Chennai Court June 2000 Judgments

T.L. Radhakrishan and ors. Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2000Mad409

ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This order shall cover W.P. Nos. 14028 of 1991 and 8294 of 1994.2. W.P. No. 14028 of 1991 was originally filed by as many as 12 petitioners out of whom first petitioner was allowed to withdraw from the array of petitioners by this Court by order dated 2-9-1998 in WMP No. 19926 of 1996. At the stage of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly pointed out that petitioners 5, 6 and 10 would not be in a position to challenge the acquisition because they have not acquired title of the concerned properties prior to the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was published and notified. Therefore, this petition is pressed only on behalf of rest of the eight petitioners.3. These petitioners claim to be the owners of the land which has been purchased by them from the first petitioner T.L. Radhakrishnan. Learned counsel for the petitioners has furnished the original sate deeds to suggest and show th...

Sulamangalam R. Jayalakshmi and anr. Vs. Meta Musicals and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2000Mad454

ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Sulamangalam R. Jayalakshmi and the Gramophone Company of India Limited, Chennai have filed this application in O.A. No. 283 of 1999 pending disposal of the suit in C.S. No. 319 of 1999 for declaration and for other reliefs, seeking for interim relief through an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from in any manner reproducing the Kandha Sashtl Kavacham and Kandha Guru Kavacham in audio cassettes or Compact Disc or any other media using the name of the first plaintiff and her deceased sister. Sulamangalam Rajalakshmi as singers on the cover of the package of the audio cassette or title of the Company Disc or infringing copyright in respect of Skanthaguru Kavacham exclusively belonging to the applicants in audio cassettes or any other media using in the name of the Sulamangalam sisters.2. This Court by the order dated 12-5-1999 issued notice returnable by 7-6-1999. There are totally eight respondents. They entered appearance...

Standard Literature Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corpor ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2001(90)FLR389]; (2001)ILLJ907Mad; (2001)2MLJ381

ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the recovery proceedings of the first respondent dated April 30, 1998, the petitioner-company has filed the above writ petitions.2. The case of the petitioner-company is briefly stated hereunder: It is stated that the petitioner-Standard Literature Company (P) Limited was founded in the year 1924 at Calcutta. The company is engaged in the business of Distributing and Marketing education and reference books. The company has headquarters at Calcutta and branches all over the country including Chennai. Suddenly, by a notice dated January 9, 1990, the first respondent required the petitioner to show cause, why the Employees' State Insurance contribution should not be demanded from the petitioner-company. The petitioner by this letter dated March 3, 1990, requested the first respondent to furnish the inspection report. It is contended that the company has employed less than 20 persons and hence the Employees' State Insurance Act is not applicable to th...

A.C.C., TuticorIn Vs. Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2000(121)ELT604(Mad)

ORDERY. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in O.P. No. 154/92, dated 23-10-1992 and to quash the same as without jurisdiction and unconstitutional in so far as this petitioner is concerned.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 them to file the present writ petition and requested this court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, though no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 argued the matter and pleaded that the writ petition has to be dismissed for want of merits.3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the a...

M.D., State Express Transport Corporation (Tamil Nadu Division) Ltd. V ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2002ACJ464; (2000)IIMLJ837

A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J.1. By a common judgment, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai, disposed of the two claim petitions, viz., M.A.C.T. O.P. Nos. 3089 and 3802 of 1997. While the aggrieved claimants in M.A.C.T. O.P. No. 3089 of 1997 filed C.M.A. No. 24 of 2000 and the Corporation, in the claim petition, also filed C.M.A. No. 493 of 2000. Similarly, while the aggrieved claimants in M.A.C.T. O.P. No. 3802 of 1997 filed C.M.A. No. 23 of 2000, the Corporation in that claim petition filed C.M.A. No. 492 of 2000.2. In view of this, all these appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment.The relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of all the above appeals can be stated as under:It is the case of the claimants that on 6.6.1997 at about 2.30 a.m. one S. Mano-haran was driving a Maruti car bearing registration No. TN. 02-Z 4560 on G.S.T. Road from south to north along with one Kaja Mohideen and when the vehicle was proceeding near Acharapakkam village, a bus belonging to the...

M.D., State Express Transport Corporation (Tamil Nadu) Ltd. Vs. Shanth ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: II(2002)ACC309

A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J.1. By a common judgment, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai, disposed of the two claim petitions, viz., M.A.C.T. O.P. Nos. 3089 and 3802 of 1997. While the aggrieved claimants in M.A.G.T. O.P. No. 3089 of 1997 filed C.M.A. No. 24 of 2000, and the Corporation, in the claim petition, also filed C.M.A. No. 493 of 2000. Similarly, while the aggrieved claimants in M.A.C.T. O.P. No, 3802 of 1997 filed C.M.A. No. 23 of 2000, the Corporation in that claim petition filed C.M.A. No. 492 of 2000.2. In view of this, all these appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment.The relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of all the above appeals can be stated as under:It is the case of the claimants that on 6.6.1997 at about 2.30 a.m. one S. Manoharan was driving a Maruti car bearing Registration No. TN 02-Z-4560 on G.S.T. Road from south to north along with one Kaja Mohideen and when the vehicle was proceeding near Acharapakkam village, a bus belonging to the T...

M. Bhuvaneswari Vs. Chief Officer - W.A. Air Force 9, Provost and Secu ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2000(3)CTC302

ORDERJudgment Pronounced by V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This is a very peculiar case where the petitioner/wife claimed the custody of her husband who was once upon a time serving in the Indian Air Force. To begin with, the said wife made allegations that her marriage was a successful marriage inasmuch as the said detenu, namely, S. Murali Krishnan was having good reputation and was loving husband. It is stated that a girl and a boy were born out of the wedlock. The petitioner the proceeds to suggest that all of a sudden the wife who was temporarily at Madras came to know that her husband on 4.5.1996 at about 7.00 A.M. had left his quarters to attend his official duty in Patiala and thereafter he did not return home. This she came to know from his two colleagues. She rushed back and gave a reportabout the missing husband and came back to Madras. The petition further suggests that in the third week of July, 1996, all of a sudden, her husband visited her and stayed in her parent's house at Madra...

Devendran and Two Others Vs. Munuswamy Reddiar (Died) and Nine Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2000(4)CTC728

ORDER1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, in A.S.No.93 of 1984 reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Vellore, in O.S.No.1189 of 1981. Plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants in the above second appeal.2. The suit was filed for cancelling a registered sale deed dated 30.5.1968 so far as it relates to the right, title, interest of the plaintiffs, to direct division of the suit properties into six equal shares and allot three such shares to the plaintiffs for appointing a Commissioner to divide the property and for the enquiry into the mesne profits under Order 20,Rule 12, C.P.C. According to the plaintiff, the schedule mentioned property originally belonged to Venugopal Reddiar, father of the plaintiffs who died intestate in the year 1966 leaving behind his widow, mother of the plaintiff, Loganathan, brother of the plaintiffs, Vasantha - sister of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs as his heirs at law who had ...

Apsara theatre Krishangiri, Dharmapuri District Rep by Licensee K. Ind ...

Court: Chennai

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. In both the above writ petitions, the petitioner's C form licence issued under Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been suspended by the Licensing Authority for 10 days and 15 days respectively for certain alleged violations and the said penalty was subsequently, on appeal reduced to 3 days and 5 days respectively.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Licensing Authority has not conducted any enquiry pursuant to the show cause notice and failure to conduct such an enquiry amounts to refusal of giving reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed punishment which is not only permissible under Section 7(2) of the Act, but also violates the principles of natural justice.3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent produced relevant files relating to the above writ petitions and contends that section 7(2) of the Act does not contemplate any personal hearing much less an enqu...

Management of Devi Press Vs. S. Selvaraj

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2001(88)FLR159]; (2001)ILLJ137Mad

K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in W.C.No. 62 of 1993. The management of Devi Press being the respondent before the Deputy Commissioner is the appellant before this Court. 2. According to the workman/respondent herein, he was employed by the appellant as off-set machine operator with effect from May 22, 1982 on a monthly wages of Rs. 2,200. On October 10, 1982 while he was working on the off-set machine papers got struck up in the paper cylinder of this machine at about 1.30 a.m. Therefore, he stopped the machine and while he was removing the papers from the paper cylinder by pressing a button cylinder started rolling at full speed and with the result both his hands were crushed in between the paper cylinder. The manager came to the spot of the accident and took him to the Government Stanley Hospital, Madras. After treatment both his hands were amputated at higher sites resulting in 100...