Chennai Court April 2001 Judgments
Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagadeesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)142
ORDER1. The petitioner and respondent in CRL.R.C.Nos. 118 and 119 of 2001 are one and the same. The petitioner is the complainant in C.C.Nos.561 and 562 of 1999 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The learned Magistrate after holding the accused/respondent guilty of an offence under section 138 of negotiable Instruments Act chose to impose the sentence of imprisonment till the raising of the court and a sentence of fine of Rs.5,000, in default to suffer S.I. for two weeks in both the cases. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of sentence, these revisions have been filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence and to order compensation to the complainant.2. The amount involved in two cheques issued by the respondent in the case relating to C.C.No.561 of 1999 is Rs.1,80,000 and the three cheques involved in C.C.No. 562 of 1999 are for an amount of Rs.2,70,000. The main grievance of the petitioner in both the cases is that though the cheques were issued for Rs...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ching Chyang Ching, Voter, Tax Payer and Educationist Vs. the Chief ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad378
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. This petitioner alleged to be a resident of Cuddalore, has filed this PIL writ petition seeking to disqualify the fourth respondent. Dr. J. Jayalalitha. from contesting in Legislatue/ Parliament/Local Body elections in India for a period of six years. The petitioner has made several allegations against the fourth respondent and submitted that she had been convicted after a fair trial by the Special Court. It is submitted that the fourth respondent was totally unfit to file nominations and she may not disclose the information about her conviction in her nomination papers. It is also submitted that she would take advantage of the leniency of Courts to obtain stay orders at the time of elections and his request for the announcement of disqualification should be made immediately by the Election Commission. Therefore, he has prayed to direct the first three respondents to take necessary immediate steps in public interest to disqualify the fourth respondent from contesting ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Giri and ors. Vs. Y.S. Mathivanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas58(Mad); 2001CriLJ4033
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.1. The petitioner has come forward with the instant criminal original petition to call for the records in C. C. No. 287 of 2000, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Erode, and quash the same.2. This criminal original petition has arisen in this way :3. The respondent, Y.S. Mathivanan, filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, alleging that one Jayalakshmi was the President of Sri Amman Trust, that the trust was running educational institutions like schools and colleges. For the purpose of running the institutions, for and on behalf of Sri Amman Trust, Jayalakshmi borrowed Rs. 30,00,000 from the respondent, who is a financier, on April 6, 2000 and issued two post-dated cheques bearing Nos. 046133 for Rs. 20,00,000 and 046134 for Rs. 10,00,000. The cheques were dated April 12, 2000. The respondent/complainant sent the cheques for collection to the bank on April 12, 2000, but they were returned on the same...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Dr. Nagarathinam Vs. M. Kalirajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3007
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Before pronouncing the order in this application for quashing on merits, this Court cannot but record a note of anguish over the conduct of Mr. O. Venkatachalam, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.2. The details leading to the above observation are given under.3. M. Kalirajan, the respondent herein filed a complaint on 22-10-1998 in C.C. No. 455 of 1999 before the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Madurai against Tmt. Nagarathinam, the petitioner herein, the retired Chief Doctor as Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai, stating that she committed the offence of defamation under Section 500, I.P.C. by sending the lawyer notice containing the defamatory remarks.4. On receipt of summons, the said Tmt. Dr. Nagarathinam filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. in Crl. O.P. No. 6815 of 1999 for quashing the above proceeding and the same was entertained and stay and notice was ordered by this C...
Tag this Judgment!Salem District Sound System Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(131)ELT6(Mad); 2006[2]STR383; [2007]6STT267
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed at the instance of an Association called Salem District Sound System Association, represented by its Secretary Mr.V. Perumal. The said Association has about 348 members. The claim of the petitioner in paragraph 2 of the petition is as follows : -'The petitioners Association members are providing sound system to the members of the public and not any other service apart from sound system. There are 348 members in the petitioner Association and all the members are doing only sound system to the public as and when they are required.(emphasis supplied).2. By the instant petition, the petitioner Association challenges a notice, dated 25-9-1997, sent to the Association by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Division, Salem-4, vide C. No. IV/16/148/97-STC. By the said notice, the Assistant Commissioner, who is the 3rd respondent herein, has invited the attention of the Association to Section 88 of the Finance Ac...
Tag this Judgment!V. Madhu @ C.V. Maathesh Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(134)ELT37(Mad)
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. Heard, Mr. Jayachandran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and of Mr. K. Veeraraghavan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.2. With the consent of parties on either side the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner had come before this court seeking for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the show cause notice C. No. V/52/15/160/2000, CX. Adj. dated 25-7-2000 and quash the same as one without jurisdiction and illegal.4. At the outset, it has been pointed out that the petitioner had come before this Court as against the show cause notice. Mr. Jayachandran contends that the show cause notice has been issued not only to the petitioner, but also another third party and such a show cause notice cannot be issued in terms of the Central Excise Act, and reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Music Time Electro Cottage v. Un...
Tag this Judgment!Kareem Vs. Abbas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas273(Mad)
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J. 1. This criminal original petition has arisen in this way : The respondent preferred a private eomplaint against the petitioner and two others arraying the petitioner as third accused. According to the respondent/complainant, the first accused is a firm and accused Nos. 2 and 5 are the partners of the firm. Towards purchase of goat skins from the complainant, on behalf of the first accused firm, the second accused issued a post-dated cheque dated April 27, 1998, for Rs. 4,031,715, drawn on Canara Bank, Park Town Branch, Madras. When the complainant presented the cheque through his Bankets for collection during July, 1998, the cheque bounced with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Again, he had presented the cheque on August 1, 1998, but the cheque was returned on August 5, 1998, with a similar endorsement. Therefore, the complainant issued a statutory notice demanding payment within fifteen days on August 18, 1998. Accused Nos, I and 2 received the notice o...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR866]; (2002)ILLJ520Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the first respondent dated March 18, 1996, passed in C.P. Nos. 141 to 366 of 1995, 600 to 603 of 1995 and 7 and 8 of 1996, computing the relief payable to respondents Nos. 2 to 221 by way of wages for the period July 1, 1993, to April 30, 1994. Respondents Nos. 2 to 221 filed C.P. Nos. 141 to 366 of 1994, 600 to 603 of 1995, 7 and 8 of 1996 on the file of the first respondent claiming wages for the period July 1, 1993, to April 30, 1994, bonus for the year 1992-93 and interim relief.2. The said claim was resisted by the petitioner contending that the application filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 221 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was not maintainable, that the closure of the 'B' mills and the preparatory section of the 'A' mills was inevitable, that when the Commissioner of Labour by his order dated September 16, 1992, rejected the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!T. Krishnan Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2986
ORDERK. Natarajan, J.1. The criminal O.P. has been filed to direct the respondents to register the complaint dated 29-6-2000, investigate the same and file the final report, in accordance with law.2. The short facts are: On 12-5-1997 one K. Karnan and Alangarammal, wife of Late Arunachalam, entered into a registered agreement with the petitioner for sale of the immovable property situated in Ramapuram Village in Survey No. 202/3, to an extent of 1570 sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs. One Lakh. She received an advance of Rs. 90,000/- and the balance amount Rs. 10000/- was to be paid at the time of registration. Differences arose between the parties as the vendors entered into an agreement of sale with some other third party in respect of the same property. A notice was issued to execute the sale deed as per the registered agreement, failing which, the vendors were informed that a suit for specific performance would be filed.3. On 29-6-2000 at 6.30 pm, the vendors along with other...
Tag this Judgment!Airlines Agents Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2001
Reported in: 2006[3]STR3
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. These writ petitions are filed by Airlines Agents Association, Chennai and some Air Travel Agents. The petitioners pray for a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ or order in the nature of writ by declaring the provisions contained in Section 65(3) and Section 67(k) of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended in the year 1996 and Rule 2(d)(viii) of Service Tax Rules as amended in the as unconstitutional and void.2. During the year 1994, the then Union Finance Minister proposed to levy tax on the 'services' provided by the non-life insurance agents, stock brokers, telephone bills, etc. By and by, other service sectors like 'consulting engineers', 'customs house agents', 'steamer agents', 'clearing and forwarding agents', 'advertising agencies' and many others came to be added and brought into the tax-net. The services provided by the 'Air Travel Agents' came to be brought into the tax-net by way of an amendment of Section 65 of the Finance Act. The 'chargi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »