Chennai Court August 2000 Judgments
Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Indust ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ967Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. In these writ petitions, the subject matter involved and also the parties to the writ petitions are one and the same. Hence these writ petitions were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties.2. In support of the writ petitions, the petitioner herein has filed separate affidavits wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file these writ petitions and requested this Court to allow the writ petitions as prayed for. Per contra, though no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, the second respondent contested the matter and argued that the impugned orders herein are in order and in accordance with law and that therefore, there is no need for any interference with the same in these writ petitions and thus there is no merit in these writ petitions and accordingly they are liable to be dismissed.3. Invoking Article 226 of theConstitution of India, these petitions hav...
Tag this Judgment!Jaycee Engg. Services Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2000
Reported in: 2003(90)ECC469
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 pertaining to Order No. 539/1992, dated 30.10.92 and order passed in E/Ros/866/93 in E/Stay/147/92, dated 7.4.93 on the file of the respondent herein and to quash the same. 2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has 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. Though in this case the respondent has been served as early as on 31.3.94, there is no representation on behalf of them till this date. 3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. I have perused the contents of the affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers, ...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Thaga Pillai (Died) and 7 Others Vs. Meenakshi and 8 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1159; 2000(4)CTC90
ORDERJudgment pronounced by R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. These appeals arise out of the proceedings initiated before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, in respect of the claims made by one victim and by the heirs of the another the injuries for the leading to the claims having resulted from an accident which had occurred on 4.1.1981 on the Kallakurichi, Thiagadurgam Road, by reason of the tractor MTF 5767 colliding with the Trailor MTF 6658,. The Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the driver. While holding the owner liable, the insurer was exonorated on the ground that therewas no evidence to show that the driver held a valid driving licence at the time of accident.2. Against this finding of the Tribunal, two C.M.As. were filed in this Court, the CMAs. being 320 of 1983 and 527 of 1990. In CMA 320 of 1983 it was held by the learned single Judge that the finding of the Tribunal reversing to finding in so far as the liabilit...
Tag this Judgment!V. Gurusamy Vs. the Collector of Madurai, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC487
ORDER1. V. Guruswamy, the petitioner herein, has filed this writ petition seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the Collector of Madurai in Na.Ka.No.1336108/92 Adi-8 dated 19.3.1993 and quash the same. 2. The short facts which are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:- The petitioner was initially appointed as 'Temporary Messenger' by the second respondent-Bank on 26.8.1985, under reserved Scheduled Tribe category by declaring himself as 'Kammara' community. Subsequently on 20.8.1992, he was promoted to the Clerical cadre and posted to the second respondent's branch at Vembakkottai. At the time of joining service with the second respondent, he had produced a community certificate dated 13.4.1983 issued by the Tahsildar, Usilampatti for proving his caste status. In the year 1992, the second respondent, on the basis of a complaint received in regard to his community certificate, referred the matter t...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank Staff Union Madras Circle Rep. by Its General Secretary, V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ846Mad
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Petitioner has questioned the constitutional validity of the Banking Laws Amendment Act, 1984 (Central Act 64 of 1984), by which the State Bank of India Act, 1955, State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1970 and the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Acts, 1970 and 1980, were amended. 2. By that amending Act, a new Section 43A comprising of three Sub Sections (1), (2) and (3) was introduced in the State Bank of India Act, 1955. That Section reads as under: '(1) No Officer, Adviser or other Employee (Other than an employee within the meaning of Clause (13) of Section 2 of the Payment of Bonus Act, I960 (21 of 1965) of the State Bank shall be entitled to be paid any bonus. (2) No employee of the State Bank, being an employee within the meaning of Clause (13) of Section 2 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (21 of 1965), shall be entitled to be paid any bonus except in accordance with the provisions of that Act. (3) The provision...
Tag this Judgment!Saroja Ammal Vs. Ameena Ammal and 4 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC521
ORDER1. The third respondent in O.S. No.276 of 1981 on the file of thePrincipal District Munsif, Thirutharaipoondi, is the appellant in the secondappeal. Respondents 1 to 3 herein fled the said suit against respondents 4 and5 herein and the appellant for partition and separate possession of their 21/40share in the plaint schedule properties, for mesne profits and for costs allegingas follows:-The suit properties belonged to one Musthafa Maracair, husband of the fourth respondent and father of the other respondents they being the daughters of thesaid Musthafa through the fourth respondent herein, who was the second wife of Musthafa and the fifth respondent being the son of Musthafa through his first wife. Musthafa died in 1974. Respondents 1 to 3 became entitled to each 7/40 share, the fourth respondent to 5/40 share and the fifth respondent 14/40 share. The fourth respondent did not take proper case of respondent 1 to 3 compelling them to seek the protection of their maternal uncle thr...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Padmini Sivasubramanian Vs. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Bansal, I.A.S. Sub-c ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC647
ORDER1. This is an application to punish respondent 1 to 3 for disobeying the order dated 27.4.2000 passed in W.P.No.7646 of 2000.2. Petitioner had filed W.P. No.7646 of 2000 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing respondents 1 and 2 herein or his men or any person claiming under his authority from dispossessing the petitioner from the petition properties and from demolishing the properties situated at PalladamRoad, Tiruppur. The writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage holding that there is no cause of action to seek the relief sought for. However, in para 3 of the order, I have observed as follows:The temple, as owners, are entitled to seek removal of encroachers, if any. However, they will have to follow the due process of law before eviction. The notice issued by the Sub-Collector obviously appears to be for cancellation of pattas given to the encroachers' and for further action. The Sub-Collector will pass appropriate orders before ordering removal on mer...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Yamuna Vs. A. Venugopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC724
ORDER1. The civil revision petition is against an order passed in I.A.No.4318 of 2000 in O.S.No.4002 of 1999 on the file of the III Assistant Judge, under Order 9, Rule 7, CPC.2. The petitioner is the defendant against whom an ex parte order was passed on 10.3.2000 in the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,81,600 with interest. So the petitioner filed the above interlocutory application to set-aside the ex parte order. This was allowed by the learnedJudge on condition the petitioner deposits the suit claim within a month from the date of the order and paid the cost of Rs.200, failing which the petition would stand dismissed. Aggrieved by this the present civil revision petition has been filed.3. Mr.N.L. Rajah, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order imposed a very onerous condition which was not warranted in the circumstances, and it resulted out of a highly irregular exercise of jurisdiction. According to the learned Counsel for the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Seenikumar Selvanayagam Vs. Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundarnar Universit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC465
ORDER1. The Writ Petition No. 7510 of 1998 is filed by one Seenikumar Selvanayagam, Lecturer (Selection Grade) in the Department of Chemistry, St. John's College, Palayamkottai questioning the resolutions adopted in the meeting of the Syndicate of the first respondent University dated 18.4.1998 arid seeks to quash the same on the only ground that on the relevant date, namely on 18.4.1998, there was no required quorum as per the statute of the University.2. In view of the stay order by this Court dated 10.6.1998- slaying the resolutions passed on 18.4.1998, the petitioner in, W.P. No. 14545 of 1998 who could not join the Department of Chemistry in the respondent University pursuant to the appointment order dated 20.4.1998 has approached this Court to issue necessary direction.3. For convenience, I shall refer the petitioner in W.P. No. 7510 of 1998 as petitioner. Admittedly, though he is a lecturer in the Department of Chemistry, St. John's College, Palayamkottai, he is nowhere concerne...
Tag this Judgment!Kothari Orient Finance Ltd. Vs. Tele Data Informatics Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas863(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. Original Application No. 688 of 2000 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff under Order 14, rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for interim injunction restraining respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 from proceeding with the issue of the equity shares to the public till the disposal of the suit. Application No. 3107 of 2000 has been filed by the first respondent/first defendant to vacate the order of interim injunction passed in O. A. No. 688 of 2000, dated July 24, 2000.2. The case in brief for the disposal of both the applications is as follows :The plaintiff-company was incorporated in the year 1983, as a hire-purchase and leasing company for extending financial assistance to various industries and individuals. The first respondent/first defendant approached for financial assistance for acquiring some computers that they are carrying on business in software development for the Navy, Defence and Telecommunications ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »