Chennai Court July 2000 Judgments
Sriramulu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Sub Inspector of Police, Manaparai P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC533
ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the accused in Calendar Case No.83 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Manaparai and the appellant in C.A.No.44 of 1998 on the file of the first Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy. He was charged and tried for anoffence falling under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Magistrate found him guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code alone and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months together with fine of Rs.1000 carrying a default sentence. His appeal was also dismissed on merits. Hence the revision. Heard Mr.A.Ramesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate on the criminal side for the State. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that on the facts established, no offence of cheating at all is made out and therefore the conviction cannot be...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. Lakshmiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2000
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ134Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The appellant has come forward with this appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated July 10, 1997, passed in W. P. No. 3640 of 1986, in and by which, the learned Judge while setting aside the award of the second respondent dated September 9, 1985, made in I.D. No. 437 of 1984, and gave certain directions directing the appellant to appoint the first respondent within thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and also pay all back wages and other monetary benefits, etc.2. The brief facts of the case are: The first respondent herein who was in the services of the appellant as gradation analyst and assistant production manager was alleged to have been transferred to Dhanbad by letters dated March 10, 1983, and September 8, 1983, that since the first respondent did not obey the order of transfer, by letter dated September 17, 1983, the appellant terminated the services of the first respondent, that aggrieved by the said order ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Subramaniam Vs. Tamil Nadu Housing Board Rep. by Its Chairman and M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC727
ORDERJudgement pronounced by A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. Plaintiff in C.S.No.1643 of 1992 on the file of the High Court, Madras, who is the respondent in application No.3640 and 3641 of 1994 is the appellant herein.2. In respect of an extent of 2141 sq.ft which is commercial vacant site adjacent to HIG block No.1/1 at Rajaram Colony, Kodambakkam, Madras-24, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board conducted auction on 22.7.1987. The appellant herein was the highest bidder having offered Rs.3,25,000 per ground and the area in question being less than a ground, proportionately the price was fixed at Rs.2.89.927. As per the conditions of auction, the plaintiff paid 15% of the cost viz., 48,490 apart from EMD of Rs.5,000 which he paid earlier on 20.7.1987. On 12.11.1987, the Housing Board passed an order of confirmation and balance of the plot cost payable was Rs.2,41,437. Admittedly, this confirmation letter was sent by the Housing Board to the appellant/plaintiff and he was called upon to pay the...
Tag this Judgment!Miss. Asiya Mariyan D/O. Late. Appathambi Rowthar @ Rhader HasaIn Meer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC125
ORDER1.Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on various grounds.2. It is seen that an extent of 1.37.5 hectares of land in Survey No.459/2A of Kodangipatti village. Uthama-palayam Taluk was selected for acquisition for the provision of house-sites to 87 houseless Adi-dravidar families of Kodangipatty village. Accordingly, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 24.2.1993; in Tamil dailies dated 25.2.1993. in the locality on 26.2.1993 and individual notice in Form 3A was served on the land owners on 30.3.1993 fixing Enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act on 27.4.1993.3. According to the petitioner, even though she is the owner of the land in question, she was not given notice to submit her objection in the 5(A) Enquiry. It is further stated that without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. Decl...
Tag this Judgment!A. Senthilkumar Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Si ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC485
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings Na.Ka.No.3055/99 Sa.Ba. dated 23.6.2000 of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and against law.2. Rule 149(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 reads as follows:'No appointment by direct recruitment to any post shall be made except by calling for a list of eligible candidates from the Employment Exchange and also giving due publicity by means of announcement in the notice board of the Society and also of the affiliated societies inviting application from the eligible employees of such societies. Where the Employment Exchange issues a non-availability certificate, the society shall invite applications by giving advertisement in more than one daily newspapers in which one should be in regional language having wide circulation throughout the State:Provided that the above stipulation shall not apply-(i) to the appointment made on compassionate gro...
Tag this Judgment!Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Nagarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR944]; (2001)ILLJ253Mad
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. It is an admitted position that the third respondent is dead. In so far as the said third respondent is concerned, this writ petition is dismissed as he was not alive on the day when the writ petition was filed. The writ petitioner had not impleaded the legal representatives, if any of the third respondent. Therefore, this Court will not take any notice of the stand taken by the petitioner against the third respondent. As against the third respondent, this writ petition stands dismissed.W.P. Nos. 14104 of 1993 and 5020 of 1996: This common order will dispose of these two writ petitions. The first petition, W.P. No. 14104 of 1993 is filed by the Management of erstwhile Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited which now has converted itself into Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam, Division-I, challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, whereby the Industrial Tribunal directed that the three respondents, who were the employees of the Corpo...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R. Jayalakshmi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ252
K. Sampath, J.1. The only question arising for consideration in the civil miscellaneous appeal is whether the insurance company can be made liable in a case where the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident possessed licence for driving a heavy passenger motor vehicle and not for driving a heavy goods vehicle which was involved in the accident.2. The accident took place on 16.9.92. As per Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there are separate categories with regard to licence to drive. Section 10 is the relevant section. Section 10(2)(g) relates to heavy goods vehicle and Section 10(2)(h) relates to heavy passenger motor vehicle. Form 4 under Rule 14 also provides for applying for separate licence for heavy goods vehicle and separate licence for heavy passenger motor vehicle.3. It is submitted on behalf of the insurance company that on the basis of this separate categorisation in a case where a driver possessing a licence for driving a heavy passenger motor vehicle does not have a licence...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Salem. 636013 Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC558; 2002ACJ1429; 2000(4)CTC417; (2001)ILLJ348Mad
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Trichy in W.C.No.198 of 1997. The opposite party, namely, the Managing Director of the Steel Authority of India, Salem is the appellant before this Court.2. The parents of the deceased Vijayakumar contended that Vijayakumar was appointed as a Senior Operator-Trainee on 1.11.93 in the concern of the opposite party and subsequently he was promoted as Chief Chemist. The deceased was a very hale and healthy person while he was discharging his duties in the respondent's concern. He went to duty as, usual on 2.8.95-night shift. He died on 3.8.95 at the age of 25 years while he was working in the laboratory in the Steel Plant during the course of his employment. Police has registered a case and investigation is pending. The complaint, given by the respondent/employee was that it was an attempt to commit suicide. The claimants stated that there, was no necessity for the deceased to commit s...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. S. Chellathura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: III(2002)ACC643
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Trichy in W.C. No. 198 of 1997. The opposite party, namely, the Managing Director of The Steel Authority of India, Salem is the appellant before this Court.2. The parents of deceased Vijayakumar contended that Vijayakumar was appointed as a Senior Operator-Trainee on 1.11.1993 in the concern of the opposite party and subsequently he was promoted as Chief Chemist. The deceased was a very hale and healthy person while he was discharging his duties in the respondent's concern. He went to duty as usual on 2.8.1995 - night shift. He died on 3.8.1995 at the age of 25 years while he was working in the laboratory in the Steel Plant during the course of his employment. Police has registered a case and the investigation is pending. The complaint given by the appellant/employer was that it was an attempt to commit suicide. The claimants stated that there was no necessity for...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. S. Chellathurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC658
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Trichy in W.C. No. 198 of 1997. The opposite party, namely the Managing Director of the Steel Authority of India, Salem is the appellant before this Court.2. The parents of the deceased Vijayakumar contended that Vijayakumar was appointed as a Senior Operator-Trainee on 1.11.1993 in the concern of the opposite party and subsequently he was promoted as Chief Chemist. The deceased was a very hale and healthy person while he was discharging his duties in the respondent's concern, He went to duty as usual on 2.8.1995 - night shift. He died on 3.8.1995 at the age of 25 years while he was working in the laboratory in the Steel Plant during the course of his employment. Police has registered a case and investigation is pending. The complaint given by the respondent/employee was that it was an attempt to commit suicide. The claimants stated that there was no necessit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »