Chennai Court February 2002 Judgments
V.R. Venkatachalam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ575
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the proceedings of the first respondent in G.O.Ms .No. 148 Home (Cinema) Department dated 26.2.2001 of the second respondent made in Cinema Appeal No. 10 of 2000 D.Dis.L. dated 17.7.2000 and of the third respondent dated 13.12.1999 and quash the proceedings of the respondent 1 to 3 dated 26-02-2001, 17.7.2000 and 13.12.1999 respectively to include the name of the petitioner and the fourth respondent in 'C' form Licence and grant renewal of the same in respect of the Star Talkies, Triplicane High Road, Chennai - 600 005.2. Heard both sides...It is the case of the petitioner that Star Talkies is located in door No. 40 and 41, Triplicane High Road, Chennai. The theater is located in Door No. 40 and Door No.41 has been used as parking area for the above theatre. The lands comprised in Door No.41 is absolutely owned by the petitioner and in Door No. 40, the petitioner is owning...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sivapalani Vs. S. Muruvappan and M. Selvaraj Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ239
A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. The first defendant in O.S.No.189 of 2001 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge at Pondicherry has preferred the present appeal aggrieved against the order made in I.A.No.1238 of 2001 dated 21.06.2001.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to pass an interim injunction restraining the 1st defendant and his men from in any way interfering with the day-to-day routine works connected with the control and management of the partnership business carried on under the firm name 'MURUGANS' and the premises bearing door No.265, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Pondicherry till the disposal of the suit. During 1978, the father / second defendant started a joint family business in textiles by name 'Sarada Silk House' in partnership. During 1981, the 2nd defendant entered into partnership with the plaintiff and started another textile concern 'Sarathas' in Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Pondicherry....
Tag this Judgment!Dr. R. Shakila and ors. Vs. Dr. S. Krishnaraj and ors. Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad307; (2002)1MLJ714
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. 1. These two Writ Appeal Nos. 1862 and 1924 of 2001 are preferred against the orders of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein. The matter relates to the admission to M. D. S. course in Mahatma Gandhi Dental College and Hospital, Accepting the contention of the writ petitioners that they are entitled to admission to the said course from the waiting list, in which their names stood as Nos. 1 and 2, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition.2. In W. A. No. 1862 of 2001, the affected candidate is the appellant while in the other writ appeal, the Board of Governors of the College as also the College, are the appellants the parties are referred to as arryed in W. A. No. 1862 of 2001.3. For Academic Year 2001-2002. applications were called for, for admission to M. D. S. course by notification dated 11-4-2001, six seats were notified and out of the same. three were set apart for Pondlcherry domiciles, two f...
Tag this Judgment!Kannammal Vs. Balaraman and Govindaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ110
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the lower Appellate Court has filed the above Appeal. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and for injunction with respect to the suit property. According to the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 dated 11-10-1949 her husband Marimuthu purchased the property in the name of one Kannammal, the first wife of Marimuthu. The said property solely belongs to late Marimuthu and the same was purchased benami in the name of his first wife Kannammal. Subsequently, the said property was settled by Marimuthu under Ex.A.12 dated 05-09-1972 giving her life interest and her children were given the absolute right in the said property. 3. The defendants who are the children of Kannammal, the first wife of Marimuthu, contested the suit contending inter-alia that the said property was purchased by their mother out of her own funds and in alternative they have come forward with the plea that even if it is held that it is purchased by Marimuthu in the nam...
Tag this Judgment!Nityanandam Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Nib; Cid, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2342
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Nithyanandam, the appellant herein, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) read with 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentence to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, has filed this appeal. 2. The short facts leading tot he conviction are as follows:'(a) P.W.3 Kalidhasan, the Sub Inspector of Police, NIB CID received the information Ex.P4 on 22.9.1993 at about 11.15 P.M. regarding the offenders involving in the possession of heroin at Periyamedu. He recorded the same in Ex.P5 and sent it to P.W.5,the Inspector of Police, NIB CID. Then, he proceeded to the spot for surveillance at the junction of Naval Hospital Road and E.V.R. Periyar Road at Periyamedu. He secured the help of one Jayakumar P.W.4 to be as a witness for search. (b) P.W.3 and Head Constable P.W.1 along with P.W.4 were watching the movements of the offenders. At that time, i.e. on 23.9.1993 early morning, they found two persons including the appellant wal...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. N.M. Associates
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Mad)385
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.The question referred to us is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the profits in respect of hotel contract should be, computed on project completion method ?'2. The following facts will highlight the grievance.The assessee is in the business of building and construction. It is an unregistered firm. It takes contracts for construction. During the assessment year 1984-85, the assessing authority found that there were no accounts much less proper accounts maintained by the assessee. In the returns, initially a loss of Rs 21,557 was shown and thereafter by another return, a loss of Rs. 24,935 was shown. The assessee-firm used to take small contracts as well as big contracts At the relevant time, there were some small contracts which were completed more or less in a year or some times spilled over an year, while there was one big contract worth Rs. 30 lakhs for construction of a hotel, which was t...
Tag this Judgment!Quality Enterprises, Kamaraj Salai, Saram, Pondicherry Vs. the Additio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: [2002]127STC504(Mad)
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the respondent, dated 19.10.1994.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated as follows: The petitioner is a partnership firm. It is an assessee under the Pondicherry General Sales Act, 1967. The petitioner company is a distributor for the goods manufactured by M/s. Space Tech Plastics Private Limited in Tamil Nadu who have a local branch office and godown at Pondicherry. The petitioner company buys the products at Pondicherry. Space Tech Plastics raises invoices of sale at Pondicherry, effects deliveries and collects prices at Pondicherry. The petitioner does not place orders directly to the factory at Tamil Nadu. Manufacturers Collect local tax of 3% under Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act and the petitioner is a second seller. Accordingly, the petitioner claims second sale exemption which was granted by the authorities at Pondicherry. While ...
Tag this Judgment!D. Ramasamy Vs. the Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR72]; (2003)ILLJ361Mad
ORDER1. The present petition is filed by an employee, who is being refused hispayment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act.2. Initially, the authority concerned had found him entitled to thepayment of gratuity of Rs.7,007/- on the basis of eight years service renderedby him to the organisation Salem Refractories Private Limited. It is anadmitted position that this petitioner has actually served the organisationfor eight years. It is also an admitted position that he was being paid anhonorarium of Rs.1,735/- per month and that after eight years of service, heresigned from the organisation. The payment of gratuity having been refusedto him, he approached the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act and asstated earlier, the first authority found him entitled. However, in anappeal, the appellate authority took the view that since he was paidhonorarium and since he was a retired employee (from other organisation), hewas not an employee within the meaning of Section 2(e) of th...
Tag this Judgment!Dakshinamoorthy and ors. Vs. Union of Territory of Pondicherry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2359
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioners are accused in S.C. No. 3 of 1999 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry and they seek for setting aside the order passed in Cri. M.P. No. 368 of 2001 in S.C. No. 3 of 1999, dated 10-12-2001 on his file.2. Briefly, the facts stated in the petition are as follows. The petitioners are charged for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 447, 448, 427, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of Criminal Penal Code in S.C. No. 3 of 1999 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondhichery. The respondent had examined 40 witnesses and the evidence was closed and the case was posted for further proceeding under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code on 20-11 -2001. The questions were not ready on that day and the petitioners, on the same day, filed a memo in Cri. M.P. No. 368 of 2001 praying for furnishing with all the circumstances that appear in the evidence against them in order to en...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ramakrishnan Vs. S. Mallikarjuna Raju and M. Ramasamy Raju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ734
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The plaintiff filed O.S.Nos.49/96 and 107/98 impleadingthe appellant as 1st defendant and 2nd defendant respectivelyseeking a decree for declaration that the suit property belongsto the joint family excluding Ramasami Raju, the 2nd defendant inO.S.No.49/96 and for possession. The plaintiff/1st respondentclaims that he is the manager of the joint family and the saidRamasami Raju got himself divided after receiving money towards his share in the joint family property. According to theplaintiff, the appellant/Ramakrishnan had been in possession of the suit property as a tenant. He obtained a sale deed from thesaid Ramasami Raju on 3.3.89 with respect to the shops bearing Door Nos.148 and 151. But, according to the plaintiff, the saidsale deed will not bind on the joint family, as the said RamasamiRaju has no right to sell the said property.2.Insofar as O.S.No.107/98 is concerned, it is the caseof the plaintiff that the 1st defendant Ramu alias Ramayee wasthe tenant a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »