Chennai Court April 2002 Judgments

V.S.B. Educational Trust Rep. by Its Chairman, V.S Balsamy, Kangeyam, ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ642

ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. V.S.B. Educational Trust through its Chairman has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to process their application dated 07.08.2000, for grant of approval to establish V.S.B. Engineering College without insisting upon production of 'No objection Certificate' by the State Government during the academic year 2002-2003.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:V.S.B. Educational Trust - the petitioner herein is a Trust registered under the Trust Act. The Trust was formed for serving the educational need by establishing a self financing Engineering College. They submitted an application to the first respondent on 07.08.2000, seeking permission to establish a self financing Engineering College for the academic year 2002-2003 and simultaneously, the petitioner submitted a copy of the application to the State Government as well as to the concerned University. Pursuant to the said application, the Director of...

Shri Thirumalai Fisheries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Indian Bank, Triplicane Branc ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ487

ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. In this revision preferred under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Chennai dated 1.8.2001 and 8.2.2002 passed in O.A. No.1657 of 1998 and the petitioners seek to set aside the same.2. The respondent-Bank, instituted O.A. No.1657 of 1998 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, against the petitioners herein for a judgment and order against the petitioner for, (i) recovery of a sum of Rs.47,74,102.50 together with subsequent interest at 19.75% per annum with quarterly rest from the date of application till date of repayment, (ii) for recovery of the sum of Rs.56,315/= together with interest at 19.75% per annum with quarterly rest and for sale of the hypothecated machinery.3. The petitioners herein filed a reply statement and contested the application raising number of contentions including plea of bar of limitation, not liable to pay interest as claimed and the st...

Karunakaran Vs. Santha

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ366

ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. The Revision petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.76 of 1999 on the file of Sub Court, Cheyyar who challenges the order dated 20.9.2001 passed in I.A.No.235 of 2001 by the Sub Court, Cheyyar. 2. In the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner/first defendant was set export on 19.9.2000 and the first defendant came to know of the same only on 20.12.2000 and he has filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 19.9.2000. As there was a delay of 93 days in filing the petition under order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte decree, the defendant also filed an application to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in I.A.No.49 of 2001. The said application was posted on 8.8.2001 and the defendant neither represented in person nor through his advocate. Therefore, the petition filed by the defendant was dismissed on 8.8.2001.The first defendant filed another application in I.A.NO.235 of 2001 to ...

Fidelity Finance Ltd., Chennai Rep. by Its Law Officer Vs. Banking Omb ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2004]55SCL73(Mad)

ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner a company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, carrying on non banking finance activities engaged in hire purchase, lease, bill discounting and other financial service activities seek for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the respondent relating to letter No.BOS/T.N & P.A.N/1018, dated 15.12.1997.2. This court ordered notice of motion on 10.6.1998. The respondent entered appearance through Mr.J.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel, and also filed a counter. The petitioner subsequently filed a reply affidavit. The writ petition was taken up for hearing on 15.4.2002 with the consent of counsel for either side.3. The petitioner while complaining that Bank of Madura Limited failed to honour ILC No.3/94-95 also pointed out various omissions and commissions on the part of the Banker, and moved the respondent by lodging its complaint dated 11.11.1997. The complaint runs to 60 pages in all under various heads. I...

Kamal Kanwar Bafna and Vs. R.G. Trading Co., Rep. by Its Proprietor R. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ514

ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The two petitioners have joined together and filed the above revision petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 18.9.2001 and the subsequent adjournments in in M.P. No.519 of 2001 in RCA No.566 of 2000 on the file of the 8th Small Causes Court, Chennai.2. This Court admitted the revision and ordered notice on 19.11.2001. The contesting respondent entered appearance. The revision petition itself is taken up for hearing with the consent of counsel for either side.3. Heard Mr.P.Kandavelu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.V.Ragavachari and Mr. Narottam Jain for the respondent.4. The petitioners are the landlords, while the respondent is the tenant. The petitioners instituted RCOP No.1415 of 1999 seeking for an order or eviction on the ground that the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent. Pending the eviction petition, the petitioners moved a miscellaneo...

Rakiappan, Subramanian, Somaraj and Aarusamy Vs. State By: Inspector o ...

Court: Chennai

R. Balasubramanian, J.1. Accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.192 of 1997 on the file of Court of Sessions, Erode, are the appellants in this appeal. At the end of the trial, A.2 and A.3 were found guilty for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C.; A.1 and A.4 were found guilty for an offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. for which each one of the accused stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. A.2 and A.3 also stands convicted for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. for which each one of them stands sentenced to undergo nine years rigorous imprisonment. A.1 also stands convicted for the offence under section 307 read with 109 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The convicted accused are challenging their conviction as referred to above by filing this appeal. Heard Mr.V.K. Muthusamy, learned senior counsel appearing for A.1 and A.2, Mr. N. Jothi, learned counsel appearing for A.3 and A.4 and Mr. E. Raj...

P.S. Pandian Vs. Annai Velanganni Films Rep. by Its Partner Mrs. Savit ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ591

ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner. No representation on behalf of the respondents. 2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 4137 of 1996, filed for directing the respondents/defendants jointly and severally to pay the revision petitioner/ plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,74,110/- together with interest at 12% per annum on Rs.6,43,360/- from the date of plaint till the date of realisation and for costs, based on six promissory notes even dated 1.9.1983 for Rs.50,000/- each.3. The suit was resisted by the respondents/defendants, denying the very execution of the promissory notes, inter alia contending that no consideration was passed on the suit promissory notes. 4. To Substantiate their contention, the revision petitioner/plaintiff examined himself as P.W.2. Since in the cross-examination the signatures of the respondents/ defendants were strongly disputed, the revision petitioner/ plaintiff, on the very next day of...

A.B. Hassan, Vs. Sundari

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2002Mad342; (2002)2MLJ305

A. Kulasekaran, J. 1. First plaintiff and the legal representatives of the second and third plaintiff are the appellants. 2. The suit is for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:- The plaintiffs have been in occupation of the suit property for the past 30 years. Originally one Muniyammal was the Chief tenant of the suit property, the second plaintiff as sub-tenant was paying rents to her. Thereafter one Munisamy was receiving the rents from them. Subsequently, the landlord of the property one Kurshid Jahankan Baktcha leased out the property to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit property as tenants. The said Kurshid Jahankan Baktcha died leaving behind his son Mir Sulthan Mohideen as his legal heir. The plaintiffs have executed separate lease deeds in favour of the said Mir Sulthan Mohideen and the suit property is the vacant site over which they have raised the present superstructures. The defendant, without any right whatsoe...

M. Manikandan, Vs. Manonmaniam Sundarnar University Rep. by Registrara ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ593

ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. By consent of all the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioners who are students studying in S. Chattanatha Karayalar College, Tenkasi - second respondent herein, have approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to implement proceedings No. MSU/A/DC/2002 dated 11.03.2002, issued by the first respondent - Manonmaniam Sundaranar University and take back them in the College.3. According to the petitioners, they are studying in the second respondent's College. The second respondent expelled the petitioners vindictively, on representation from the petitioners, the first respondent University directed the second respondent College to take back the petitioners. The petitioners 1 to 3 are studying in second year B.Com., 4th petitioner is studying in second year B.Sc., Computer Science and the 5th petitioner is studying in second year B.Sc., Micro Biology. All of them have obtained goo...

The Roman Catholic Society of the Congregation of Daughters of Mary He ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ412Mad; (2002)2MLJ608

ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The petitioner/The Roman Catholic Society of the Congregation of Daughters of Mary Help of Christians, Kodambakkam, Madras 24 Fatima Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Kodambakkam, rep. by its Correspondent Rev. Sr. Susanna, has filed this writ petition, questioning the validity of the demand made by the respondents for the payment of Employees Provident Fund.2.The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, has stated that the institution, run by them, has been declared as a religious Minority Institution of the Roman Catholic faith coming under the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The religious order consists of Nuns, who have taken the vows, chastity, poverty and obedience and have renounced the worldly life and have devoted their lives to the service of God. As part of the service, most of them are working in different walks of life and some of them are serving as teachers in the Fatima Matriculation Higher...