Chennai Court June 2000 Judgments
Beemarao Ramji Vs. Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3735
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above Contempt Application praying to punish the respondents for contempt of Court on account of their disobedence of the order of this Court dated 28-4-1997 in W.M.P, No. 10090 of 1997 in W.P. No. 6091 of 1997.2. Sub-Application No. 52 of 2000 has been filed by the petitioner praying to direct the respondents to restore the petitioner Sangam members to their original Narikuravar Colony allotted to them in S. No. 143, Moonankaradu in Salem city limits pending disposal of the Contempt Application.3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein has filed W. P. No. 6091 of 1997 praying for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from evicting the members of the petitioner Sangam from their respective house sites situate in S. No. 143/1 of Narikoravar Colony, Moonakaradu, Salem town otherwise than under due process of law and award compensation and damages. The said writ petition has been admitted and is pending disposal.4....
Tag this Judgment!T. Heerachand and Another Vs. Saraswathy Ammal (Deceased) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC694
ORDER1. The plaintiffs are the appellants.2. The plaint averments are as follows:The plaintiffs had purchased certain properties (hereinafter referred to as the Properties) under two sale deeds dated 14.4.1971 for valid consideration. The properties had been the subject matter of attachment in execution of a decree in O.S.No.59 of 1956 on the file of the Sub Judge, Cuddalore obtained by South Arcot District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society, Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Society against one Thirupulisami Naidu, who along with his sons had sold the property to the plaintiffs. The defendants are his daughters-in-law, daughter and sons. The vendor of the plaintiffs had informed them at the time of the sale deed that in the appeal filed against the decree in O.S.No.59 of 1956 the High Court had asked him to execute a security bond-as a condition for granting stay. The security bond was executed on 26.7.1958. The vendor had represented to the plaintiffs that apart from the...
Tag this Judgment!indravathi Vs. Kamala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC278
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed against a decree for specific performance.2. According to the plaint, there was an agreement dated 8.11.1979 between the plaintiff and the defendant to sell the suit property at 28, Hanumantharoyan Kovil Street, Chennai-3 for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000. The agreement is Ex.A-1. As per clause 2 of the said agreement, Rs.10,100 was paid and received on the same date and the plaintiff agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000 on 15.11.1979 and Rs.20,000 on 15.12.1979 and the balance of Rs.60,000 at the time of registration. It was stipulated that time was essence of the contract and that the sale shall be completed within three months of the said date i.e., on or before 31.1.1980. The plaintiff offered Rs.10,000 on 15.11.1979 to the defendant's counsel but thereafter the defendant refused to receive any amount and Rs.10,000 was also returned by the defendant's counsel. On 13.12.1979, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendant offering to pay the amount. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC3; [2000(86)FLR778]; (2000)IILLJ1593Mad
V. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner Pandian Roadways Corporation filed this writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court, Madurai, dated December 15, 1992 in so far as it pertains to the order of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court, though, it had found that the respondent V. Kasi was guilty of having misappropriated the Corporation's amount.2. The factual panorama is somewhat like this. Admittedly, the respondent V. Kasi was working in the petitioner-Corporation for 16 years. He was working as a conductor and was operating the bus bearing Regn. No. TCP 4237 on the Erode to Devakottai and Madurai route. On February 15, 1989 while the said bus was proceeding towards Madurai, the Checking Inspector was checking the bus on the Devakottai Road and when they got into the bus in which the respondent was the conductor for the purpose of checking, they found that the respondent was attempting to write the invoice hastily. The said invoice was snatched by the Checking Inspector i...
Tag this Judgment!S. Manian Vs. P.M. Nachimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC680
ORDER1. The accused in Calendar Case No. 355 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam is the revision petitioner. The respondent in this revision is the complainant therein. That was a private complaint filed underSection 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging an offence underSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Pending trial the accused filedCrl.M.P.No. 3196 of 1997 under Section 245 of the Code of CriminalProcedure to discharge him from that proceedings. That application wasdismissed on merits. Hence the present revision. Heard Mr. Su. Srinivasanlearned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Doraiswami learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent. I also directed Mr.R.Karthikeyanlearned Government Advocate appearing on the criminal side 10 assist theCourt and he readily assisted.2. The sum and substance of the argument of. the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that the complaint referred to earlier is actually presented by thePower of Attorn...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC194
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Madras in O.A.I. No. 1643 of 1990. The claimant is the appellant in the above appeal.2. The appellant being a consignee/ purchaser of one wagon load of Bentonite powder from the supplier M/s. Ashapura Minechem Private Limited, Bhavanagar sentfrom Bhuj (Western Railway) to be sent to Karamadai (Southern Railway) on 9-5-1987 under an invoice in Wagon No. 33255. According to the claimant, since the goods did not arrive even after a lapse of more than 3 months, they were sending letters to the Railway Administration on 27-8-1987 and thereafter also. It was only on 4-11-1987, they were informed that only a part of the goods had arrived through a different wagon at Karamadai and claimant could not take delivery of even part of the load of bentonite powder as the entire consignment was totally in a damaged condition and that therefore on the same day, the claimant preferred a claim for compe...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendran and anr. Vs. Selvaraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC240; 2002ACJ104
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. All these appeals arise out of a common award rendered in M.C.O.P. Nos. 382, 387 and 388 of 1992 respectively on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cud-dalore. The insurance company and the owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident are the appellants in the above appeals.2. The claim petitions were filed by the victims of an accident which took place on 2.7.1992 at about 2.15 p.m. The place of accident was Nellikuppam-Cuddalore main road. According to the claimants, the bus belonging to the appellant No. 1 bearing registration No. TN-31-6697, plying from Cuddalore to Panrutti, proceeded at a high speed very rashly and negligently and with the result went out of control and crashed against several shops dashing various movable and immovable properties and also causing serious injuries to some of the occupants.3. In C.M.A. No. 391 of 1994, the claimant being owner of door No. 176 contended that he was running a Rice Mill in the premi...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kaliathal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1035
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.1. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Dharapuram, the insurance company has come forward with the instant civil miscellaneous appeal.2. This appeal has arisen in this way:One Gopalsamy, aged about 44 years, died in a road accident on 25.2.92 involving a tractor bearing registration No. TN 33-Y 2056. At the relevant time Gopalsamy was walking on the road and the tractor hit him, as a result of which Gopalsamy died. Gopalsamy happens to be the owner of the ill-fated tractor which was driven by his own servant, namely, the driver. The legal representatives of Gopalsamy instituted a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 377 of 1993 and claimed Rs. 6,00,000 as compensation.3. The insurance company vehemently opposed the claim petition alleging that Gopalsamy was the insured and the insurance policy covers only the third party's risk and not the risk to life of the insured himself and, therefore, it is not liable.4. The Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!T.i. Miller Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-05-2000
Reported in: 2001(73)ECC36; 2000(121)ELT24(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 Mandamus to direct the third respondent herein to grant exemption under notification No. 67/83-C.E., dated 1-3-83 to the bulbs imported vide Bill of entry No. 47925/4-1-91 to the petitioner herein and consequently to direct the third respondent to refund the sum of Rs. 1,54,980/- being the amount of duty deposited by the petitioner and to pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.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 the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondent a counter affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one af...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›