Chennai Court July 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.
R. Shankar and M. Gunasekaran Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ81
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J. 1. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions for the writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent in connection with resolution No.204 dated 29.01.1994 and quash the same. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are employed as shift Engineers in Erukur Modern Rice Mill owned by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. On 6.01.1993, during the first shift the Senior Manager (Engg.), Cuddalore made an inspection at about 7.50a.m and found the boiler was working with low pressure, no water was available in the boiler, metal meter started coming out through the bottom ash hold, the furnace door was open and the bottom row of the boiler tubes were found red hot. 3. The respondent/management issued a charge memo on 27.02.1993 to the petitioners, they in turn submitted explanation which was found unsatisfactory. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who has given a report stating that charges are proved. The petitioners were served secon...
T. Sarveswara Rao Vs. T. Sathyanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad487
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for granting Letters of Administration in respect of the Will of Kutumba Sastri executed on 1-8-1990. 2. The plaint averments are as follows : The plaintiff is the son of Tadimeti Kutumba Sastri and the said Kutumba Sastri died in Madras on 28-2-1992. Kutumba Sastri at the time of his death left property in Madras giving a life interest to his wife T. Seetha Sundari and on her death, to the plaintiff absolutely. The said Seetha Sundari died in Rajamundri on 29-1-1993 whereupon the property devolved on the plaintiff in accordance with the Will, absolutely. The said Will is the last Will and Testament of Tadimeti Kutumba Sastri and was executed in Nagercoil on 1-8-1990. Nobody was appointed as Executor of the Will and the plaintiff as the universal legatee under the Will in respect of the property mentioned in the Will after the life estate granted to the plaintiffs mother, on her death, as the son of the testator seeks...
M. Selvaraj Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)258ITR82(Chennai)
1. These appeals by the assessee relate to the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 and arise out of the common order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals-III), Madras, dated February 28, 1996, confirming the additions to the extent of Rs. 53,910 and Rs. 46,824, respectively, as unexplained investment in the construction of property at door No.66, M. M. Avenue, Kanchipuram.2. The assessee has constructed a house property at No. 66, M. M.Avenue, Kanchipuram, and the construction has been carried out by the assessee during the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92. The cost of construction was admitted by the assessee at Rs. 1.75 lakhs and at Rs. 1.52 lakhs in the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, respectively.The Assessing Officer referred the matter relating to the cost of construction to the Valuation Cell of the Income-tax Department and the cost of construction was determined at Rs. 5,91,650, as against cost of construction declared by the assessee at Rs. 3,27,000. After g...
State, by Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. Subramania Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2004Mad77
A.K. Rajan, J. 1. This appeal is against acquittal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent was having service connection No.379 in the village Kasturirengapuram. It was disconnected on 9.4.1990 for non-payment of consumption charges. It was not re-connected. But when it was inspected on 1.4.1991 by the officers of the Electricity Board, it was found that connection was given illegally. Therefore, prosecution was launched against the respondent. 2. The trial Court after going through the evidence on record acquitted this respondent of all the charges. Against that, the present appeal has been filed by the State. 3. P.W.1 has clearly stated that Service Connection No.379 was disconnected on 9.4.1990. Thereafter, the Electricity Board did not give re-connection. On 1.4.1991, when the service connection was inspected, it was found that the connection was illegally re-connected. P.W.2 also corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. Exs.P.3 and P.4 prove the fact of disconnection on ...
C.G. Rajendran Vs. M. Senthilkumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ809
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The above revision petition has been filed against the order in I.A.No.16017 of 1998 in O.S.6278 of 1997 on the file of VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying the Court to dismiss the suit.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.6278 of 1997 against the petitioner herein and two others praying the Court to declare that the sale deed executed by the petitioner herein (first defendant) in favour of defendants 2 and 3 dated 25.7.1997 at S.R.O., Ashok Nagar, Madras, registered as document Nos.1125 and 1126 of 1997 as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein and other defendants from in any way dealing with the property morefully described in plaint 'A' schedule either by way of alienation or by encumbering and also for permanent injunction restraining the pet...
Sundaram Finance Services Ltd. Having Its Registered Office at Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas361(Mad); [2003]42SCL89(Mad)
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the private complaint in E.O.C.C.No.128 of 1999, pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences No.1), Egmore, Chennai, filed by M/s.Granttrust Finance Limited represented by its Authorised Agent and Credit Officer Mr.M.Prabhakar against the petitioners, along with two other accused, who are not before this Court, for offences under Section 68 and 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 and under Sections 409, 420 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. At the outset, I may state that neither of the parties have brought to the notice of the court that under what Section the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint. However, the fact remains that the complaint is only at the initial stage and moreover, this being a private complaint, evidence has to be recorded and only then charges has to be framed by the Magistrate. Therefore, admittedly witnesses have no...
S.P. Muthusamy Vs. V. Thayammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ67
P. Shanmugam, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit for specific performance to execute a gift deed as per the agreement dated 16.2.1977 was dismissed by the Subcourt, Coimbatore and the present appeal is against this judgment. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : The plaintiff claimed that he was a close and intimate friend and the confidential adviser of the first defendant's father Late Palanisamy Gounder, who owned large extent of properties. The first defendant's was living with her father Palanisamy Gounder. According to the plaintiff, in view of his close association with the first defendant's father and at her request, he influenced the mind of the first defendant's father and got a will dated 27.11.1967 executed by him, bequeathing almost all his properties in favour of the first defendant. The plaintiff helped the first defendant in the suit filed by one P.K. Palanisamy for specific performance. According to him, he also helped her when a dispute about the will of he...
M. Perumal Pallavarayar Vs. S. Balasubramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ59
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J. 1. The tenant/respondent before the Rent Controller and appellant before the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is the revision petitioner in both these revisions. 2. The landlord/respondent filed a petition under Section 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default and for his own use. 3. The tenant has filed an application under Section 8(5) of the Act for a direction to deposit the rent before the Rent Controller. 4. The Rent Controller allowed the application for eviction on the ground of own use while disallowing the claim of willful default and also rejected the application filed by the tenant to deposit the rent before the Rent Controller. 5. The tenant filed two appeals and both the appeals were dismissed by the appellate authority. The revisions are against these ...
Uco Bank Employees Association Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ20Mad; (2002)3MLJ390
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. UCO Bank Employees' Association through its Secretary has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring the ceiling on the wages of the employees with regard to entitlement for Bonus in Section 2(13) of the Payment of Bonus Act as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to impose ceiling on the wages of the employees Class III and IV Categories with regard to entitlement for Bonus and direct the respondents 2 and 3 to pay arrears of bonus for the period from 1986 to 1993. 2. The case of the petitioner Association is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner Association is the Tamil Nadu Unit of the UCO Bank Employees' Association which is a registered Trade Union and has been recognised by the third respondent. Most of the employees of the third respondent were getting bonus until they crossed the limit of Rs.2,500/-. The Secretary of the petitioner Union who is the deponent of the affidavit filed...
Kaliammal (Deceased), Vs. S. Santha,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad6; (2002)3MLJ125
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. S. Santha, the first respondent herein filed an application before the executing Court for releasing the property from attachment which she had purchased from the judgment-debtor. The decree-holder, the plaintiff in the original suit, Kaliammal, contested the said application. However, the executing Court allowed the said application. Having aggrieved over the same, the said Kaliammal, the decree-holder filed the above appeal.2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-Kaliammal, the plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents 2 to 6 and obtained a money decree against them in O.S. No.309 of 1972. For the purpose of execution of the decree, she filed E.P. No.91 of 1974 and the same was subsequently dismissed. In the year 1980, i.e. on 11-4-1980, the plaintiff filed another petition in E.P. No.294 of 1980 in respect of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. However, in view of the stay granted by the appellate forum, by order dated 16-2-1982, the said petition ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »