Chennai Court February 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Alagiri Textiles and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC104
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in T.A.I. No. 162/90 dated 13.11.1991. The petitioners in the 'claim petition are the appellants herein.2. The first petitioner booked four bales of handldom cotton goods as per Invoice Ex. Al for carriage to New Delhi to be delivered to the endorsed consignee M/s. Paushak. The goods were insured with the second petitioner-Insurance Company. When the consignment reached the destination, out of four bales two bales alone were delivered to the consignee and the other two bales were not delivered. The Chief Parcel Supervisor, Northern Railway, New Delhi issued Parcel Delivery Certificate Ex. A2 to that effect. The first petitioner sent a letter to the Chief Parcel Supervisor claiming compensation for the loss sustained by them under Ex. A3. But the Railway Authorities did not send any reply and did not settle the claim of the petitioner. So the first petitioner made a ...
Rajamani and Another Vs. Somasundaram and 3 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ797
ORDER1. The substantial question of law that arose for consideration, while ordering notice of motion in this Second Appeal, was 'Whether the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.306 of 1986 is a nullity in so far as the plaintiff in the present action is concerned, in the absence of the present plaintiff having not sued for setting aside the decree in O.S.No.305 of 1986?' 2. The first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.315 of 1986 against one M.Muthuswamy now deceased for specific performance of the agreement dated 14-3-1986 by directing the said M.Muthuswamy to execute the necessary sale deed in favour of the first respondent herein by accepting-the balance of sale consideration of Rs.35,000 and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property. According to the first respondent, the said M.Muthuswamy, was the sole defendant and after his death and after impleading of the present appellants, as well as respondents 2 to 4, was arrayed as first defendant, entered into the sale a...
Vijayan Vs. State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police Kiran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC93
ORDER1. The Appellant in this appeal is A.1 in S.C.No.13 of 1991 on the file of Court of Sessions, Pudukottai. He was tried along with his brother and mother array as A.2 and A.3 in that sessions case. A.2 and A.3 were acquittedof all the offences for which they were charged and tried and that judgment had become final since the State had not filed any appeal against acquittal. A.1 alone stands convicted for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and seven years rigorous imprisonment respectively. In fact, all the three accused were tried only in respect of the above referred two offences only. Aggrieved over his conviction for the offences referred to earlier, A.1 is before this Court. Heard Mr.R. Sriramalu, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr.R. Karthikeyan, learned Government Counsel for the State for the respondent.2. I briefly state hereunder the case of the prosecution.The deceased by name Pa...
Samsugai and Another Vs. State Rep. by the Intelligence Officer, Ncb M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2001
Reported in: 2001(77)ECC203
ORDER1. A2 and A3 are the appellants herein. The appellants have come forward with this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against them by the Court below in its order dated 6.1.1996, in C.C-No.3 of 1996 convicting the appellants under Section 30 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter called 'the Act' and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one more year. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 20.8.1993, based on an information when an Ambassador car driven by A1 was intercepted in front of Dental Hospital and a search of the dicky of the car was made, a suitcase was found containing Heroin weighing about 5.3 kgs, that thereafter, Al and the second appellant were taken into custody and on information furnished by them, the first appellant was apprehended on the same date, that th...
AlluvdIn Vs. Inspector of Police, Vandhavasi Police Station
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)212; 2001CriLJ2672
ORDERMalai Subramanian, J.1. The petitioner in Crl. O. Ps. 1967, 1968 and 2005 of 2001 is one and the same and he stands charged for offences under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C. in all these three cases. The learned Magistrate, while granting bail to the petitioner, directed the petitioner to furnish cash security of Rs. 5,000/- and to execute a bond for Rs. 5,000/-with two sureties each for a likesum. Aggrieved against the order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner went on revision in all these three cases before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai, who also confirmed the order of the Magistrate. Hence those petitions are filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a poor man and he is not capable of paying any cash security as directed by the learned Magistrate and as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, the imposition of cash security may please be deleted. Learned Governme...
Annammal (Died) and 3 Others Vs. the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisiti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ82
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J.1. A.S. No.1085 of 1990 is an appeal preferred by the claimant and A.S.No.481 of 1991 is filed by the Special Tahsildar, separately in reference to the same land. 2. An extent of 0.52 acres of lands in survey No.35/182 at Kadapei Village, Saidapet Taluk were acquired for the purpose of setting up Madras Export Processing Zone by SIPCOT under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published on 23.1.1985. Award No.4 of 1986 dated 28.11.1986 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer fixing a compensation for the land at Rs.11,274.50 at the rate of Rs.145.85 per cent for an extent of 52 cents of land. The respondent sought for a reference, and on reference, the Reference Court, in L.A.O.P.No.492 of 1987, enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,04,000 at the flat rate of Rs.2,000 per cent. Aggrieved by this determination, both the above appeals have been filed. 3. According to the learned counse...
O.P. Mehra Vs. Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)56; [2001]106CompCas128(Mad); 2002CriLJ1310
Karpagavlnayagam, J.1. The proceedings initiated under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('the Act') are sought to be quashed in these petitions filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, by the petitioners, who are arrayed as A-9, A-7, A-8 and A-6.2. Mr. Murali, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, though would raise several grounds, while seeking to quash the proceedings, I am impressed by one of the grounds, on the basis of which the proceedings can be quashed as against these petitioners.3. It is settled law that when a complaint has been filed under Sections 138 and 141 of the Act in respect of non-payment of the cheque amount against the company, all the directors or partners in charge of and responsible for the affairs of the company are also liable to be punished and as such, the complaint against all the directors is maintainable.However, it is laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court that there shall be nec...
W.S. Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas507(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. Original Applications Nos. 672 and 673 of 2000 are filed by the respective applicant/plaintiff to grant ad interim injunction restraining respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from effecting any payment under the guarantees/counter guarantees provided by them as detailed in the schedule to the judge's summons. Application No. 3537 of 2000 has been filed by the first defendant in C. S. No. 532 of 2000 to vacate the interim order passed in O. A. No. 673 of 2000 dated July 19, 2000. Application No. 4420 of 2000 has been filed by the second defendant in C. S. No. 532 of 2000 to vacate the order passed in O. A. No. 673 of 2000.2. The case in brief for disposal of all the applications is as follows : The applicant/plaintiff supplied to the respondent suspension insulators, potential transformers and current transformers covered under 17 individual purchase orders placed by the third defendant in C. S. No. 536 of 2000 and by the fourth defendant in C. S. No. 532 of 2000 on the applican...
Economic Roadways Corporation, Madras, Through Its Partner Vs. Soundar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC13; 2003ACJ1158; AIR2001Mad212; (2001)1MLJ573
ORDER1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, passed in O.S.No.15 of 1985, dated 13.8.1987. The defendant is the appellant herein.2. The plaint averments are summarised as follows.The first plaintiff entrusted 140 bags of Special Combed Cotton 100% Hosiery Cone Yarn valued at Rs.2,55,500 to the defendant's branch at Dindigul on 30.6.1984 for safe carriage by road from Dindigul to Calcutta, to be delivered to the first plaintiff's depot-keeper M/s.Yarn Syndicate Limited, Calcutta. Having accepted the entrustment, the defendant's branch office at Dindigul issued Goods Consignment Note No.151-1816, dated 30.6.1984, confirming the contract of carriage. The first plaintiff insured the above consignments with the second plaintiff under Marine Open Policy to be compensated andindemnified by the second plaintiff against any probable loss that may occur during transit.3. The consignment reached the destination on 7.7.1984 in water damaged cond...
Ghulam Ghouse M. Vs. Vice Chancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ772Mad
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner herein is challenging the punishment awarded to him after a departmental enquiry. The said punishment was to cut off 7-1/2% of his pension. The petitioner, at the relevant time was working as a Deputy Registrar (Finance), Madurai Kamaraj University. On account of the indiscriminate expenditure having been made in one of the seminars held and on the basis of the report dated April 25, 1986 and May 31, 1986, in the preliminary enquiry, it was found that the explanation of the petitioner was unsatisfactory and therefore, a charge sheet came to be served on him.Though initially 11 charges were levelled against him and five charges out of these came to be dropped. During the enquiry which ensued, he was found guilty of all the charges. The charges for which he is found guilty are as follows:Charge No. 2It has been reported that there had been indiscriminate spending of money of the Institution in the conduct of the contact seminars. The Deputy Direct...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »