Chennai Court April 2001 Judgments
i. Dharmapaul Vs. D. Chandrasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas518(Mad)
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.1. This criminal original petition is to call for records in C.C. No. 433 of 1998 pending on the file of the judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin, and quash the same.2. This criminal original petition has arisen in this way.The respondent Chandrasekaran instituted a private complaint against the petitioner and two other persons alleging that they have committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. According to the respondent, the petitioner and one Beryl borrowed Rs. 80,000 from the respondent on May 6, 1998, for running a company. The petitioner herein and Beryl were actively engaged in running the affairs of the company. Beryl and the petitioner are the directors of the company. After borrowing, one of the directors Beryl had issued a post-dated cheque for Rs. 80,000 drawn on Pandiyan Grama Bank, Tuticorin. The date of the cheque is July 6, 1998. When the cheque was sent forcollection on July 6, 1998, it was returned on the same...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppiah S. and ors. Vs. Chennai Dock Labour Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ715Mad
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Madras Unregistered Dock General Pool Workers Scheme, 1988 as also the Madras Unregistered; Dock Clearing and Forwarding Workers' Scheme, 1998 both of which are framed under Section 4(1) of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, fixes the age of retirement of those governed by the scheme as 58 years. It is so provided by Clause 21 and Clause 18(1)(b) of the respective schemes. The appellant workmen who are governed by those schemes accepted the offer made by the Dock Labour Board to list their names under the schemes, which offer contained an express stipulation that the age of retirement will be 58 years.2. They, however, approached this Court nine years after the notification of the scheme when their retirement on attaining the age of 58 years was intimated to them, challenging the employer's right to retire them at that age. They contend that by reason of Clauses 41(3) and 38(3) respectively of the two schemes which, inter alia, provide that not...
Tag this Judgment!Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sowriammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ706; (2001)3MLJ82
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. The respondent in the O.P. is the appellant herein. The respondent herein filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000.2. The case of the claimants is as follows:On 6.6.1993 at about 4 p.m. in the Tiruchirapalli-Viralimalai Road, the deceased John Maria Joseph was riding his cycle from north to south and when he was nearing Nagamangalam, the respondent bus by overtaking another bus coming from the opposite direction dashed against his cycle, as a result of which the deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries all over the body and after being admitted in the hospital, he died. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent driver. The deceased was 50 years old at the time of the accident. He was earning Rs. 50 per day working as a coolie.3. The case of the respondent is as follows:The place of occurrence is a main road running from north to south and a branch road leading to Kaliyamangalam village towards east and that th...
Tag this Judgment!A. Sarabanu Vs. A.M.A. Asmathullah (Died) by His L.Rs. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ408
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The second plaintiff is the appellant. The appellant and the 12th respondent failed O.S. No. 100 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge. Tirunelveli on 25.3.1978 for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs 13/24th share in the suit schedule properties and for directing the first respondent herein to pay the plaintiffs 13/24th share on the future mesne profits from the date of plaint till the date of partition of their share.2. As per the plant averments, the suit properties comprising of two houses, originally belonged to one Hameeda who was the first wife of the first defendant and who left two daughters namely the appellant herein and one other daughter by name Firoz Banu. The first plaintiff/12th respondent herein is one of the sisters of late Hameeda. Smt.Hameeda had one other sister by name Lateefa who died in 1972. The respondents 5 to 9 are the heirs of Lateefa. On the death of late Smt. Hameeda, the suit properties devolved upon th...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishnan Vs. Vinayaka Chits Represented by Its Foreman Ayyadurai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ155
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order in E.A.No. 133 of 1997 in E.P.No. 161 of 1994 in Chit Case No. 14 of 1993, dated 30.11.1999 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thanjavur.2. The facts leading to the filing of the civil revision petition are, the first respondent in the civil revision petition is carrying on chit business and the petitioner has taken a chit for a sum of Rs. 45,700. The petitioner did not pay the chit amount, which led the first respondent herein to file a petition for arbitration before the Joint Sub Registrar-I, (Chit Arbitrator), Thanjavur claiming the chit arrears of Rs. 30,000. The petitioner herein did not appear before the Arbitrator and an ex parte decree was passed by the Arbitrator on 7.12.1993. The first respondent herein filed E.P.No. 161 of 1994 in Chit Case No. 14 of 1993 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, for execution of the award obtained by it for a sum of Rs. 30,000 with ...
Tag this Judgment!Laljivora Vs. Srividya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad376; (2001)2MLJ481
ORDER1. The above civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order and decree dated 6.11.2000 made in I.A.No.67 of 2000 in O.S.No.435 of 1996on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur. The 6th defendant in the suit is the civil revision petitioner. The respondent filed a suit seeking for a relief of declaration of several sale deeds executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the defendants 3 to 10 on various dates are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs since the suit was valued under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court fees and Suit Valuation Act (Act XIV of 1955) hereinafter called as 'The Act'. According to the petitioner who was the 6th defendant in the suit, the suit ought to have been valued under Section 40 of the Act and if the suit is valued under Section 40 of the Act, the Court fees should be paid on the market value of the suit property and in such event the learned District Munsif, Melur may not have the jurisdiction. Therefore, the 6th defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance Industries Limited Rep. by Reliance Consultancy Services Limi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ734
ORDER1. The petitioner is the defendant against whom an ex parte decree was passed. The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal to set aside the ex parte decree. The respondent filed O.S.No.5852 of 1997 for a declaration that she is a lawful owner of the Schedule mentioned shares and for a permanent injunction and for other reliefs. An ex parte decree was passed on 12.1.1998. The petitioner filed the application to set aside the ex parte decree on 1.3.1999 with a delay of 421 days. The reason given for the delay was not accepted by the Court below. Therefore, the civil revision petition is filed.2. Mr. V.Natraj, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the short cause title shows the address of the petitioner at 56, Mogra Village Lane, Andheri (E), Bombay 400 069. But actually the address is at Nariman point, Bombay 21 and therefore,, they did not have the knowledge of the ex partedecree immediately and had filed the application after they received information of the passing of...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Parthasarathy Naidu and Another Vs. K. Rama Naidu and 7 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad399; (2001)2MLJ779
ORDER1. The plaintiffs in the two suits have filed the second appeals. O.S.No.1125 of 1991 was filed by one Benedict, the appellant in S.A.No.1311 of 2000 for injunction restraining the first respondent Rama Naidu from alienating the suit property and for other reliefs. The suit was dismissed and so was the appeal A.S.No.108 of 1999 and therefore, the second appeal has been filed, one S.K. Parthasarathy Naidu filed O.S.No.5006 of 1996 for a decree that the partnership of the plaintiff and the defendants to carry on the business of laying out and selling the property may be dissolved as and from the date of the suit, for accounts and other reliefs. The defendant was the same Rama Naidu referred to above. Benedict was the second defendant in this suit. The suit was dismissed. Against this, both S.K. Parthasarathy Naidu and Benedict jointly filed A.S.No.109 of 1999. This was dismissed. Therefore, S.A.No.499 of 2000 has been filed. O.S.No.5006 of 1996 is the comprehensive suit. So referenc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Simco Meters Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR46(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of meters used for the measurement of electricity, which are three kinds, namely, (1) single phase meters. (2) poly phase meters, and (3) maximum demand indication 2 part meter. The assessee claimed the benefit of development rebate as provided under Section 33(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act,1961. Section 33 of the Income-tax Act allows development rebate in the case of machinery or plant installed for the purpose of the business of construction, manufacture or production of any one or more of the articles or things specified in the list in the Fifth Schedule. Section 33(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, states : 'In respect of a new ship or new machinery or plant (other than office appliances or road transport vehicles) which is owned by the asses-see and is wholly used for the purposes of the business carried on by him, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section and of Section 34, be allowed...
Tag this Judgment!S. Janakiraman Vs. Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Minis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad5
ORDER1. In W.P.No.7946 of 2001, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as ultra vires, illegal, void ab-initio and has to be struck down as unconstitutional.2. In W.P.No.7947 of 2001 the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent, Chief Election Commissioner, dated 28.8.1997 and to quash the same.3. The writ petitioner was a Scale-1 Officer of the State Bank of India, who had served nearly for three decades. During October, 1990 when he was stationed at the Air Port complex extension counter, State Bank of India, there was a sudden inspection by the Enforcement officials and as an outcome of the said inspection, a case was registered against, the petitioner by Enforcement officials for alleged violation of certain provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Pursuant to the complaint, the petitioner wad convicted and a fine of Rs. 4...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »