Chennai Court April 2002 Judgments
Regional Manager, L.i.C. of India, Thanjavur Vs. John Bosco,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad348; (2002)2MLJ321
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The revision petitioner is the third defendant in O.S.No.17 of 1995 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, laid by the first respondent/decree holder for recovery of money against the respondents 2 and 3 impleading the revision petitioner as third defendant in the suit and attaching the money payable by the third defendant towards the policy held by one Xavier (deceased), namely, father of the respondents 2 and 3. Even though the said policy of the deceased Xavier was initially attached and the suit was decreed against the respondent 2 and 3, the same was dismissed against the third defendant/revision petitioner herein by decree dated 29.11.1996. 2. However, the first respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.17 of 1995 initiated execution proceedings in E.P.No.106 of 1999 and proposed to attach the policy amount payable to the said Xavier (deceased), impleading the revision petitioner/third defendant as a garnishee. The revision petition...
Tag this Judgment!Mehta Unani Pharmacy and Co., Amrutamanthan House, Chhatralaya Road, S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ494
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The appeals filed are against the judgment of the learned single Judge who has given the declaration that had been sought by the plaintiff Amrutanjan Limited against the appellants in O.S.A. No.364 of 1997 - Mehta Unani Pharmacy & Company and Mehta Unani Pharmacy & Company Private Limited, who were the defendants in that suit, that the claim made by the defendants that they are exclusive owners of the expression 'Cold Rub' is unjustifiable and has injuncted them permanently from threatening the plaintiff by issuing memos, circulars, advertisements or notices, directly or indirectly declaring that the expression 'Cold Rub' shall not be used by anyone.2. The threat which the plaintiff had alleged to be groundless has been held out in the advertisement issued in 'Times of India' dated 06.09.1986 by the defendants in the suit. That notice titled `CAUTION NOTICE', after referring to the fact that the defendants in the suit who were the owners of the registered trade ...
Tag this Judgment!Soundaraessane @ SoundaressIn @ Soundaraju Reptd. by His Power of Atto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ310
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Aggrieved by an order dated 6.12.2000 made in I.A.No.531 of 2000, refusing to permit the revision petitioner/defendant to file an additional written statement in a suit in O.S.No.73 of 1999, filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs for declaring that the first respondent/first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner/defendant and the respondents-2 and 3/plaintiffs-2 and 3 are the legitimate sons of the revision petitioner/ defendant and for costs, the defendant has filed the above revision.2. In brief, the respondents/plaintiffs claim that the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff married one Soundaraju on 4.12.1955 and the respondents-2 and 3/plaintiffs-2 and 3 were born to them on 9.10.1956 and 12.6.1962 respectively. As the status of relationship of Soundaraju with the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff as husband and wife and the relationship of Soundaraju with respondents-2 and 3/ plaintiffs-2 and 3 as father and sons were disputed, the respondents/p...
Tag this Judgment!Sekar Vs. Management of Jeeva Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ747Mad
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J. 1. The least that is expected of a Corporation like the respondent is fairness in dealing with the employees, if not compassion. The records in this case prove that the Corporation has neither been fair nor compassionate. 2. The petitioner joined the tyre plant of the respondent-Corporation on April 16, 1984. There was a fire accident on September 3, 1984 in the tyre plant. Though there was no loss of life, the petitioner was injured in the fire and he was treated as an in-patient in the Government Hospital and thereafter in a private nursing home. The records show that the injuries were sustained at 6.15 A.M. at the Ramanathapuram Tyre Plant of the Jeeva Transport Corporation, which is the respondent-Corporation. This is affirmed by the accident register, dated September 3, 1984. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the accident had occurred in the employment.3. The petitioner recovered, and was given employment in the Kangeyam depot of the respondent-C...
Tag this Judgment!T. Amutham Anthony Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ298
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition, challenging the order of the Government made in G.O.Ms.No.1562 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 24.12.1990 in making allotment to the fourth respondent pursuant to G.O.R.No.1390 Industries, Labour and Co-operation Department dated 10.10.1961 published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette Part II Section 1 dated 01.11.1961 in publishing the notification under Section 4(1) of the land Acquisition Act and G.O.Ms.No.4839 Industries, Labour and Co-operation (Housing) Department, dated 13.10.1965 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee Part II Section 1 dated 17.11.1965 in publishing the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued by the first respondent herein and to quash all the Government orders referred above in sofaras Survey No.207/13 Part, Thirumangalam Village and patta No.176 of West Madras Neighbourhood Scheme, Plot No.2155 measuring an extent of 18 cents and forbear the respond...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kamaraj, Vs. Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by Its Secretary Revenue ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad311; [2002]108CompCas610(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issue raised in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order.2. S. Kamaraj, has filed W.P.No.2109 of 2002 seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with his lawful possession of the building in Door No.10/780 to 7783 in Survey No.348/1 in Pavoorchatram Village, Kulasekarapatti, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District.3. In W.P.No.2401 of 2002, V. Shanmugam and 16 others joined together and prayed for similar relief as claimed in W.P.No.2109 of 2002.4. The case of the petitioners is briefly stated hereunder:According to the petitioners, they were in occupation of 32 cents of land in Survey No.348/1 in Pavoorchatram Village, Kulasekarapatti, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District. The land in question was in occupation of the petitioners and their predecessors for more than 50 years. The 4th respondent - Kulasekarapatti Panchayat collected ground rent for the land occ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal and Balambal Vs. Ambiga,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ365
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The first respondent in this revision petition, who is the second plaintiff in the suit, filed an application for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take the L.T.I. Of the first defendant in the open Court and also to take the same along with the L.T.I. found in the sale deed dated 28.5.1985 in a sealed cover to be examined by the Finger Print Expert of Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai and the said petition was allowed by the trial Court by an order dated 5.10.2001 and the said order is being questioned in this revision petition. 2. The only contention that has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purposes of taking the L.T.I. of the first respondent and also the L.T.I. available in the sale deed dated 28.5.1995. But on the other hand, the concerned person from the Forensic Science Department can come to the Court and take photograph of the L.T.I. of the first defendant and als...
Tag this Judgment!N. Narayani Sopana Proprietrix Parameswar Cashew Company, Kaliakkavila ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ294
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The Plaintiffs are the appellants in these second appeals. The suits in O.S. No. 690 and 714 of 1986 were filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the bye-law No. 2 (v) (b) of the Kanyakumari Market Committee is invalid and void, to declare that plaintiffs' right to transport the cashew kernals from places outside Kanyakumari District into Kanyakumari District and to transport the cashew kernels from Kanyakumari District to places outside Kanyakumari District and to transport the Cashew kernels between the factories of the plaintiff in Kanyakumari District without having any liability to pay any market fee or other fee to the defendant and without having any liability to get any permit for the transport of the cashew kernels and for an injunction to restrain the defendant and the officials under them from stopping the vehicles and collecting any market fee or other fee on the transport of cashew kernels effected by the plaintiffs from places outside Kanyakumari...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager Personal Banking Division State Bank of India, Madras, Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ280
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioners in the revision and the appellants in the appeal are the defendants in O.S.No.4423 of 1987 on the file of the learned IV Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, laid by the respondent for passing a decree and judgment based on the three fixed deposits that were alleged to have been matured on 13.2.1987, 15.2.1987 and 8.2.1987.2. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to as per their rank in the suit.3. The suit filed by the plaintiff, viz. O.S.No.4423 of 1987 was dismissed for default on 13.7.1990. Hence, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.18390 of 1990 for restoration of the suit under Order IX, Rule 9, CPC. The learned IV Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, allowed I.A.No.18390 of 1990 and restored the suit on 27.2.1992. Thereafter, an exparte decree was passed in the above suit on 29.1.1993, pursuant to which the plaintiff initiated execution proceedings in E.P.No.3469 of 1993. After service of notice in the execution proceedings, the defendant...
Tag this Judgment!G. Rangaswamy Vs. Coimbatore Pioneer Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas829(Mad)
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The revision petitioner has suffered an order under Section 630 of the Companies Act, [1956] ('the Act') in S.T.C. No. 594 of 1995 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Coimbatore, which was affirmed in C.A. No. 96 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. That order came to be passed on a complaint filed under Section 630 by the respondent herein. Heard Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. V. Gopinath, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.2. The following are the five items mentioned in the said complaint, which according to the complainant, the accused was wrongfully holding :(1) FUGI Automatic Gas Analyser(2) Compaq Note Book Computer Sl. No. 7326HG 54819(3) ORTEM Computer LX 05 PC with built-in-software Sl. No. A03135(4) Hindustan Contessa car bearing Regn. No. PY 01B 7155 with tools and Registration Certificate(5) Diesel Generator of 62....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »