Chennai Court June 2000 Judgments
Royapettah Benefit Fund Investors Grievance Consortium, Regn No. 302/2 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC338
ORDER1. Petitioner seeks for an issue of writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to appoint a fit and proper person as custodian for taking over the management of 6th respondent and take immediate control and possession ofthe assets and properties, both movable and immovable and securities and pay the petitioner and other depositors their dues.2. It is brought to my notice that several member of public have deposited their money with the respondent Nidhi, which are alleged to have been diverted by way of loans without proper security, violating relevant norms and bye-laws of the respondent Nidhi as well as several provisions of the Companies Act.3. Since five out of seven directors of the RBF Nidhi Limited were arrested and two were absconding, necessary steps to take over the affairs of the Company in the larger interest of the depositors could not be postponed, the Company Board, the Ministry of Law, 20.1.2000, exercising its power under Section 403 of the Companies Act, cons...
Tag this Judgment!N. Kumaraswamy Gurakkal Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Char ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC7
ORDER1. Petitioner is a Priest at Arulmighu Kapaleeswarar Thirukoil. He has challenged the order of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. calling upon the petitioner to attend for an enquiry in reference retirement of all the temple servants on attaining 60 years of age. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that the enquiry and the notice for such an enquiry, is without jurisdiction. His case is that he is a hereditary Priest and therefore he is entitled to continue without reference to age. 3. Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 empowers the Commissioner to administer all temples and have general superintendence and control including the power to pass any order which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such temples are properly administered. Section 55 of the Act says that vacancies among the office holders or servants of a religious institution shall be filled up by the trustees. As per the explanation to the Section, the expression 'off...
Tag this Judgment!Vice President, Works Plant Nos. I and Iii, Chemplast Sanmar Limited V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR622]; (2001)ILLJ429Mad
ORDERA. Raman, J. 1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, praying to set aside the ex parte order of status quo passed on April 19, 2000 in LA. No.364 of 2000 in O.S. No. 128 of 2000, by the District Munsif, Mettur.2. The plaintiff is a Senior Clerk in the Stores of the defendant's Company. The defendant Company is a company incorporated under Indian Companies Act. The plaintiff was served with a show cause notice of dismissal on January 27, 2000. Therefore, he rushed to Civil Court and filed a suit for a declaration that the notice dated January 27, 2000 issued by the defendant is capricious, arbitrary, null and void, and for an order of injunction against the defendant and his subordinates from in any manner dismissing the petitioner from service.3. I have gone through the plaint carefully. Nowhere in the plaint, it is alleged that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice, either in the conduct of the enquiry or otherwise. It is only state...
Tag this Judgment!N. Babu Vs. Sub-inspector of Police, Cuddalore and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)457; 2001CriLJ29
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner herein is one N. Babu, who is none else but the father of a minor girl called Amudha. The said Amudha, according to the petitioner, had been kidnapped by the second respondent herein viz. Araiselvan, son of Ramamurthy. In the petition, it is pointed out that Amudha was born on 1-10-1983 and on 23-5-2000, from the day when she disappeared from her house, she was studying in 11th standard. It is claimed in the petition that the second respondent kidnapped the said girl on 23-5-2000 from Cuddalore where the girl had gone to visit her maternal uncle. It is an admitted position that Crime No. 390 of 2000 for offences under Section 366 of I.P.C has been registered by the police and also that the second respondent has sought and got the anticipatory bail orders from the Court. The petitioner therefore seeks the custody of the said minor Amudha.2. He also reiterates in the petition that there is serious danger to the safety of his daughter and her entire lif...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kanthasamy Vs. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Panchayat Union Employe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC1; (2000)IILLJ1027Mad
ORDERJudgement pronounced by N.K. Jain, ACJ.1. The question as to whether an interim and interlocutory order/s passed in the Original application/s by the Tribunal below pending disposal of the main Original Application itself by it and final determination of the case, could be the subject matter of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been referred to before us in this case.2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that this reference has arisen on the following facts:On 9.11.1995, a Seniority List of Assistant/Rural Welfare OfficerGrade-1 was drawn by the District Collector, Tirunelveli. Challenging thesame, Tirunelveli Rural Welfare Officers Association filed an appeal on5.3.1996 to the Director of Rural Development. Thereafter, the seniority wasset aside by order dated 2.8.1996. The District Collector revised the SeniorityList vide order dated 18.10.1996 and consequently 22 persons were promoted.But after one year, an application in O.A...
Tag this Judgment!S. Balaji Vs. Mrs. Anandhi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC441
ORDER1. The above Transfer CMP has been filed by the husband against the wife and the minor child praying to withdraw and transfer the maintenance case filed by the respondent wife in MC.No.13 of 1999 pending on the file of the Court of District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli to the file of the Court of II Additional Family Court, Chennai.2. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the above petition and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in the absence of either the respondents or their counsel on record, what comes to be known is that the case instituted by the husband which is pending in Chennai is HMOP No.1116 of 1997 is for dissolution of the marriage.3. It would further be known that the petitioner-husband also filed yet another petition of this sort in HMOP No.1362 of 1996 praying for restitution of conjugal rights of the respondent and on certain grounds, he had to withdraw the same. The only valid reason that is offered on the part of the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Ezhumbur Railadi Salaiyora Sirukadai Viyabarigal Sangam Reg No. 6/97, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC280
ORDER1. The petitioner association has filed this writ petition seeking for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularise the road side vending of 81 members of petitioner sangam, the list of which has been furnished in the annexure to the writ petition.2. The case of the petitioner sangam is that the members are occupying the platforms opposite to Egmore Railway station and sell several commodities for the past 40 years. The Corporation authorities very often disturbing their business unlawfully and hence the occupation of the members of the petitioner sangam should be regularised so that they can have a peaceful business. It is further stated in the affidavit that in the year 1976 the petitioners became the members of the association called Madras pavement Traders welfare congress which consisting of almost all the roadside vendors of the entire Madras City. In 1986 the police as well as the Corporation officials refused the joint request for regularising t...
Tag this Judgment!Sannasi Alias Muthiah Vs. State by Inspector of Police Devakottai Town ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC400
ORDERJudgment pronounced by N. Dhinakar, J.1. The appellant, who will be hereinafter referred to as an accused, had been convicted for an offence of murder by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramnad and on being convicted, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Hence, the present appeal. 2. The allegation against the accused is that at 2.30 p.m. on 14.7.89, he caused the death of Samyadurai by beating with, Pestle, M.O.1, on the cheek, chest and other parts of the body. 3. The case of the prosecution is this: The accused and the prosecution witnesses belong to Devakottai, P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 is the father-in-law of the deceased, P.Ws.3 and 4 are the neighbours of the deceased. P.W.5 is not only the sister-in-law of P.W.1, but also a neighbour of the deceased. At about 1.00 p.m. on 14.7.89, when the deceased, accused, P.Ws 5 and 6 were playing cards a quarrel ensued between the parties. The accused and the deceased beat each other. P.W.1 went there and separated t...
Tag this Judgment!Licensees, Sri Devi theatre Vs. Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad428; (2000)IIMLJ810
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The above writ petition is directed against the order of the Collector of North Arcot Ambedkar District, Vellore made in his proceedings dated 1-7-93 suspending the 'C' Form licence of the petitioner's permanent Cinema theatre called 'Sri Devi Theatre' in Palanipet, Arakkonam for 5 days from 1-8-93 to 5-8-93.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows :-- The petitioners are licensees of permanent cinema theatre called 'Sri Devi Theatre' in Palanipet, Arakonam. They have been running the theatre in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and the conditions of the 'C' Form licence. While so, the respondent in his proceedings dated 1-7-93 suspending the 'C' Form licence of the theatre for 5 days from 1-8-93 to 5-8-93 on the ground that at the time of inspection by the Entertainment Tax Officer on 17-2-93, they noticed that the licensee admitted 84 persons without valid tickets, for that the compounding fee of Rs. 500/- was collected by them. In order to avoid u...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindran Vs. P. Srichand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4910
ORDERK. Natarajan, J.1. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the order of VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai dated 11-9-1998 modifying the conviction and sentence passed by the XIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The brief facts are :-On the complaint of the respondent, the revision petitioner/accused was tried for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the XIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai on the ground that the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 1,25,000/- which got bounced from the Bank. The learned trial Magistrate found the accused guilty and imposed a sentence of three months simple imprisonment and also a fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 3. On appeal, the learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai set aside the order of imprisonment for three months, but confirmed the sentence of the fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »