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.
Prasad Film Laboratories Vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR135]; (2001)IILLJ48Mad; (2001)1MLJ251
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. C. Jagannathan, the second respondent was an employee in the Chemical Department of the Film Laboratories of the petitioner company. Dwarakish Chitra Motion Pictures, a customer of the petitioner company gave three Cans of annex post negative films to the petitioner company for Fog testing. After Fog test when the films were returned to them by (he petitioner company, they complained of shortage in the length of film.2. Based on the said complaint investigation was conducted. Ultimately, it was found out that the second respondent, an employee of the petitioner company committed theft of the said film from the company and used it for his private business of photography and video-taping and handed over to the Colour Laboratory for printing of Eastman colour negative. On this, police complaint was given.The Virugambakkam Police seized the said materials from the laboratory.3. Besides the prosecution by the police, an enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Of...
R. Kannan Vs. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas321(Mad)
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.1. The instant criminal original petition is to quash the proceedings pending in C. C No. 1476 of 1998 on the file of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras.2. This Crl. O. P. has arisen in this way :The respondent herein preferred a private complaint alleging that Alsa Constructions and Housing Ltd., a company and its managing director, chairman and directors have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. According to the petitioner, the second accused Salim Pasha issued two cheques dated February 26, 1997, for Rs. 10,00,000 and June 14, 1997, for Rs. 20,00,000 towards the liability of the company towards bill discounting facilities given by the complainant to the accused. In the complaint, the complainant had stated that the cheques were issued by the second accused Salim Pasha in his capacity as managing director of the first accused company as per instructions of accused Nos. 3 to 8 herein, who are the direct...
Ramasamy Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2391
D. Murugesan, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Erode passed in STC No. 2515 of 1997 convicting the petitioner under Section 304 (a) IPC. (2 counts) and under Section 130(3) read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- in default, to undergo 6 months imprisonment under Section 304(a) I.P.C. (2 counts) and Rs. 100/- as fine in default, to undergo two weeks imprisonment under Section 130(3) read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a holder of driving licence to drive light Motor Vehicles and he is employed as a driver to one T. Kuttiannasamy. The petitioner states that during the course of his employment on 5-4-97 at about 3.30 p.m. when he was returning from Gobichetti-palayam to Erode, the front right side tyre of the vehicle bursted and he lost control of the vehicle which later on dashed a...
Elango Vs. Poongodi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ254
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Elango, the appellant herein, is the defendant in the suit.2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit against the appellant for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property of an extent of 15 cents challenging the exchange deed dated 23.12.1988 executed by the plaintiffs, mother and brother in favour of the appellant/defendant. The trial court dismissed the suit. However, the lower appellate court, in the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, set aside the decree of the trial court and allowed the appeal, thereby decreed the suit. Hence, this second appeal by the defendant.3. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property belonged to their father Ponna Padayachi by virtue of the sale deed executed by one Ammavasai Gounder on 15.12.1980. After the death of Ponna Padayachi, the plaintiffs and their mother and brother were the legal heirs. They had been in possession of the suit property. In the year 1988, the defendant mi...
Sankunthala Vs. Murugesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ376
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Sakunthala, the appellant herein, is the defendant in the suit.2. Murugesan, the respondent/plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of the advance money of Rs. 95,000 based on an agreement of sale dated 30.8.1990 on the ground that there is a cloud over the title of the appellant to the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. The lower appellate court also confirmed the said decree in an appeal filed by the appellant/defendant. Hence, this second appeal by the defendant having lost in both the courts below.3. The case of the plaintiff/respondent is this:(a) On 30.8.1980, the appellant/defendant executed an agreement of sale in respect of the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,32,000. She obtained a sum of Rs. 75,000 from the plaintiff as advance. It was agreed that the sale deed has to be executed on payment of the balance amount of sale consideration on or before 15.1.1991. Again on 4.10.1990, the plaintiff/respondent gave Rs....
A.M. Krishnamurthy, Proprietor, M/S. Menna Granite Industries Vs. Sub ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC531
ORDER1. The instant Criminal revision is against the order passed by the Sub Division Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram on 30.04.2000 under Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. This Criminal Revision has arisen in this way:-The petitioner herein is the Proprietor of M/s.Meena Granite Industries. M/s. Meena Granite Industries owned Survey Nos.31/7, 30/1, 30/2, 30/4, 31/9,37/2, 38/2 and 38/3 in Siruvannur Village. The petitioner also owned lands in Survey Nos. 12/1B, 7/2B and 7/4 in Kunnan Village. Siruvannur and Kunnan Villages lie in Vannur Taluk, Villupuram District. M/s. Meena Granite Industries had applied for quarrying granites in these survey lands. The third respondent herein M/s.Sokab Products Pvt. Limited has experience in granite quarrying and therefore, on 20.10.1992, M/s. Meena Granite Industries and M/s. Sokab Products Pvt. Limited entered into an agreement, whereunder M/s. Meena Granite Industries granted lease to M/s. Sokab Products Pvt....
Hafeez Motor Transport Vs. Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1454Mad; (2001)1MLJ577
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the respondent dated July 8, 1994, directing the petitioner to pay E.S.I. contributions totalling Rs. 1,33,420 for the period from 1983-84 to 1990-91 together with interest at 12 per cent for each day of further default from the date of the said order, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, it is a partnership firm and is running Public Transport in Pudukottai. The petitioner who had initially about 4 to 5 employees on its rolls engaged a maximum of 18 persons when it had the four route permits. While so, the respondent herein called upon the petitioner before him for a personal hearing on May 27, 1991 for the purpose of determining the contribution payable by the petitioner for the period from 1983-84 to 1990-91. On May 27, 1991, the petitioner filed its representationcontending that the number of employees employed by it in its establishment was far below the minimum strength required...
S. Sudarshan Kumar Vs. University of Madras Represented by Its Registr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ180
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The prayer is for a mandamus to the respondents herein to produce the answer paper 6L.C. 'Instrumentation System' with Registration No. 8707336 of April, 2000 Examination of Engineering Course for verification as to whether all the answers were valued and correctly totalled and order evaluation of unvalued answers and award marks.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:The petitioner is a student of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (EEE) in Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering, having joined the course in the year 1997. He has been rated as one of the best students in the College. He has secured 83.8% in the first year, 87% in the III semester, 80.75% in the IV semester and 83% in the V semester. In the VI semester, he wrote six papers and he wrote them well. But when he received the mark-sheet, he found to his shock that he had been awarded only 30% marks in Instrumentation System. He had answered all the questions and the answers which he had given ...
C.R. Malayalam Vs. Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ354
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.1988 made in A.S.No. 26 of 1987 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Karur thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.1.1987 by the Court of Additional District Munsif, Kulithalai.2. The appellant herein has filed the suit praying for the grant of a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and for costs and the said suit having come to be dismissed on trial and on first appeal, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.3. Adverting to the facts of the case, as projected by the appellant in the plaint, it comes to be known that consequent to the declaration of the original owner an insolvent in court proceedings, the plaintiff became the successful bidder for the suit properties in the court auction lease as a lessee in the Year 1972 and is in...
Annadurai and ors. Vs. Mayazaghu, Represented by His Power of Attorney ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ641
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1996 made in A.S.No. 22 of 1996 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.2.1996 made in O.S.No. 92 of 1995 by the Court of District Munsif, Devakottai.2. In fact, the respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No. 92 of 1995 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Devakottai pleading that the suit properties are situate at Eluvankottai in Devakottai Taluk; that the plaintiff went to Singapore in 1937 and used to earn his money and come back home; that he purchased the suit properties from out of his self-earning and through registered sale deeds, Item No. 1 by the deed dated 12.9.1949 and Items No. 2 and 3 under the deed dated 29.6.1959; that during his absence in India, his co-brother one Alagesh looked after the lands cultivating the same on his behalf; that the plaintiff thus has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit prop...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›