Chennai Court July 2000 Judgments
Hig Flat Owners Welfare Association Vs. Tamil Nadu Housing Board and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad446
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issue raised in these writ petitions is common, they are being disposed of by the following common order.2. In W.P. No. 24611 of 1993 H.I.G. Flat Owners Welfare Association, Kotturpuram, Chennai 85 have approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Housing Board to cancel the allotment of Flat No. 143-A and 143-B and also the space allotted to the Postal Department in Kotturpuram Housing Board Colony and keep the open space shown in the lay out of 1978 in TNHB/TP No. 94/78 TP/52644/78 and approved by MMDA in PP(S) 10/78 as a open space without permitting any construction thereon.3. In W.P. No. 2491 of 1998 one T. V. Ravichandran one of the allottees of the flats in Adyar Apartments. Kotturpuram has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 and 4 -- Tamil Nadu Housing Board and its Executive Officer, Nandanam Division to relocate the Post Office in between Block 'C' and 'B' abutting the main road Instead of t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanumathy Agencies Vs. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas454(Mad)
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The second defendant is the appellant. The first respondent filed a suit in O. S. No. 61 of 1985 on the file of the District Judge, Nilgiris, Ootacamund, against the appellant and the second respondent herein.2. The brief facts are that, in a scheme called employment scheme for educated unemployed youth, the second respondent herein applied vide his application dated April 20, 1984, based on a recommendation of the District Industrial Centre, Uthagamandalam, for the sanction of a loan of Rs. 25,000 to set up a tyre retreading industry. The second respondent obtained a proforma invoice from the appellant for supplying a tyre retreading machinery, that under exhibit A-4, the first respondent issued a pay order in favour of the appellant on April 30, 1984, for a sum of Rs. 26,174.75 which sum included a sum of Rs. 1,174.75 deposited by the second respondent with the first respondent, that the pay order specifically stated that the said payment was being made o...
Tag this Judgment!Management, Madurai North Sarvodaya Sangh and ors. Vs. S. Syed Batcha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR496]; (2000)IIILLJ949Mad
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.1. This criminal original petition is to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 1194 of 2000 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Palani.This criminal original petition has arisen in this way:One K. Subramanian, who was employed under the first petitioner, was dismissed from service, regarding which he raised a dispute in I.D. No. 104 of 1985. The Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Madurai, passed an award in favour of Subramanian on October 27, 1988 directing his continuation in service with back-wages and other benefits. Aggrieved by that order, the first petitioner herein preferred writ petition in Writ Petition No. 477 of 1989. The writ petition was finally dismissed on February 17, 1998. There afterwards, the first petitioner preferred a writ appeal in Writ Appeal No. 966 of 2000, which is yet to be admitted. Meanwhile, the respondent herein launched prosecution against the petitioners on the ground that the award has not been implemented...
Tag this Judgment!N. Humayun Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ25
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Petitioner seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 herein to deliver the possession of door No. 34, Maroof Sahib Street, Chennai-600 002 to the petitioner herein.2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had let out the impugned premises to one Sikander on 27-3-1997. After coming across several complaints against him from the people of the locality, the petitioner requested the said Sikander to vacate the premises. But the said Sikander and another S.A. Basha were present in the said building when the petitioner visited the premises on 3-4-1997. Even though they originally agreed to vacate on 3-4-1997, they refused to do so and started to threaten the petitioner and give aggressive warnings to him.3. It is also stated that the petitioner issued a lawyer's notice on 8-4-1997 calling upon the said Sikander for delivery of possession and thereafter lodged a complaint to the police on 21-11-1997 against Sikander ...
Tag this Judgment!A.A. Mohd. Raffi Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rep. by Its Chairman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad481; 2000(3)CTC137
ORDER1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken-up for disposal. 2. The writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the third respondent, dated 8.6.1996, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum ofRs.1,31,693 towards the revised bill for service connection No.SC 56, Santhi Nagar Distribution to the defective meter for the period from April, 1994 to December, 1994. 3. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated herein. According to him, he is running a cattle and poultry feeds manufacturing industry and has been provided with Service Connection SC No. 56 by the respondents. During the relevant period, the petitioner had been pointing out about the fall in consumption and the petitioner had already explained by various communications, including the communication dated 10.2.1995. The petitioner pointed out that he was running a poultry farm with a connected load of 6640 watts and that the power was not utilised uniformly on all days in a month and it depends upon vari...
Tag this Judgment!Management of N.S. Bus Service and anr. Vs. Appellate Authority Under ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR383]; (2002)ILLJ516Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Since the parties concerned as well as the subject matter involved in these writ petitions are common, both the writ petitions were taken up together and arc disposed of by the common order with the consent of the parties concerned.2. W.P. No. 4817 of 1993 has been filed by the petitioner-management seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to P.G. Appeal No. 6 of 1992 pending before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and P.G. Case No. 42 of 1991 on the file of the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and to quash the orders passed therein dated January 16, 1993, and July 29, 1992, respectively.3. W.P. No. 6077 of 1993 has been filed by the petitioner-workman seeking for a writ of ceniorari to call for the records from the first respondent relating to P.G. Appeal No. 6 of 1992 and to quash his order dated January 16, 1993, in P. G. Appeal No. 6 of 1992.4. In support of the writ petitions, thepetitioners here...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›