Chennai Court July 2000 Judgments
Chellaiyan and anr. Vs. the Ex-officio Secretary to Government, Co-ope ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ590
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 in G.O.Ms. No. 246 dated 17-3-1993 on the file of the 1st respondent herein pursuant to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in F1/41516/91 dated 30-8-1991 and to quash to G.O.Ms. No. 246 dated 17-3-1993 and to pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioners herein have filed an affidavit wherein they have 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, on behalf of the respondent a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material a legations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for.3. Heard the argume...
Tag this Judgment!Mathias Packaging Limited and ors. Vs. Hindalco Industries Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4836
ORDERB. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The question that arises in the instant Criminal Original Petition is whether the respondent who instituted the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, can base his cause of action on the second notice issued.3. The controversy has arisen in this way:-The first petitioner/first accused is the company. The second petitioner/second accused is the Managing Director. The third accused is the Joint Managing Director and the third petitioner/fourth accused is the Director. The second petitioner issued a cheque dated 2-4-1998 for Rs. 6,28,538/-and another cheque dated 15-5-1998 for Rs. 2.71.609/- drawn on the Central Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch, Chennai-8. The respondent/complainant presented the cheques in the bank, but they were dishonoured and returned with an endorsement 'exceeds arrangements'. The respondent/complainant issued a notice to the petitioners on 27-7-1998 demanding payment within fifteen...
Tag this Judgment!Feroz Khan Vs. S.M.S.S.A. Farook Ali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC115
ORDER1. The respondent has filed in R.C.O.P.No.2802 of 1996 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Chennai for evicting the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller in his order dated 24. 1.2000 allowed the petition for eviction and granted two months time to the petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises. After expiry of the period of two months, the respondent has filed the Execution Petition on 27.3.2000. Since the respondent has not produced the certified copy of the decretal order, the office returned the papers and ultimately on representation by the counsel in open Court, the Court on 6.4.2000 directed the office to number the same. On 7.4. 2000 notice was ordered and on 26.4.2000, the Execution Petition was ordered and possession has been taken. At this stage, the petitioner has filed the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the Execution Petition cannot be sustained, without enclosing the decree copy, and that without even proper notice...
Tag this Judgment!J.O. Kannan and 4 Others Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC157
ORDERJudgement pronounced by V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. In this writ appeal, the judgment of the learned single Judge, by which he dismissed the writ petition filed challenging the land acquisition proceedings, is under challenge. The only point which was argued was as regards the delay in passing the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that because of the intermediant stay granted by this Court in writ petitions as also in the writ appeals filed by the various parties, the State was entitled to the exclusion of 6 years 6 months and 10 days. Considering and holding the date of publication in the locality to be 23.1.1989, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the notification under Section 6 of the Act was in time which is dated 2.8.1996. It is this particular aspect which is in challenge before us in the present writ appeal.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner very fervently argued before us that the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Pakkiammal Vs. Anaiappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC228
ORDER1. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.392 of 1989 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet is the petitioner in this civil revision petition and he has filed this revision against the fair and decretal order dated1.4.1997 made in I.A. No.1341 of 1995 in I.A.No.1597 of 1994 in O.S.No.392of 1989.2. When the above matter was taken up for consideration, in thepresence of both the learned counsel, on perusal of the materials placed onrecord and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be knownis that I.A.No.1341 of 1995 had been filed before the lower court underSection 151, CPC praying to restore the petition filed under Order 9, Rule 9 bythe petitioner which had been dismissed by the court below on 18.1.1995; thatthe court below had allowed the petition filed on the part of the petitioner oncondition to pay the costs on or before 18.1.1995, but the petitioner wouldcome forward to say that in spite of the same being intimated by his lawyer,on ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Selvaraj and 26 Others Vs. Commissioner Corporation of Chennai, Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC577
ORDER1. The petitioners, numbering 27, have filed this writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to restore the possession of the bunk-shops ran by the petitioners on the Luz Church Road, Mylapore or to provide any other alternative site to the petitioners and to compensate the petitioner for the loss caused to them. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been in occupation of the pavements of Luz Church Road, Mylapore for the past 25 years. During 1988-89, the process of widening the road was carried out. Even at that time,the petitioner's possession was disturbed. At that time, the Corporation Officials assured that the petitioners could carry on the business on the road margin. In 1998, once again, the Corporation Officials disturbed the petitioners possession. On 19.5.2000, the petitioners stalls were removed from the pavement and hence, this writ petition has been filed fro restoration of possession as well as for the compensation to comp...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government Ministry of Petrol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC711
ORDERN.K. Jain, ACJ.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.3.2000 made in W.M.P.Nos.5389 to 5395, 5778, 6659 and 6682 and 6683 of 2000 in W.P.Nos.3528 to 3534, 3749, 4334 and 4355 of 2000, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the respondent to make fresh supply and stayed the impugned suspension orders dated 17.2.2000 and 21.2.2000 for 45 days pending writ petition. 2. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India for Union of India submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding the writ petitions are maintainable and staying the suspension order, when the contract, which is a non-statutory, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. More so, there is a specific provision for arbitration in the contract itself. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has not followed the judgment of a Division bench of this Court, which, while deciding an identical issue, held that no writ will lie in view of the arbitration cl...
Tag this Judgment!Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Sara Lee Bakery
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad497
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Britannia Industries Limited having its Registered Office at Calcutta, the plaintiff herein, pending the suit in C. S. No. 939 of 1999 seeking the relief of permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, etc. has filed three applications in O.A. Nos. 742, 743 and 744 of 1999 praying for interim reliefs as against Sara Lee Bakery India Private Limited, Chennai, the defendant herein.2. The prayer in O.A. No. 742 of 1999 is to grant interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from committing the acts of piracy of the applicant's registered design of its biscuits by the manufacture of the impugned product 'Milk Wala' 'Milk Cream Biscuits' bearing the design which is identical with or similar to the applicant's design.3. In O.A. No. 743 of 1999 the relief sought for is for the grant of interim injunction restraining the respondent from reproducing and publishing the biscuit wrapper which is deceptively similarly or reproduction of the features of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Oothu Estate, Singumpatti Group Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ803Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J. 1. The subject-matter involved and also the parties herein are common in these writ petitions, both the writ petitions are taken up together with the consent of the parties concerned.2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner-management seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records and to quash the award, dated December 29, 1992 in I.D. Nos. 414 and 413 of 1989 on the file of the first respondent Labour Court, Tirunelveli.3. In support of the writ petitions, the petitioners herein have filed separate affidavits wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petitions and requested this Court to allow the writ petitions as prayed for. Per contra, in the counter-affidavits filed by the second respondents, they have rebutted all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this Court to dismiss the writ petitions for want of merit, s...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust Pondicherry Rep. by Its Managing Trustee Mr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad494; 2000(3)CTC160
ORDER1. The respondents in I.A.No.4706 of 1999 who are the defendants in the suit O.S.No.37 of 1998 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Pondicherry are the petitioners herein. 2. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No.37 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry praying the Court to grant a decree declaring that the show cause-cum-charge sheet letter dated 6.1.1998 issued against the plaintiff by the defendants is unlawful, illegal and hence void ab initio and for various other reliefs. 3. In September, 1999, the respondent took out two applications viz., I.A.Nos.4705 and 4706 of 1999. The first one is to condone the delay in filingthe list mentioned documents and receive the same. The second one is to condone the delay in filing the list of witnesses to be examined. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A.No.4706 of 1999 it is stated that since the witnesses had to be contacted and their consent to co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »