Chennai Court November 2000 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.
Devi and 6 Others Vs. K. Jayaraman (Cavetor)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ231
ORDER1. The defendant is the petitioner whose application is condone the delay of 316 days is filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed.2. The respondents filed C.S.No.551 of 1995 before this Court. Subsequently, upon enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, it was transferred to the City Civil Court and numbered as O.S.No.9306 of 1995. The petitionerwas not aware of the transfer and therefore did not appear in the City Civil Court. Further since the petitioner's counsel also fall ill, they could ascertain the actual state of affairs. Only when E.P.No.1612 of 1999 was served on them, they came to know that the suit was decreed ex parte on 12.12.1998. the delay in filing the application had...only in the above circumstances and not on account of any negligence or indifference.3. To the above averments made by the petitioners in their affidavit, the respondent filed his counter denying the according to him the petitioners counsel had also appeared in the City Civil...
S. Sushma Vs. State, Rep, by Its Seceretary, to Government, Education ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC720
ORDER1.The petitioner applied for admission for the I year B.Tech. Degree Course (Information Technology) in the 5th respondent college and selected by the 5th respondent for admission to the I year of the said course for 1999-2000. According to the petitioner, at the time of admission, she had submitted all her documents in original including the mark sheets regarding the intermediate examination and the instant examination, which are necessary for her admission. She was attending classes with effect from 17.9.1999 and submitted her examination application form through the college for I year B.Tech, degree course, April -May 2000 and also paid necessary examination fee. She was issued with hall ticket by the 3rd respondent-University of Madras with registration number. She appeared for practical examinations in Chemistry, Workshop and physics on 20.3.2000, 22.3.2000 and 24.3.2000 respectively. She appeared for theory examinations in seven papers between 4.5.2000 and 19.5.2000. For the...
K.V.S. Salammal and ors. Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2000
Reported in: [2001]106CompCas691(Mad)
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. The legal heirs of the sole defendant in C.S. No. 107 of 1998 of this Court, which has since been transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, are the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions.2. The suit in question was filed by the second respondent/Indian Bank in the year 1993 as C.S. No. 107 of 1993. During the pendency of the suit the sole defendant died on June 14, 1993, even before the service of summons. Even though the sole defendant died, the legal heirs were not impleaded and the suit was lying on the original side of this Court and eventually, it abated on November 13,1993. Meanwhile, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act 51 of 1993), was notified on June 24,1993, and the' Debts Recovery Tribunal for Chennai came into force on November 1, 1996. After the constitution of the Tribunal, the suit has been transferred from the Original Side of this Court to the Tribunal in terms of Section 31 of the said Act...
Suyambu Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1577
ORDERK. Natarajan, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred against the order and judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in C.A.No. 32 of 1998 dated 16-4-1998 confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirunelveli in C.C.No. 47 of 1996 dated 27-1-1998.2. The short facts are : On 18-5-1995 at 11.15 a.m., the bus bearing Registration No. TB-74-N0286 belonging to the Nesamani Transport Corporation was driven by the revision petitioner from south to north i.e. from Nagercoil to Tirunelveli, while in the opposite direction, i.e., from Tirunelveli to Nagercoil, the jeep bearing Registration No. TCP 8518 was driven.3. As per the case of the prosecution, the revision petitioner drove the bus at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the jeep, with the result, three passengers in the bus, namely, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were injured and the four persons in the jeep died at the spot. After investigation, charge sheet under...
Arumugha Gounder and ors. Vs. Tmt. Palaniammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ15
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The defendants are the appellants.2. The first appellant, Arumugham who died pending appeal, is the father of one Palaniswamy and one Subramaniam, who was arrayed as the second defendant and is now the second appellant. The first respondent is the widow of the said Palaniswamy and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are their children. Arumugham's wife predeceased him. Since Arumugham did not take care of the respondents after the death of his son, they asked for partition of the joint family properties on several occasions. Since the appellants did not come forward to give the respondents their share and continued to enjoy the joint family properties, respondents were constrained to file the suit for their one third share in the property and for mesne profits. According to the respondents, the properties which have to be partitioned include house properties, agricultural lands including coconut trees and power loom factories. The second appellant alone filed the written ...
P.V. Atchuthan Vs. the Balussery Benefit Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ229
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The defendant is the petitioner. The respondent-chit fund is the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 1505 of 1996 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,38,200 together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum against the petitioner's mother and the second respondent herein who is the brother of the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner's mother died and the suit is proceeded against the petitioner and his brother viz., the second respondent. The petitioner resisted the suit claim on the ground that it was not a simple borrowal of money but a chit amount and the same was utilized by the plaintiff for the benefit of another concern and that as a Director he had executed several documents in blank in favour of the respondent which had been misused by them. 2. In the course of the trial, P.W.1, the director-in-charge of the respondent-company had referred to the entries contained in the ledger account which was marked as Ex.A-2, wherein it was sho...
Tamil Nadu Flat Promoters Association Rep. by Its Presidents, S.T.S. L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2000
Reported in: (2000)1MLJ539
ORDER1. The petitioners have challenged the impugned proceedings issued by the 1st respondent-Electricity Board, on 21.2.2000, as modified in the proceedings dated 4.3.2000.2. Originally, for the purpose of giving electricity connection to the flats, the officials of the 1st respondent-Electricity Board used to estimate the amount regarding the cost of laying service line, etc. and on payment of the same, such work for laying service line was taken up and service connections were given. Under the impugned proceedings, the Electricity Board asked the Flat builders/promoters to pay a fixed amount per flat for availing single phase supply and three phase supply. If it is a residential flat, they have to pay Rs.10,000 per flat for availing single phase supply and Rs.15,000 per flat for availing three phase supply as erection charges in addition to other miscellaneous charges such as service connection charges, development charges, meter caution deposit, current consumption deposit etc. The...
N.M. Selvakumar Vs. the State Fo Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC631
ORDER1. One Ajit Kumar was elected as President of Palur Village Panchayat, Valavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The 2nd respondent-District Collector issued a notice on 25.9.1998 asking him to show cause as to why action should not be initiated under Section 205(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, hereinafter called 'the Act', for the lapses pointed out therein. He submitted his reply to the said notice.2. Thereafter on 14.3.2000, the Collector sent a notice invoking the power under Section 205(1)(a) of the Act asking the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed for the irregularities committed by him as mentioned in the said notice. The said Ajith Kumar/President filed a reply on 22.3.2000. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent- Tahsildar sent a notice on 18.4.2000; convening the meeting of the Panchayat for consideration of the proposal for removal of the President of the Panchayat. The same was served on the President of the Panchayat on 20.4.2000. The said Presi...
The Association of Managements Private Colleges, Rep. by Its General S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC641; (1998)IIMLJ676
ORDER1. The petitioner-association has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order in G.O.Ms.No.III, Higher Education, dated 24.3.1999 insofar as it relates to paragraph -2 of Annexure-II to the said order.2. The petitioner-association has filed this writ petition on behalf of the aided colleges. The Government in the impugned order dated 24.3.99, accepting the recommendations of the University Grants Commission implemented the revision of scales of pay with effect from 1.1.1996. While implementing the said revision of scales of pay, the Government decided to prescribe educational qualifications for the posts of Lecturers Senior Lecturers and Principals in the colleges. In clause. (ii) to Annexure II of the impugned order, they have prescribed qualifications with respect to Principals (Grade-I and Grade-II). The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that qualifications for promotion to the post of Principal is prescribed only to the aided colleges ex...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR611(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessment year with which we are concerned in this matter is 1977-78. The assessee had set up in the year 1977, a belt reconditioning plant designed for retreading of conveyor belts. Theprocess involved cleaning, inspection, peeling, drying, reconditioning, buffing, vulcanizing and trimming, etc. The life of the belt after such processing was 75 per cent, of a new belt, while the cost of reconditioning was about 50 per cent of the cost of a new belt.2. The assessee claimed relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, as a new industrial undertaking. That relief was granted by the Income-tax Officer who also found that the assessee's taxable income for that year was 'nil'. The order of the Income-tax Officer was revised by the Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 263 of the Act, as he thought that the order was erroneous and was also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner's order, however, was set aside in appeal by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »