Chennai Court June 2002 Judgments
The Management of Agricultural Research Station, Tamil Nadu Agricultur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ110Mad
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. These two writ petitions shall be disposed of by this common judgment as the question involved is common.2. The petitioner in both these writ petitions is the Management of Agricultural Research Station, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Kovilpatti. The third respondent Mangammal (in W.P. No.1061 of 1995) and Kaliammal (in W.P. No.1062 of 1995) were the labourers working in the petitioner research institute. They were superannuated on 3-6-1992. On that day, their service period was calculated as five years and three months and on that basis they were paid the gratuity of Rs.5,205/-. They were not satisfied with this gratuity amount and, therefore, claimed gratuity at the higher rate as, according to them, they were serving the institute right from 1960 in the capacity as casual labourers and, therefore, that service period also was liable to be taken into consideration and not merely 5 years and 3 months.3. This claim of the respondents was resisted by the p...
Tag this Judgment!Kumaresan Vs. Aswathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ760
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. Petitioner herein, who is the husband of the respondent herein, filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as H.M.C.O.P.54 of 1999 on the file of Sub Court, Trichy, praying the Court to issue an order in his favour by dissolving the marriage between him and the respondent, solemnized on 3.6.1982 at Neelakanda Swami Koil, Padmanabhapuram, Thakkalai, Nagercoil, according to Hindu custom and rites prevailing in the community. The respondent herein resisted the said petition on various grounds and the petition is now pending. While so, respondent herein filed two applications viz., (a) I.A.274 of 1999 praying the Court to direct the petitioner herein/husband to pay the respondent/wife a sum of Rs.500/- per month towards alimony pendente lite, and (b) I.A.275 of 1999 praying the Court to direct the petitioner herein/husband to pay the respondent/wife a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation fees. Petitioner herein resisted bot...
Tag this Judgment!Covelong Beach Hotels (India) Limited, Represented by Its Managing Dir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas17(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner in C.P.No.19 of 2002 Covelong Beach Hotels (India) Limited is the Transferor Company and the petitioner in C.P.No.20 of 2002 Oriental Hotels Limited is the Transferee Company.2. The Transferor Company was incorporated on 15.12.1972 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at Chennai. The Authorised Capital of the Transferor Company is Rs.15,00,00,000/-, consisting of 10,000-11% Redeemable Cumulative Preference Shares of Rs.100/- each and Rs.14,90,00,000/- consisting of 1,49,00,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each. The issued capital is Rs.4,60,11,990/- consisting of 46,01,199 equity shares of Rs.100/- each. The subscribed and paid-up capital of the Company is Rs.4,59,53,240/- consisting of 45,95,324 equity shares of Rs.10/- each fully paid-up. The object of the transferor company is to carry on the business of hotels, restaurants, cafes, taverns, refreshment rooms, boarding and lodging.3. The Transferee Company was incorporated o...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by the Manager, Regional Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad17
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.1987, made in A.S.No.230 of 1986 on the file of the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1985, made in O.S.No.387 of 1980 on the file of the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, laid by the first respondent (plaintiff) in both the above appeals for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,458.21 from the appellant in both the above appeals, who are defendants 2 and 1 in the suit respectively. 2. The first respondent in both the second appeals is the plaintiff in the said suit O.S.No.387 of 1980 laid for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,458.21. Admittedly, while the first respondent/plaintiff imported cotton bales, the job of clearing and forwarding was entrusted with the first defendant, who is the appellant in S.A.No.269 of 1990. When the first defendant/appellant in S.A.No.269 of 1990 cleared the goods, five cotton bales were co...
Tag this Judgment!R. Vimalchand and M. Ratanchand Vs. Ramalingam,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ177
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The appellants are the plaintiffs in C.S.No.509 of 1979 on the file of this court. They filed the said suit against the respondents herein seeking a decree for specific performance of an agreement dated 17.2.1978 where under the respondents had agreed to sell the suit property to the appellants for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- and received a sum of Rs.25,000/- by way of advance. As per the terms of the agreement, the sale is to be completed within six months from the date of intimation of the approval of the title by the appellants' counsel. The further condition is that the sale should be free of all encumbrances. To get the approval of the appellants' counsel, the respondents have to furnish the original title deeds to the appellants. The respondents did not comply with the condition of furnishing the original title deeds and not only avoided the compliance of the agreement; but also entered into a long term lease in respect of the other tenants in the suit property.2.T...
Tag this Judgment!M. Anandavalli Amma, Vs. Arvind Eye Hospital, Rep. by Its Secretary, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ140; (2002)3MLJ220
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. By a Common Judgment, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dindigul, (Principal District Judge, Dindigul), disposed of M.C.O.P. Nos.1260/94, 55/95 and 56 of 1995 and other Claim Petitions on 28.02.1997.2.C.M.A. No.1228 of 1997 has been filed by the claimants in M.C.O.P. No.1260 of 1994, claiming enhanced compensation over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. C.M.A. No.88 of 1998 has been filed by the claimant in M.C.O.P. No.55 of 1995, claiming enhanced compensation over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. C.M.A. No.327 of 1998 has been filed by the claimant in MCOP. No.56 of 1995, claiming enhanced compensation. CMA. Nos.1331, 1337 and 1333 of 1998 have been filed by the Insured (owner of the vehicle), questioning the correctness of the Judgment of the Tribunal, exonerating the Insurance Company with reference to MCOP Nos.1260/94, 55/95 and 56/95 respectively. 3. Dr.Premachandran, Dr.Reshmi and Dr.Shanthi, working in Arvind Eye Hosp...
Tag this Judgment!M. Anandavalliamma and ors. Vs. Aravind Eye Hospital and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Reported in: II(2004)ACC144
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. By a common judgment, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dindigul (Principal District Judge, Dindigul), disposed of M.C.O.P. Nos. 1260 of 1994, 55 and 56 of 1995 and other claim petitions on 28.2.1997.2. C.M.A. No. 1228 of 1997 has been filed by claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 1260 of 1994, claiming enhanced compensation over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal, C.M.A. No. 88 of 1998 has been filed by the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 55 of 1995, claiming enhanced compensation over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. C.M.A. No. 327 of 1998 has been filed by the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 56 of 1995 claiming enhanced compensation, C.M.A. Nos. 1331, 1337 and 1333 of 1998 have been filed by the insured (owner of the vehicle), questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Tribunal, exonerating the Insurance Company with reference to M.C.O.P. Nos. 1260 of 1994, 55 and 56 of 1995 respectively.3. Dr. Premachandran, Dr. Reshmi and Dr. Shanthi, work...
Tag this Judgment!Shiva Texyarn Limited, Having Its Registered Office, Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ251
ORDER1. Order of the Court was made by K.Raviraja Pandian,J. 2. These appeals are posted today for being mentioned in order to give certain directions to the Official Liquidator, which are as follows: '1. The Scheme of amalgamation as filed along with the application is sanctioned. The Scheme shall take effect from the date mentioned as the effective date in the Scheme. 2. As regards the transferor Company Shiva Texyarn Limited, it shall make available all the records to the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator shall submit his report to the Company Court within four weeks from today. 3. The transferee Company shall make available sufficient funds to the Official Liquidator to have the investigation carried out. 4. For further direction, it is open to the parties to approach the Company Court.' ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Chinnathambi and Vijayan @ Vijayakumar Vs. K.K. Palanisami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ16
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants in both the courts below are the appellants.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff is a responsible Government servant and working in the Commercial Tax Department and had put in 18 years of service. The 1st defendant is the paternal uncle of the 2nd defendant and they are pangalis. One Ramakrishnan (since deceased), brother of the 1st defendant was the 1st defendant in O.S.No.473 of 1978 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Salem. After the death of Ramakrishnan, the defendants took up the cudgels against the said pangalis and gave false complaint and on the basis of which Sessions Case No.88 of 1981 was filed against him on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Salem. He had to face charges under section 307 of Indian Penal Code along with other accused. After full trial, he was acquitted by an order dated 04.09.1982. He was put to mental stress and there was loss of reputation also as he had faced false charges. The defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Balammal Nadachi and Four ors. Vs. Selvanayagam @ Kumarachandraperumal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ723
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The defendants 1 and 2 who suffered decree, have filed this Second appeal.2. The suit properties, namely, plaint 'A' schedule properties, originA1ly belonged to one PerumA1 Kunjirayumman. He died and his entire rights devolved on his 3 sons, namely, defendants 2 and 3 and the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he is entitled to one third share in the 'A' schedule property. Item No. 1 in 'A' schedule properties was the subject matter of a prior mortgage with the 1st defendant. Subsequently, the same was renewed under the mortgage deed dated 29.1.1951 marked as Ex.A1. Even item No. 2 which is A1so described as 'B' schedule property, was the subject matter of prior mortgage in favour of a stranger. The said mortgage was executed by PerumA1 Kunjirayumman and his brother Chidambaranathan on 29.10.1912. Under Ex.A1, it is stated that that mortgage has to be redeemed from the prior mortgagee, as the mortgagee subsequently assigned his entire mortgage right in re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »