Chennai Court March 2000 Judgments
Mariyappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4459
ORDERY. Venkatahalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of mandamus seeking to issue directions to the respondents to (i) launch criminal and departmental action against the policeman responsible for the killing of Tmt. Mariammal on 22-11-1990, (2) to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for killing of Tmt. Mariammal.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this court to allow this writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for...
Tag this Judgment!Ramu Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3412
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the accused against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai in C.C. No. 13 of 1996. The charge against the accused is that on 9-11-1995 at about 6.15 a.m., he was driving the vehicle AB 36-B 6099 along with Veeranna and Sathaiah, who were carrying two boxes and that the vehicle was intercepted by the police on National Highways Madurai-Tiruchy and that when the boxes were searched it was found to contain fiftynine and thirtynine kilograms of ganja and that therefore, the accused is liable to be punished under Section 8(c) read with Section 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). The accused pleaded not guilty.2. To prove the above charges, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 12 and M.Os. 1 to 14.3. The case of the prosecution as disclosed from the evidence is as follows :P.W. 4 was an Inspector attached to Dindigul N.I.B. On 8-11-1995 at about 11...
Tag this Judgment!N. Muthu Vs. the Executive Director, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Ti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC529; (2001)ILLJ250Mad
ORDER1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.247 of 1996 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, is the revision petitioner. 2. Suit filed by him was one for declaration that the domestic enquiry proceedings against him and the penalty advice are all ab initio void, illegal, unjust, mala fide and biased; and for the further declaration that the delay and failures in the consideration of the plaintiff for promotion from the post ofDeputy Manager to Manager, Senior Manager and Senior Manager to Deputy General Manager, were illegal, mala fide, unjust, biased and unequal; and consequently for a decree of mandatory injunction, directing the defendants 1 to 10 to consider retro- actively and prospectively as the case may be, the plaintiff for promotion as Deputy Manager to Manager, from Manager to Senior Manager and from Senior Manager to Deputy General Manager in the Corporate Executive Eschalons of the 10th defendant; and to declare that the defendants 2 to 9 have been decimately and designedly spoiling ...
Tag this Judgment!The Joint Director of Health Services and anr. Vs. Sonai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1203; AIR2000Mad305; (2000)IIMLJ414
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendants 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 46 of 1993, on the file of Sub Court, Sivagangai, are the appellants herein.2. Parties hereinafter will be referred to according to their rank in the suit.3. Material facts which are necessary for proper disposal of the second appeal could be summarised thus :--First plaintiff is the husband, and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the children of late Panchavarnam, who died on 3-1-1990. Plaintiffs allege that late Panchavamam gave birth to the fourth plaintiff on 4-12-1989. Second defendant in the suit, who is a motivator to encourage birth control operations, persuaded Panchavamam to have family planning operation, and she was admitted at Paganeri Government Hospital. On 14-12-1989, i.e. ten days after the delivery, Panchavamam was operated. Plaintiffs allege that on the same day, she was discharged from the hospital without being given any instructions regarding the follow-up action, and within two days, Panchavamam felt some pain in her abdomen...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. David Chakravarthy Arumainayagam and Another Vs. Geetha Chakravath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2000
Reported in: II(2001)DMC276
ORDER1. Application filed by the applicant/defendant under Order 14, Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order 14, Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code to decide the maintainability of the O.M.S. before this Court on the ground of jurisdiction based on domicilary requirement as a preliminary issue. 2. The case in brief is as follows: The applicant is the defendant in the main original matrimonial suit. The respondent filed the main case under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. Even in para. 3 of the main petition, the respondent had conceded that the applicant is domiciled in the United Kingdom. It is also conceded that the co-respondent is in Ireland and the alleged matrimonial wrong took place in Malaysia. The applicant sent a notice for grant of divorce from England where she is domiciled. k The respondent also filed an Application as 4438 of 1993 under section 39 of the Indian Divorce Act. He also filed O.A.No.107 of 1993 to restrain the applicant from alienating her property. The...
Tag this Judgment!M. Arumugham Vs. the Senior Post Master, Head Post Office, Karur and 4 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC80
ORDER1. In Writ Petition No. 14177 of 1999, petitioner Association seeks for a direction to forbear the respondents from registering any person as a Cable T.V, Operator and prevent person from commencing operation as Cable T.V. Operators except after obtaining licence under the Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Films on Video Recorders (Regulation) Act, 1984. In Writ Petition No.541of 2000, petitioner seeks for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to initiate penal action as provided for under the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1994 against the third respondent. Petitioners in all the other writ petitions seek for a Mandamus forbearing the respondents from issuing registration certificate to any other Cable T.V. Operator in respective areas. 2. The State of Tamil Nadu introduced the Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Films on Television Screen Through Video Cassette. Records (Regulation) Act, 1984. The said Act was subsequently amended to include cable television netw...
Tag this Judgment!Parthasarathy M. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ326Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the file of the first respondent pertaining to the proceedings in PGA No. 35/1991 and to quash the order dated April 24, 1992 in so far as it deprives the petitioner, his full gratuity and consequently direct the third respondent to pay full gratuity as ordered by the second respondent vide order dated January 8, 1987 made in PG Case No. 621/85 together with Interest at 18 per cent per annum and with costs.2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he joined the services of the third respondent company on April 20, 1944 and retired on reaching the age of superannuation on March 30, 1985; that his last drawn monthly wages was Rs. 1,158.65; that he was paid a gratuity of Rs. 23,316.30 ...
Tag this Judgment!Sambandham and anr. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3141
ORDERV. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. The Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai framed three charges against the petitioner/accused. The first charge is that they entered into a conspiracy to cheat the Government and that they are liable to be punished under Section 120-B, I.P.C. The second charge is that the first petitioner misappropriated a sum of Rs. 4,43,827/- and that the second petitioner misappropriated Rs. 46,136/- and that they are liable to be punished under Section 409, I.P.C. For the said Act, they were also charged under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After framing the above charges, the accused filed a petition under Section 218, Cr. P.C. stating that there are misjoinder of charges and that different transactions are said to have taken place at different periods and that, therefore, they cannot be tried jointly. For the above memo, the respondent-State has filed a counter stating that there is no misjoinder of c...
Tag this Judgment!T. Nabeesu Vs. Lt. Governor Union Territory on Pondicherry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC268
ORDER1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the order of the respondent dated 10.8.1989 passed in Ref: No: 14352/82/C-1 and quash the same. 2. This Court issued rule nisi on 26.4.1993. The matter was taken up with the consent of counsel for either side. The respondent had filed a counter affidavit also. Though the petitioner had mistakenly impleaded her Excellency, the Lieutenant Governor of Union Territory of Pondicherry, this Court taking into consideration of the passage of time of nine years since the date of filing the writ petition, deems it fit to dispose of the writ petition on merits irrespective of the defect in the description of respondent in the cause title. So also the failure to imp lead the contesting parties. It is not necessary to order notice to contesting parties at this point of time in the nature of order this court proposes to pass. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition could be summarised briefl...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Vs. Rani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ883Mad
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in W.C. No. 43 of 1990. The Management-opposite party is the appellant in the above appeal.2. This is one of typical instances of how the beneficial and Welfare legislations are sought to be exploited with total lack of even the basic evidence to prove the employment of the claimant with the opposite party-management and at the hands of some of the statutory authorities who have no regard for the fundamentals of a proper judicial proceeding. Such instances only lend credence to the allegation of learned counsel for the appellant that there is an organised racket which appears to be exploiting the beneficial legislations in a high-handed manner.3. The respondents herein filed the claim petition before the Deputy Commissioner stating that Mani aged about 35 years, a workman employed by the opposite party received personal injury by accident arising out o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »