Chennai Court April 2002 Judgments
Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. Acce and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(102)LC513(Madras)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Naseer Abdullah, Advocate for the petitioner the court made the following orders:2. There will be an interim stay restraining the respondents from demanding over and above the amount which the petitioner had availed of as Cenvat Duty (that is Central Value Added Tax). Notice to the respondents returnable by 4 weeks....
Tag this Judgment!Rukmani Vs. Ranganayaki
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ205
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. By consent of both the counsel the C.R.P. itself is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner is the second defendant in O.S. No. 36 of 1990 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore. The respondent herein filed the said suit for partition and allotment of half share in the plaint schedule properties. In the said suit an ex parte preliminary decree was passed as early as 29.4.1992. The petitioner filed LA. No. 2420 of 1996 to condone the delay of 1590 days in filing the petition under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. and for setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree stating that her husband who was the first defendant in the suit died on 4.11.1992. He was looking after the case and further her counsel also died. Hence the petitioner was not aware about the ex parte decree and she came to know about the same on 24.8.1996 only when she received the notice in I.A. No. 1901 of 1996 filed by the respondent for passing the final decree. Immediatel...
Tag this Judgment!Sivagami, Vs. Narayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ237
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. What is challenged herein is an order of the learned District Munsif, Sankari, allowing an application filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking for amendment of the plaint.2. It was a suit filed by the respondent herein for declaration of title and for other reliefs. It is an admitted position that the necessary issues were framed, and the parties went on trial, and the trial was also over. The case was posted for hearing the arguments of both sides. At that time, the instant application for amendment was filed. The said application for amendment was allowed. Challenging the said order, the defendants have brought forth this revision.3. After careful consideration of the rival submissions and the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application for amendment and the original pleadings in the plaint and the amendment now sought to be introduced, the court is of the view that the order of the court below was plainly erroneous, and that the c...
Tag this Judgment!P.G. Sadasivam Vs. Andavar Electrical Distributions Rep. by Its Partne ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ234
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. No representation on behalf of the respondent. 2. Aggrieved by an order dated 6.2.2001 made in I.A.No. 13937 of 2000, filed under Order 37 Rule 5, C.P.C., refusing to permit the revision petitioner/4th defendant to defend the suit in O.S.No. 1732 of 2000, laid by the respondent/plaintiff claiming a sum of Rs. 82,960/- under Order 37 Rule 1, the 4th defendant has preferred the above revision. 3. According to the revision petitioner/4th defendant, the suit cheques were misused by the other defendants and the plaintiff. 4. In this regard, I am obliged to refer Order 37 Rule 5, which reads as follows: ' The defendant may, at any time within ten days from the service of such summons for judgment, by affidavit or otherwise disclosing such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, apply on such summons for leave to defend such suit, and leave to defend may be granted to him unconditionally or upon such terms as may appear to the Court or Judge to b...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Ziauddeen Vs. S. Ashok Kumar, Principal Sessions Judge, (Residing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ74
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Quo Warranto against the first respondent, who is a District Judge, on the ground thathe got into the post of District Judge as a Scheduled Caste even thoughhe is not a Scheduled Caste and is a C tian.2. The petitioner is a practising advocate and submits thata post of District Judge was notified in the year 1987, that the saidpost, according to roster, was reserved for Scheduled Caste, that thefirst respondent, even though belonging to C faith, had falsely claimedthe status of Scheduled Caste, applied for the said post, got selectedand then is performing the functions of District Judge, that he was notand is not a Scheduled Caste even now, that he is a Christian and isstill practisin g Christian faith not only himself but also his wife,children and all other family members and that he should forthwith beinterdicted from acting any further as a District Judge.3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent.The seco...
Tag this Judgment!A. Mahesh, Vs. K.K. College of Pharmacy Rep. by Its Principal/Correspo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC657
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, by consent of parties, both the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common order.2. The petitioners in W.P.No.4248 of 2001 are the students of the first respondent college namely K.K.College of Pharmacy, Saligramam, Chennai. The said college is functioning from the academic year October 1992. Initially it was approved by the Government of Tamil Nadu and was recognised by the Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi under the provisions of Pharmacy Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Pharmacy Act') to impart education in Bachelor of Pharmacy course. In view of the enactment of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'AICTE Act'), the said college was approved by the Council constituted under the said Act from the year 1994 and was affiliated to Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, and there was no approval from the Pharmacy Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Munusamy Kounder Vs. Balu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ230
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Aggrieved by an order dated 14.6.2001 in I.A.No.1876 of 2000 permitting the respondent in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001/1st defendant in O.S.No.64 of 1997, to file an additional written statement in O.S.No.64 of 1997 laid by the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001 for (i) declaration of title of the revision petitioner/plaintiff over the suit items; (ii) recovery of possession; (iii) past profits of Rs.12,000.00 against the defendant; (iv) future profits to be determined under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff in O.S.No.64 of 1997 had filed the above revision.2. Admittedly, the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001/plaintiff in O.S.No.64 of 1997 and the second defendant are brothers and the respondent in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001/first defendant in O.S.No.64 of 1997 is the son of the second defendant in O.S.No.64 of 1997. 3. The suit O.S.No.64 of 1997 filed by the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001 was resisted by th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Prabhakaran Vs. A.G. Krishnamoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ226
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Aggrieved by an order dated 19.6.2001 made in I.A.No.4658 of 2001 in O.S.No.2764 of 2001 on the file of the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, refusing to permit the revision petitioner/defendant to raise a counter claim by way of an additional written statement in the suit in O.S.No.2764 of 2001, laid by the respondent/plaintiff for a permanent injunction against the revision petitioner/defendant by restraining them from disturbing the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the respondent/plaintiff, the defendant has preferred the above revision. 2. In brief, the respondent/plaintiff claims that he is the absolute owner of the suit property, which was said to have been purchased by him under a sale deed dated 10.7.1972, on which basis, he seeks a permanent injunction as prayed for. 3. But the suit was originally resisted by the revision petitioner/defendant, who filed the original written statement in February, 2001, contending...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sadasivampillai, Vs. the Regional Commissioner, Employees Provident ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ898Mad
ORDER1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefits of pension to the respective petitioners arising out of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 on the basis of option already exercised and consequently settle all arrears arising thereto from the date of their retirement respectively and to continue to pay the same as applicable.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners would submit that they were the employees of the second respondent, which is a Government of India undertaking; that the petitioners have retired on attaining the age of superannuation between 1994 and 1998; that they were the members of the Provident Fund Scheme and the Employees' Pension Scheme which was introduced during 1995; that the pensionary benefits were implemented with effects from 16.11.1995 under Section 6 and 7 of the Act by the Government of India; that though the second respondent is a quasi-judi...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Empee Distilleries Limited, Mevalurkuppam Vs. Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR525]; (2002)IIILLJ60Mad
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. Petitioner / accused has filed this petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in Crime No.63 of 2002 launched by the respondent.2. The case in brief is as follows:- One Mr. Mohan was working as permanent workman under M/s.Empee Distilleries Limited. During the course of employment, he committed theft of some articles and for which a criminal case was launched in C.C.No.290 of 1993 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Tiruvellore and the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on 10.04.2000 on the ground that the charge has not been proved for an offence under section 381 IPC. The employee stopped reporting for duty on 21.12.1992 and remained unauthorisedly absent. The management did not take any disciplinary action for the unauthorised absence from 1992 as they were under the bona fide impression that the employee was not interested in working in the company any more. Even after the acquittal by the Court, the employe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »