO-TRY of 1997, dated November 10, 1997, and quash the same.W.P, No. 11227 of 1998 has been filed by the same petitioner for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent connected with ATA No. 13(51) of 1998, dated May 18, 1998, quash the same and direct the first respondent to take on file the appeal and decide the same on the merits.In W. P No. 12679 of 1998, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in ATA No. 13(52) of 1998 dated May 18, 1998, on the file of the first respondent, the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaranarayana C. Vs. Management of Sree Ganapathy Mills Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ1216Mad
ORDERV. Kanakaraj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, calling for the records connected with the award in I.D. No. 49/88, dated March 4, 1991 made by the second respondent herein and to quash that portion of award denying back salary for the period of non-employment till the date of reinstatement and direct the first respondent to pay full back salary from the date of non-employment (viz) December 26, 1984 till the date of reinstatement and other attendant benefits.2. From the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and from the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and in the absence of the respondent-management, what comes to be known is that for a single irregular act of tearing the leave letter which was refused to be accepted and the leave requested having not been sanctioned, a charge memo dated June 20, 1984 has been issued alleging that the pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »