Chennai Court April 2002 Judgments
D.P. Karthikeyan Vs. Canara Bank Thirunagar Branch, Thirunagar, Madura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2002
Reported in: [2003]116CompCas582(Mad)
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The present revision has been preferred under Article 227 of The Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.2.2002 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in M.A. No.101/2001 in modifying the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, in I.A. No.1501 of 2001 in O.A. No.1456/2001 passed on 12.9.2001 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.2. The facts leading to the revision could be summarised briefly. The first respondent, M/s.Canara Bank filed O.A. No.1456 of 2001 under Section 19 of The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein. In the said original application, the first respondent Bank prayed for the following reliefs :-'i) To direct the defendants 1 to 3 to pay the applicant jointly and severally a sum of Rs.14,84,591.00 being the amount due under Agricultural Term Loan Account together with further interest at the rate of 19.34% per annum compounded h...
Tag this Judgment!V.N. Kulandaisamy Vs. Khadi and Village Industries Board, Tamil Nadu, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ557
ORDER1. The above writ petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in Pro.Na.Ka.No.8237/93/K2 dated 11.4.1995 and that of the first respondent in Pro.R.C.No.46196/P2/97, dated 7.1.1999, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.66,433.90 recovered from the retirement and pensionary benefits of the petitioner within a timeframe with 18% interest p.a. till the date of repayment.2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that the petitioner, after rendering a service of 36 years in the respondents Board, had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.1.1994 in the category of Assistant Grade-I and at the time of his retirement, there was neither any enquiry nor even a charge-memo. pending against the petitioner, but nearly after six months of his retirement, the second respondent, had, i...
Tag this Judgment!Muthaiah Mudaliar and Srinivasan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Through Dist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ460
P. Shanmugam, J.1. Plaintiffs filed the suit in a representative capacity praying for a declaration that Sri Muthu Vinayagar Temple situated in Muthukrishnapuram at Krishnapuram, Kadayanallur is a denominational temple belonging to Senaikulathavar community people of Muthukrishnapuram and for a permanent injunction. Though the suit was decreed by the trial court, the said judgment and decree was reversed by the Subcourt. The second appeal is against this judgment.2. The facts of the case are stated hereunder :The plaintiffs claim that they belong to a particular community called Senaikulathavar community residing at Muthukrishnapuram. The forefathers of their community people have established a temple called Sri Muthu Vinayagar Temple. According to the plaintiffs, there are 850 families of Senaikulathavar community people in the village and they are the only worshippers of the temple and that they are managing and maintaining the temple by themselves. The properties were purchased by t...
Tag this Judgment!Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Rep. by Its Member Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ431
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J.1. C.R.P. No.4154 of 2001 was preferred by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority against the interm order of injunction passed by the City Civil Court on the main plea that the suit filed against them is barred under Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner at that time that inspite of this specific bar, about 700 suits are filed against the notices issued under the Act and interim orders obtained without reference to the maintainability of the suits. It was further submitted that in lieu of ex parte orders passed by various City Civil Courts, their whole object of providing an orderly planned development of the urban land is being defeated.2. In the light of the above submission, a suo motu revision was taken by against those suits pending and the records were called for by an order dated 21.12.2001. Notices to the counsel appearing on behalf of the...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sukumaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Govt. Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ380
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. In W.P. No.23097 of 2001, the petitioner prays for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings No. 231/2001 dated 2.8.2001 and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent herein to return the sale deed to the petitioner herein, which is pending in P. No.1319 of 1996 on the file of the 3rd respondent. 2. In W.P. No.7908 of 2002, the petitioner prays for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to return the sale deed dated 8.6.2001 executed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in favour of the petitioner herein and registered on 25.7.2001 under Document No.2446/2001 at the office of the 2nd respondent.3. In W.P. No. 9909 of 2002, the petitioner prays for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to release the document pending on the file of the 2nd respondent vide Document No. P/146/2001/S.R.O., Anna Nagar, Chennai-40, ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Rajmohan Vs. C. Chockalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ324
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Aggrieved by an order dated 21.8.2001 made in I.A.No.2304 of 2001 in O.S.No.5354 of 2000 on the file of the learned I Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, permitting the respondent/defendant to defend his case under Order 37 Rule 5, C.P.C., the plaintiff in O.S.No.5354 of 2000, laid for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.1,70,000/- along with interest at Rs.2.50 per Rs.100/- per month, has filed the above revision.2. Order 37 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:Order 37 Rule 5, C.P.C.: ' (5) 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 be just: Provided that leave to defend shall not be refused unless the Court is satisfied t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: V. Arunachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ407
K. Sampath, J.1. The application is for revocation and annulment of the grant of Probate in favour of the petitioner in O.P. No. 625 of 2000 with respect to the property more fully set out in the application and with respect to the Will 'fraudulently obtained and made up by the respondent' till the veracity and genuineness is on the following allegations:The first applicant is the mother of the other applicants residing at No. 15, 'F' Block, Pensioners' Lane, Perambur Barracks, Chennai- 600 012 They are the legal representatives of de-ceased Vasudevan, who passed away on 10.11.1993. Even during the life time of Vasudevan, the applicants were in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property and after the death of Vasudevan, they had become the owners Legal heirship certificate was also issued to the applicants by the Tahsildar on 29.12.1994 wherein it is clearly mentioned that Vasudevan left behind the applicants as his legal representatives. The applicants have the necessary docume...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshammal and ors. Vs. Arunachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad417
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The application is for revocation and annulment of the grant of Probate in favour of the petitioner in O.P. No. 625/ 2000 with respect to the property more fully set out in the application and with respect to the Will 'fraudulently obtained and made up by the respondent' till the veracity and genuineness is on the following allegations :The first applicant is the mother of the other applicants residing at No. 15, 'F' Block, Pensioners' Lane, Perambur Barracks, Chennai-600 012. They are the legal representatives of deceased Vasudevan, who passed away on 10-11-1993. Even during the life time of Vasudevan, the applicants were in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property and after the death of Vasudevan, they had become the owners. Legal heirship certificate was also issued to the applicants by the Tahsildar on 29-12-1994 wherein it is clearly mentioned that Vasudevan left behind the applicants as his legal representatives. The applicants have the necessary do...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaramoorthy M. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Labour and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ499Mad
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This writ petition is for issue of writ of certorified mandamus calling for the records relating to the Order No. A2/79970/93, dated February 28, 1994, passed by the Commissioner of Labour in 2-A Dispute cases and quash the same and also to direct the first respondent to submit a failure report as required by Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The petitioners were working in the second respondent-company Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. During October, 1992, the management was spreading a rumour that the industry was to be closed; and that if anyone wanted to go out, they may get compensation and go out of the employment. The management forced all the workers to submit their resignation letters and paid certain amounts stating that was towards full and final settlement. Hence, industrial disputes were raised challenging such retrenchment. Before the Labour Officer, the management took a stand that the management and the union had entered into a se...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.G. Anjalai Ammal Educational Society, Represented by Its President ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ517
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. Both the writ petitions have been filed by a Registered Society in the context of starting a Teacher Training College. In W.P.No.12196 of 2000 the petitioner prays for quashing the order of the Regional Director of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) dated 22.11.1999 and that of the NCTE dated 20.6.2000 and to accord recognition to the petitioner Society for the academic year 1999-2000 from the date of inspection on 24.8.1999.2. In W.P.No.9996 of 2001, the prayer is to quash the order of the Union Government dated 23.04.2001 and to direct the respondents to issue 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner for the academic year 2001-2002 for B.Ed. Course for two units (120 seats).W.P.No.12196 OF 20003. In this writ petition, the petitioner contends that on 15.2.1999, the petitioner - Society submitted an application for recognition to the second respondent. By communication dated 7.5.1999, nine defects were pointed out and directed the Society...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »