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.
T.S. Natarajan Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep. Its Secretary, Tamil D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad351; (2002)2MLJ717
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. Mr.K.Sugumaran, Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.2. Petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the second respondent in S.R. No.65977 of 2001 No.4 dated 9.11.2001 and quash the same.3. Today, when the above writ petition came up for admission, on a perusal of the records and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that in an earlier writ petition filed by this petitioner on one and the same subject matter in W.P.16527 of 2001 along with W.M.P. No.24566 of 2001, this Court has issued a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 04.01.2001 within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the said order, further permitting the petitioner to continue till then as a tenant on condition that the petitioner pays the rent regularly to the respondents.4. Now the petitioner stating something about how the proceeding...
Mayavan @ Ravi Rauya and Gokulakrishnan @ Gokul Vs. State Rep. by Insp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4426
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The appellants/A1 and A2 were convicted for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(g) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 363 I.P.C.; R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. and R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, both the accused (A1 and A2) have filed this appeal before this Court.2. The facts of the case in short are as follows:-'(a) P.W.1 Shanthi is a school-going girl studying IX Standard, aged about 14 years. Her father P.W.2 Mariappan is working as a coolie. Geethalakshmi (A3) is the daughter of one Krishnasamy, cousin of P.W.2. The said Geethalakshmi was running a Computer Centre at Kaladipet. P.Ws.1 and 2 are residing in Manali Pudhu Nagar....
Macbrite Engineers by Prop. Mr. P.N. Shamra Vs. Tamil Nadu Sugar Corpo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad429; (2002)2MLJ636
A. Kulasekaran,J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. 2. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,87,322.40 together with interest on Rs.1,11,335.75 at 19.5% per annum, from the date of plaint till the date of realisation. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:-The defendant has placed orders on 20.2.1985 and 28.2.1985 for supply of five machines with the plaintiff, subject to the terms and conditions that if supply was not effected on or before 15.3.1985, penalty of 1% on the total value of the supply would be imposed for every three days of delay subject to the maximum of 10%. The plaintiff has also intimated by letter dated 5.3.1985 that the penalty clause was not agreeable to them as the machines ordered are special in nature, however, agreed to supply the same within the stipulated period and the defendant has sent a reply dated 15-03-1985 intending to relax the penalty clause provided the machines were kept ready for inspection within three months. The Plaintiff has sent...
Natesa Udayar and Pichai Pillai (for Himself and Representing the Vill ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ762
1. Heard both sides.2.1. The appellants in the above second appeal are defendants 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 257 of 1982 laid for declaration, to declare that the plaintiff and the members of his family as one group are entitled to conduct exclusively Kudiraivahana Mandagapadi in Mariamman and Selliamman Temples in Mela Arasur Village and receive the 1/5th share in the prasadam and offerings and all honours besides their right to participate in the celebration of the festival on other days, and for consequential permanent injunction.2.2. In paragraph 5 of the plaint, the plaintiff/ respondent herein states that they are entitled for the above declaration based on immemorial custom, usage and age old practice that prevailed among the members of the community of the village. 2.3. The defendants 3 and 4/appellants herein resisted the suit based on a sale deed dated 15.5.1972 with regard tot he right to conduct 'Mandagapadi', a right of honour claimed by the plaintiff for celebrating the Kudiraiv...
P. Chelliah Vs. Mottayandi thevar (Died),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad495; (2002)3MLJ64
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. P. Chellaiah, the appellant herein, having lost before both the Courts below, has filed these two appeals.2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.748 of 1981 before the trial Court against the respondents/defendants for declaration of his title and also for permanent injunction and recovery of possession of 2nd and 3rd schedule properties. The first defendant filed a suit in O.S. No.82 of 1982 for declaration of his title and also for permanent injunction and recovery of possession in respect of 13 cents.3. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and the suit filed by the first defendant was decreed in his favour. Against the judgement and decree of the trial Court, the appellant filed two appeals in A.S. Nos.36 of 1984 and 21 of 1985. The appellate Court dismissed both the appeals by confirming the judgement and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence these two second appeals by the appellant.4. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the plaint...
Special Officer, Karimangalam Milk Producers Co-operative Society Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ568Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The Special Officer, Karimangalam Milk Producers Co-operative Society, Dharmapuri District, aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Authority under the Minimum Wages Act), Salem 7, made in M.W No. 54 of 1993, dated August 9, 1993, has filed the above writ petition to quash the same onvarious grounds.2. According to the petitioner theKarimangalam Milk Producers Co-operative Society is a society which deals in collection of milk from various members and transports the same to the Milk Producers Union. The society works for about 2 hours in the morning and for about 2 hours in the evening for collection of milk from its members. On total, the society engages employees for about four hours in a day for the purpose of collecting milk and transporting the same to the Milk Producers Union. The employees are paid on the basis of the number of hours they work. The Registrar ofCo-operative Societies fixes the cadre strength in the co-operative societies. ...
The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Whites Road, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ29
K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. The above Original Side Appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff - Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited against the judgment and decree dated 18.6.1990 made in C.S.No.352 of 1981 non-suiting the appellant for the relief of a decree jointly and severally against the defendants/respondents herein for a sum of Rs.44,20,195-54ps together with interest at 10% per annum from 16.11.1980 till the date of realisation and for costs.2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that in the course of business, the appellant granted financial assistance in the form of three loans to a Company called M/s.Micro Tools Limited, one on 26.4.1968 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, on 31.10.1969 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and on 27.11.1972 for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- and the loans are secured by the Company under mortgage deed executed on 13.9.1968 for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs and another mortgage deed on 25.10.1969 for the second loan amount of Rs.5 lakhs and for the third l...
The Management of Associated Cement Cos. Ltd.,madukkarai Cement Works, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR1188]
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. Writ Petition in W.P.No. 5732/1996 has been filed by the management praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in I.D.No. 147/93 and quash the Award dated 23-08-1995.Writ Petition in W.P.No. 9340/1997 has been filed by the worker praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent made in I.D.No. 147/93, dated 22-03-1995 in connection with the preliminary issue raised and also the award passed by the first respondent in I.D.No. 147/93, dated 23-08-1995 to the extent of re-instatement of the petitioner without backwages published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part-II, Section 2, dated 31-01-1996 and quash the first respondent's order in the preliminary issue dated 22-03-1995 and award made in I.D. dated 23-08-1995 without backwages and direct the 2nd respondent, Management, to pay the backwages and other attendant benefits due and payable to t...
Bhawarlal C. Bafna Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)43; [2002]257ITR687(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee.2. Mr. Janardhana Raja, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, forcefully submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in refusing the adjournment sought for on the date of hearing. He submitted that the assessee had sought for an adjournment on the ground that counsel for the assessee was away from Chennai and the request made on behalf of the assessee should have been considered by the Appellate Tribunal favourably and the appeal should have been adjourned by the Appellate Tribunal. On the merits of the matter, Mr. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee has not established that the debt written off has become bad and he also submitted that the addition made of a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 to the undisclosed investment in bank is not justified. Lea...
S. Harshavardhan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ811
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner challenges the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 and 2 on various grounds. In W.P.No. 13247/2001, the petitioner seeks to quash Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 3.11.1999 and Declaration dated 18.9.2000 as well as Award No.1/2000 dated 30.12.2000 in so far as his land to an extent of 2.79.5 Hectares in Veerapuram village, Chingleput Taluk, Kancheepuram District and prays for quashing of the entire acquisition proceedings and restore the said extent of land to him.2. The very same petitioner in W.P.No.13248 of 2001 challenges Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of his land in 88, Thenmelpakkam village of an extent of 1.55.0 Hectares.3. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:- According to him, he purchased 4.34.5 hectares extent of land in Veerapuram and Thenmelpakkam villages, Chingleput Taluk in the year 1996 on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »