Chennai Court September 2000 Judgments
Kannammal and Another Vs. Subatra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC161
ORDER1. The petitioners herein, who suffered a preliminary decree in the suit for partition, had preferred an appeal A.S.No.236 of 1996 on the file of the First Additional District Judge. Erode. The said appeal was dismissed for default on 25.11.1997. The petitioners filed an application for setting aside the order of dismissal on 23.12.1997. The said-application was returned by the lower appellate Court for certain compliance. Neither the petitioners nor their counsel evinced any interest in representing the matter and pursued the same. However, the said papers were represented with a delay of 636 days! Now, I.A.No.240 of 1999 filed by the petitioners to condone the delay of 636 days in representing the papers had been dismissed by the lower appellate Court and against the same, the present revision petition has been filed.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners represents that the second appellant Mr.Gunasekaran was looking after the matter and since he died, the other appellants were...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Vs. Batcha Sahib and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC329
ORDER1. Mani, the third defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. 2. Batcha Sahib, the plaintiff, the first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.721 of 1987 on the file of District Munsif, Tirukoilur against Palanivelu and Anjalai Ammal, the defendants 1 and 2 and also against the appellant/third defendant for specific performance to execute the sale deed as per the sale agreement dated 21.6.1985 and for mesne profits. The respondents 2 and 3, the defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement and contested the suit denying the execution of the said sale agreement. The appellant/third defendant also filed a separate written statement contending that he purchased the suit property as per the sale deed dated 19.12.1986. Therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed, as the appellant is the bona fide purchaser for value. 3. The trial Court after considering the evidence, dismissed the suit holding that there is no sale agreement executed by the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff, t...
Tag this Judgment!Subramani Vs. State Rep. by the Sub-inspector of Police Kuvattuar Poli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC717
ORDER1. The petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.191 of 1995 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukkundaram, Chengelpet District. He was tried along with two others for offences punishable under Sections 443,448, 323 and 326, IPC. The learned Magistrate, on the evidence adduced, acquitted A1 and A3, but convicted the petitioner under section 326, IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs 1000 with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, he preferred an appeal and the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence, the present revision.2. The case of the prosecution is that at 3.30 a.m. on 19.6.1994, the petitioner accompanied by A1 and A3 in the case went to the house of PW1and called out PW3 and when PW1 came out and questioned them, the petitioner pi...
Tag this Judgment!Sudha Vs. Vaidyanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC156; 2001AIHC1567
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. In the above Transfer C.M.P. the petitioner seeks for a transfer of H.M.O.P. No. 4 of 2000 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chidambaram to the Court of Additional District Judge, Karaikal, for trial.2. According to the petitioner, she was married to the respondent on .11.1997 at Karaikal. She was presented by her father with 22 sovereigns of gold, silver vessels worth about Rs. 12,000/-, stainless steel worth about Rs. 3,000/- among other things. The marriage was also performed on a grand scale by spending about 2.5 lakhs. Thereafter, they were living together at Chidambaram, where the respondent was employed- Ever since the marriage, the respondent was not treating the petitioner properly and she was kept like a slave and even her parents were not allowed to meet her. Her entire salary was taken by the respondent and she was not given anything even for her personal expenses. She had to resign the job at Chidambaram and got herself employed as a staff nurs...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Leyland Employees Union Vs. Ashok Leyland Limited and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1388Mad
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. A settlement had been arrived at between the Ashok Leyland Limited and the Employees represented by Ashok Leyland Employees' Union in respect of the quantum of bonus payable for the financial year 1984 on the terms set out in settlement between the parties under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The interpretation of that settlement was the subject matter of the industrial dispute in ID No. 13/1998. The Tribunal having held in favour of the workmen that award so rendered was challenged by the management in W.P. No. 7072/1993 which came to be allowed on July 9, 1999 by the learned single Judge of this Court. The management as also the union being aggrieved by the judgment these two writ appeals are before us.2. It is necessary at this stage to set out the terms of that settlement. The settlement after setting out the names of the parties, the persons representing the employer, the number of and description of the workman covered by the settlemen...
Tag this Judgment!Kanagu (A) Kanageswaran and Another Vs. State by Inspector of Police B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC152
ORDERJudgement pronounced by Prabha Sridevan,J.1. The appeal is filed by the first accused in S.C.No.171 of 1990 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Court, Madurai. He and four others were charged for the offences under Sections 148, 449, 302 read with 34 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. A2 to A5 were acquitted of all the charges. A1 alonewas convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 449 and 302 read with 34 of the India Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, rigorous imprisonment for three years and life imprisonment respectively. The learned Sessions Judge farther ordered that the said sentences should run concurrently. Further, the first accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. As against the same, the first accused preferred C.A.No.753 of 1990. C.A.No.91 of 1993 has been filed by the State as against the order of acquittal of A2 to A5. 2. The prosecution case is as follows: PW1 is the f...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Krishna Water Supply Project ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC440
ORDERJudgement pronounced by A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. These appeals have been filed against the orders passed in the original petitions by the Reference Court namely Sub-Court, Tiruvallur. In all these appeals the State is the appellant. 2. For the purpose of implementing Krishna Water Scheme, the State of Tamil Nadu had to acquire lands including the lands that are the subject matter in all these appeals. These lands are comprised in various survey Numbers namely 273/1., 2,3,4,5,11,12,13,15,17,18 in Movur Village, Tiruvallur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. The respondents in these appeals are the land owners. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 24.4.91. After calling for the objections and complying with the formalities the land acquisition officer acquired the lands. Before the land acquisition officer, the respondents landowners claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.300 per cent. The land acquisition officer after holding the enq...
Tag this Judgment!Jambunathan B.M. Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR684]; (2001)IIILLJ1266Mad
Y. 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 certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the order dated February 19, 1993, of the first respondent in I.A. No. 93 of 1993 in I.A. No. 43 of 1991 in W.J. No. 6 of 1984 and to quash the same and to direct the first respondent to decide the issue relating to jurisdiction as the first issue along with other issues while disposing of the entire case after a full-fledged trial and to pass such further or other orders and thereby render justice. 2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein be 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, though no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, the matter was contested by the second respondent an...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise, Madras Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: 2002(141)ELT334(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisional assessment resorted to under Rule 9B read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on whatever ground would render assessment provisional as a whole so that the limitation for purposes of Rule 11 commences from the date of finalisation of the provisional assessment for purposes of a claim for refund on a score different from the one which led to the assessment being done provisionally.2. A question similar to the one now referred was considered by this Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. India Tyre and Rubber Co. Ltd. wherein a Bench of this Court held that a provisional assessment is provisional for all purposes including a claim for refund. The question considered in that case was as to whether a provisional assessment is made under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on any of the permissible grounds allowed thereunder...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Workers Federation Vs. Tami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ467Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. These Writ Petitions and WMPs coming on for orders as to admission on Thursday August 31, 2000 upon perusing, the petitions and the affidavits filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S. Arunachalam advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, Additional Advocate General for Ms. Sudarshanasundar advocate for the first Respondent and of Mr. A. Paramasivam, Government Advocate for the Respondents 2 and 3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following Order:In W.P. No. 826 of 1998, the petitioner, a Registered Association has prayed for the issue of a writ certiorarified mandamus to call for the records connected with the proceedings of the first respondent-Board in No. 998/Estt(Per)/A 198-1 dated January 9, 1998 passed by the first respondent and quash the same insofar as the first respondent had ordered investment of the ad hoc payment of a portion of the arrears viz., Rs. 2000/- in the G.P....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »