Chennai Court June 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
K. Sethurathinam Vs. Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ715
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.344 of 1987 is the appellant in this second appeal.2. The appellant/plaintiff laid a money suit in O.S.No.344 of 1987 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Musiri, for a decree to recover the money based on a promissory note dated 9.2.1985. But the suit was resisted by the respondent/defendant, denying the very execution of the promissory note.3. Appreciating the evidences on record, the learned District Munsif, Musiri, by judgment and decree dated 24.6.1988 made in O.S.No.344 of 1987, dismissed the suit, finding that the signature in the promissory note is not that of the respondent/defendant, as he did not know to sign his name in English, except to put his initial in English; that the thumb impression of the respondent/defendant was also not bona fide; and that the depositions of P.Ws.1 to 4 do not corroborate with each other, and therefore, held that the promissory note dated 9.2.1985 is not valid, which was, on appeal...
M.R.F. Employees Union Through Its President V. Prakash Vs. the Manage ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ881Mad
ORDER1. In these writ petitions, series of actions taken by the Madras Rubber Factory as against the workers in their Pondicherry Unit, hereinafter described as the 'Management', are called in question by the MRF Employees Union, hereinafter called 'Union', and M.R.F. Thozhilalar Sangam, hereinafter called the 'Sangam'.2. In W.P.No.20270 of 2001, mandamus is sought for by the Union to direct the management not to give effect to the order of dismissal dated 9.10.2001 passed as against D.Ramachandra Reddy, Secretary of the Union.3. In W.P.No.20591 of 2001 mandamus is sought by the MRF Thozhilalargal Sangam (Sangam) for reinstating 116 workers together backwages and for all consequential benefits and to direct the management to strictly comply with the provisions of the Model Standing Orders and the provisions of the Factories Act.4. In W.P.No.19 of 2002, Sangam prays for the mandamus against the management not to recruit any new workers or to recruit any workers juniors to the members of...
Kaleeswarar Mills a Unit, Coimbatore Vs. the Asst. Labour Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR662]
P.K. Misra, J. 1. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :- The deceased husband (hereinafter called the employee) of present respondent No.3 was working under the petitioner. He retired from the service and was paid a sum of Rs.10,187.10 towards gratuity excluding the amount for the years 1984, 1985, 1987, 1989 and 1990, when the employee along with others had abstained from the work because of the strike. The Management refused to pay any gratuity for the aforesaid 5 years on the ground that strike was illegal and there was interruption in service within the meaning of Section 2(a)(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The employee filed an application before the first respondent claiming that he should be paid gratuity for the years during which he had abstained from work due to strike. Such claim allowed by the original authority was challenged in appeal which having proved futile, the present writ petition has been filed.2. The sole contention raised by the...
S.N. Bangur, Vs. Klen and Marshalls Mfrs. and Exporters Pvt. Ltd., Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4155
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. All the above revisions are being disposed of by the following common order as the issue and the parties are one and the same.2. The petitioners, A-3, A-4, A-6 and A-7 filed 10applications before the trial Court praying for the dropping of the proceedings arising out of different private complaints filed by the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Since those petitions were dismissed, the petitioners have filed the above revision petitions.3. The only point urged in these revision petitions is that there are no required and sufficient averments in the complaints so as to attract the offence under the Act and as such, the proceedings as against the petitioners are bound to be dropped.4. Repudiating the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the side of the respondent, it is argued that there are averments in the complaints as against the petitioners, which...
Advocate General of Tamil Nadu, Chennai Vs. Shri M. Karunanidhi, Found ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ821
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. Mr. M. Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, eminentpolitician, statesman and litterateur, all rolled into one, is thecontemner here. This proceedings have been initiated by the AdvocateGeneral of this State. The provocation for the initiation of theproceedings is the publication of some articles in a daily titled'Murasoli' on 5.12.2001, 6.12.2001 , 7.12.2001, 13.12.2001 and16.12.2001. Some facts need to be stated.2. The present Chief Minister Ms. J. Jayalalithaa was the ChiefMinister during the years 1991 & 1996. For the period 1996 & 2001,Mr.M.Karunanidhi was the Chief Minister. Prosecution was launchedagainst Ms. J. Jayalalithaa that some criminal acts punishableunder the Prevention of Corruption Act were committed by her duringher tenure as Chief Minister. They are popularly called as TANSILand Purchase case and Pleasant Stay Hotel case. The said cases were tried by the Special Court presided over by a Sessions Judge and theyended in conv...
Rajaram and Arjunan Vs. Murugesan @ Sokkan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ587
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. On 26.9.1990 at about 8.15 p.m., the respondent Murugesan was proceeding in a cycle in Madurai - Virudhunagar road from south to north. One Thiyagarajan, servant of Muthumari came from the opposite direction in a two wheeler TMT 1182 belonging to the said Muthumari at a high speed and violating the traffic rules and dashed against the respondent.2. The respondent filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1333 of 1991 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Virudhunagar and in which the said Muthumari and the Insurance Company were impleaded as parties. On the hearing date that was on 11.3.1992, as Muthumari did not appear before the Court even after receiving summons, the Tribunal passed an order setting him exparte. Subsequently on 7.12.1992, Muthumari died. However, this was not brought to the notice of the Court. The Court finally disposed of the matter on 4.2.1994 by passing an award holding that the injured respondent would be ent...
Indian Bank, Madras Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad423; 2003(1)ARBLR128(Madras); II(2003)BC353; (2002)2MLJ649
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal.2. The suit in C.S.No.346/83 was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,73,817.21 together with interest at the contract rates on the respective principal amounts viz., Rs.1,28,242.62 in respect of Medium Term Loan and a sum of Rs.1,40,841.98 in respect of UDA/DP. M/s.Om Parasakthi Mills Limited, Coimbatore has availed the facilities of term loans and as on 10.9.69 a sum of Rs.5,73,223.11 was due to the plaintiff. On 15.9.69, the said mill was taken over under the provisions of Industries (Development and Regulations) Act 1951 and was subsequently nationalised under the provisions of the Sick Textiles Undertaking (Nationalisation)Act 1974. At the time of nationalisation, defendants 2 and 3 requested the plaintiff to grant further loan facilities and they have executed the necessary guarantees in favour of the plaintiff. Later, the plaintiff has preferred a claim before the Commissioner of Payments under the Nationalisation...
N.A. Ravikumar Vs. S. Suresh Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT(Cri)448; 2002CriLJ3820
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Actfiled by the petitioner/complainant, the respondent/accused wasconvicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 monthsand to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. While the same was challenged by theaccused in the appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the convictionand sentence. However, it would hold that the accused need notundergo the sentence, as he is entitled for remission of sentence ofsimple imprisonment for 6 months as per G.O.Ms.No.1013 dated 14.9.2000 and set the accused at liberty on remission in pursuance of the saidG.O. The said portion of the judgment is challenged in this revisionby the complainant, the petitioner herein.2. I have heard Mr. N. Manokaran, the learned counsel for thepetitioner and Mr. B. Kumarasamy, the learned counsel for therespondent.3. I have appointed Mr. I. Subramanian, the learned PublicProsecutor of the State, as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court tores...
The Senior Regional Manager, (Madras Region) Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR650]
P.K. Misra, J. 1. The decision of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of respondent No.2 is under challenge in the present writ petition at the instance of the Management of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. 2. Shorn of details, the facts in brief are as follows :-Respondent No.2 was working under the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation as a Chief Bill Clerk at Koyambedu Retail shop. On 22.1.1983, the Area Officer working under the Corporation conducted a physical verification of the retail shop and found that there was shortage of about 50 quintals of rice. The physical verification statement was signed by the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 was placed under suspension by an order dated 31.1.1983 and the departmental proceedings were drawn up and he was asked to explain the following charges :-'1. he is in capacity of Chief Bill Clerk had made clandestine sale of essential commodities to the persons other that card holders for his personal cash be...
Thirunagar Panchayat by Its Executive Officer, Madurai Vs. Thirunagar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ688
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The defendant in the suit is the appellant.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff Thirunagar Cooperative House Constructions Society Limited filed a suit against the defendant Thirunagar Town Panchayat for permanent injunction restraining the Panchayat and its officers and their men from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the water works in Thirunagar Colony. Thirunagar Colony has been formed by the Society and there are about 800 houses belonging to the members of the society. The society has constructed overhead water tank, dug wells for the supply of drinking water to the members of the society and water is supplied through pipeline to the houses in Thirunagar colony. The water supply is given only to its members who have constructed houses in the Thirunagar Colony. The general public or outsiders are not entitled to water supply. The plaintiff has been maintaining the same all these years without any sort of compl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »