Chennai Court January 2001 Judgments
M. Thangavel Pillai Vs. the Commissioner Corporation of Trichirapalli, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ36
ORDER1. This civil revision has been preferred against :the fair and decretal order dated 17.11.2000 made in I.A.807 of 2000 in O.S 1089 of 1986 in and by which, the trial Court permitted the respondents herein to file its additional written statement in the suit. The suit was filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit property either by demolition or otherwise.2. In the plaint, it is claimed that the suit property is a Natam poramboke and that the petitioner is in possession of the said premises for more than 32 years. Originally a written statement was filed by the respondent on 6.11.1986 contending that the petitioner had put certain constructions over municipaldrainage causing damages to the same and also obstructing free flow of sewage water. It is specifically contended that inspite of the directions of the respondent to the plaintiff to remove the unauthorised constructions put...
Tag this Judgment!Malaikannu A. Vs. Managing Director, Marudhu Pandiar Transport Corpora ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1344Mad
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the punishment of dismissal, which has been ordered by the respondent-Corporation and its confirmation in appeal.2. The petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer. He was Initially appointed as a Company Trainee for a period of one year and thereafter, he was appointed on probation for a period of six months in the post of Junior Engineer. He was confirmed with effect from May 1, 1990. The petitioner claims that he was suffering from various ailments and more particularly he was suffering from heart ailment and, therefore, because of the ailment he was not able to attend the office from May 12, 1991 to May 25, 1991 and from May 27, 1991 to June 4, 1991 meaning thereby, that he actually attended the duty on May 26, 1991 and thereafter again stopped attending the work. He further says that he has been applying for the leave from time to time and on this basis, a charge-sheet came to be filed against him. The char...
Tag this Judgment!K. Lakshmanan Vs. S. Kevichandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1549
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The petitioner/accused in C.C.No. 455 of 1998 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Erode has preferred the revision, aggrieved against the order passed in Cri. M.P. 4725 of 2000 dated 1-8-2000.2. The case in brief is as follows : The respondent filed a complaint under Section 128 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I. Act') aginst the Petitioner. The petitioner has taken a specific stand that he had money transaction with one Shanmugam, father of the complainant during the period 1992 to 1994and at his request, he issued two blank cheques as security and after the transactions were over, the petitioners demanded for return of the cheques and it was stated that they were displaced and assured to return them as and when traced out. These cheques have been filled up by the complainant to make unlawful gain. All these facts have been specifically mentioned even in the reply notice sent by the petitioner to the complainant, which is marked ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Natarajan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1135
C. Nagappan, J.1. The appellant who hereinafter will be referred to as the accused was tried for a charge of murder by the Sessions Judge, Trichy.2. The allegation in the charge sheet is that at 6.30 p.m. on 13-11-1990, the accused Natarajan cut Velusamy with Aruval indiscriminately and caused his death. To prove the above charge, the prosecution, before the trial Court examined P.Ws. 1 to 12 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-19 as well as M.Os. 1 to 12.3. The case of the prosecution as discernible from oral and documentary evidence can be summarised as follows :The deceased is the younger brother of P.W. 4 Ramasami. P.W. 5 Palanisami is their sister's son. On the evening of 13-11-1990, P.W. 4 Ramasami, after watering his chilly plants in his garden land, was returning home on the itteri pathway and at that time, he heard the screaming voice of his brother Velusamy about the assault on him and he ran there and saw the accused cutting his brother Velusamy by M.O.1 Aruval five or six times. The a...
Tag this Judgment!Sumangala Steels Ltd. Vs. Government of the Union Territory of Pondich ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ265
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The prayer is for a mandamus to the respondents to sanction all the benefits conferred on new industries in backward areas brought into effect by the Government of Pondicherry, vide letter No. 16(23)/82-SSI(II)/SSI(P), dated 9.12.1985 to the petitioner's new unit with an installed capacity of 1,40,000 tonnes per annum on the following allegations:The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, has been carrying on the business of producing steel in its premises PIPDIC Industrial Estate at Mettupalayam in Pondicherry from September, 1987, its first unit having a capacity of 10,000 tonnes per annum and its second unit a capacity of 1,40,000 tonnes per annum of steel ingots and billets. There was a scheme brought into effect by the Government of Pondicherry following letter No. 16(23)/82/SSI(II)/SSI(P), dated 9.12.1985 of the Government of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development, as per the terms of which industries set...
Tag this Judgment!Vellayyappa Padayachi Vs. Saminatha Asari and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ596
ORDER1. The suit is for specific performance filed 'by the first respondent herein against the second respondent on the basis of the agreement dated 14.11.1980 agreeing to sell the suit property, belonging to the first respondent. The second respondent claims to be the prior agreement holder in whose favour the first respondent executed a sale deed after the suit agreement. The appellant is the third defendant, who had purchased the suit property, pending suit. The consideration under the agreement dated 14.11.1980 was a sum of Rs.3,200 and Rs.2,000 was paid on that date. Two weeks later on 28.11.1980 another sum of Rs.1,000 was paid and the balance was only a sum of Rs.200. As per the agreement time was four months' for execution of the sale deed. Though the first respondent requested the second respondent to execute the sale deed in the first week of December the second respondent said that he was pre-occupied with certain duties and promised to execute the sale deed. Subsequently, h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. A. Venkateswaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR801(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions referred to us are required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, in the light of the decision of this court in the case of CWT v. T. Saraswathi Achi : [1980]125ITR186(Mad) .2. The assessee herein had thrown certain shares in the hotchpot by impressing the same with the character of the joint family property and thereafter, entered into a partition by which were allotted shares in certain limited companies to the minor son. Subsequently, bonus shares were allotted to the minor son.3. The Tribunal has held and rightly, in our opinion, that the value of the bonus shares subsequently received by the minor son after the partition, cannot be regarded as property transferred or 'converted property' for the purpose of Section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act. The converted property referred to in that provision is the property that was in the hands of the individual and which was sought to be converted into joint family property. ...
Tag this Judgment!Natarajan U.R. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1586Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. This writ petition seeks to quash the order of the first respondent, dated July 7, 1994 passed in LA. No. 95 of 1993 in I.D. No. 10 of 1992, rejecting the petitioner's application for impleading respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as parties to the dispute in I.D. No. 10 of 1992.2. According to the petitioner, he was employed in the second respondent firm between May 1, 1985 and October 8, 1986, that on termination of his employment on October 8, 1996, he raised an industrial dispute which came to be referred for adjudication before the first respondent by G.O. Ms. No. 111(2), dated May 25, 1987 as I.D. No. 144 of 1987, which was renumbered as I.D. No. 10 of 1992. It is contended that when the dispute was taken up for trial, the managing partner representing the second respondent deposed before the Court that the firm was dissolved on March 30, 1990 and thereafter the petitioner was obliged to file an application in I.A. No. 95 of 1993 for impleading the other partners ...
Tag this Judgment!Adhilakshmi Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)371; [2003]115CompCas417(Mad); 2001CriLJ3524
Malai Subramanian, J.1. Accused No. 2 in C. C. No. 3120 of 1998 seeks to quash the proceedings pending against her by way of Crl. O. P. No. 1850 of 2000. The very same person, who is figuring as accused No. 20 in C. C. No. 2 of 2000 on the file of the TNPID Court, High Court Buildings, Chennai, seeks to quash the proceedings pending against her in the above said case by way of Crl. O. P. No. 8514 of 2000. Since the petitioner and respondent are one and the same and the points involved are also one and the same/ common order is passed in both the O.Ps.2. The Central Crime Branch, Chennai, registered a case in Crime No. 327 of 1997 for offences under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the complaint given by one Lalitha and investigation started resulting in laying of final report before two courts ; one before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and the other before the Special Court trying cases under the TNPID Act. The petitioner, who figures as A2 in...
Tag this Judgment!Valliammal Vs. S. Arumugha Gounder and Anothe: 1998crilj3287 R
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ729
ORDER1. The above appeal is against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No. 32 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gopichettipalayam dated 21.8.1995 which itself was preferred against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No. 265 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam. The plaintiff Valliammal who succeeded before the trial court but last before the first Appellate Court, is the appellant in this second appeal.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession by making the following averments :The suit schedule property as only a vacant site originally belonged to one Sivasubramania Sastriyar. Said Sivasubramania Sastriyar demised the property on lease in favour of one Kalianna Gounder for a period of one year on an annual rent of Rs.360. The first defendant is the brother of the said Kalianna Gounder. As per the agreement Kalianna Gounder has agreed to receive the amount to be paid by the landlord namely Sivasubramania Sastriyar as compensation...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »