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. Venkatapathy Naidu @ Thambu, Vs. Devaraja Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad85; (2002)3MLJ343
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The respondent filed the suit for declaration and injunction claiming that he had perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession from 1955. Both the Courts held in his favour. 2. One important physical feature that must be noted for deciding this case is the location of the superstructure and the extent of the vacant land in the suit property. The Advocate Commissioner filed a report describing the suit property as ABCD. In the south-western corner there is the house bearing door No.5/12. About 29 feet from the house on the eastern side is clean and the Advocate Commissioner has noted that it appears to be used by the persons, who were living in the house. Whereas all over the vacant site 'Veli' thorns were spread. The Advocate Commissioner has noted the existence of an old latrine in the north-western corner which is in disuse and is unreachable because of the thorny undergrowth. On the northwestern corner there are remnants of an old compound wal...
Ksb Pumps Limited, Narasimha Naicken Palayam Post, Coimbatore, Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ185Mad
ORDERP.K. Misra, J. 1. Though the matter is listed for considering the question of vacating the order of stay, since the pleadings are completed and the same question is involved in the Writ Petition also, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the management, challenging the order of the first respondent, wherein, the first respondent has decided that he has got jurisdiction to deal with the application filed by the other respondents herein. The application was filed by other respondents before the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, hereinafter called 'the Act', seeking for permanent status. The present petitioner raised objection before the first respondent, stating that no such application is contemplated to be entertained under the Act and the first respondent does not have any quasi-judicial power to deal with such questions raised. This having be...
K. Narasimhan (Decd.), Vs. K. Rajagopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ404
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The plaintiffs having aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the Courts below have filed this Second Appeal. 2. The suit property originally belonged to one C.A.Narayana Rao. He bequeathed life interest in the property mentioned in 'A' schedule to the will annexed to Ex.A5 in favour of his first daughter Rukmani Ammal, and thereafter absolutely to his grandsons born to Rukmani Ammal. The said will was probated in O.P.No.118/1961. The respondent claiming that he is the tenant with respect to the vacant land bearing Plot No.107, Door No.29, Deenadayalu Street, T.Nagar, Madras.17, measuring an extent of 1124 sq.ft., filed a petition under Sec.9(1)(a)(ii) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, (hereinafter called 'the act') in Eject.O.P.No.63/1973 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Madras, to direct Rukmani Ammal, the respondent therein to sell the said property to him at a price to be fixed by the Court. 3. The said Rukmani Ammal contested the petiti...
S.P. Shenbagamoorthy Vs. Mr. Mu. KA. StalIn and the Director, Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ271
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Shenbagamoorthy, the petitioner herein filed a complaint against Mr.Mu.Ka. Stalin, the Mayor of Chennai and M.L.A. of Thousand Light Constituency,before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai alleging that he amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income by constructing a big house at Velacherry and having Snow Bowling Centre at Nungambakkam worth about several crores and prayed for sending the said complaint to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 2. Entertaining the same, the Principal Sessions Judge directed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to make a preliminary enquiry over the said complaint through an Officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police and file the report before the said Court. 3. Accordingly, preliminary enquiry was conducted and final report was filed by the police stating that no prima facie case is made out against Mr. Stalin, the ...
R. Dhanam (Deceased) and K. Selvi Vs. Subadhra and S. Gandhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad80
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the Agreement of sale. The suit property is a residential building consisting of three portions. The first portion of the building belonged to her husband, the middle portion which is the suit portion of the house was owned by Sundari Ammal and the third portion belongs to the plaintiff absolutely by virtue of the sale deed in her favour dated 29.11.1978. The entire building is in the possession of the plaintiff and she is using the same as her residential house. The plaintiff's husband has leased out the front portion to a tenant and the tenant is occupying the same and in the middle portion, the plaintiff is residing with her family members. The middle portion required intensive repairs and she wanted the plaintiff to do the repairs and occupy the building as tenant and accordingly, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.300/= as advance r...
Krishnaveni Textile Mills, Singanallur, Coimbatore Vs. the Asst. Labou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR1164]; (2002)IIILLJ607Mad; (2002)3MLJ74
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition No. 18572 of 1994 seeking for a Writ of Certiotari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in Gratuity appeal No.3/94 dated 19-08-1994 confirming the order of the first respondent dated 31-12-1993 in P.G. Application No.32/1992-D2 and quash the same.2. Writ Petition No. 18575 of 1994 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking for a Writ of Certiotari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in Gratuity appeal No.4/94 dated 19-08-1994 confirming the order of the first respondent dated 31-12-1993 in P.G. Application No.33/1992-D2 and quash the same.3. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners and the respondents are one and the same. Hence, this common order is passed.4. The facts culled out from the affidavit in both the writ petitions are that the petitioners mill was originally a public Limited company and it was closed on 14-05-1968. Thereafter, the mill was taken over by Tamil Nadu Textile Corporation and the...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Palanimalai Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)401
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law in relation to asst. yrs. 1965-66 to 1972-73.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the wealth disclosed under Voluntary Disclosure of IT and WT Act, 1976, is eligible for exclusion from the wealth base for the purpose of reckoning penalty under Section 18(1)(a) and the limits mentioned in that section cannot be applied without considering Section 14(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure of IT and WT Act, 1976 ?'2. The reference is pending from the year 1990 and the Department has not taken any steps to serve the notice on the respondent. We have given sufficient opportunity to the counsel for the Department to serve the notice on the respondent. In spite of the steps taken by the counsel, the notice could not be served on the respondent. Further, we find that the amount involved is v...
Meenakshi Ammal Vs. Subramania Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ388
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The appeal is filed by the wife, who is aggrieved by the reduction of maintenance by the Lower Appellate Court. This is an astonishing case which reveals the unfair mind-sets revealing a clear gender bias.2. The wife filed a suit for maintenance in 1963. She was awarded a sum of Rs.50/- per month. This was confirmed in appeal. Thereafter, in 1974 she again claimed enhancement and filed O.S.NO.948 of 1974 and a sum of Rs.150/- was awarded which was reduced to a sum of Rs.120/- in appeal. In 1982, she filed the present suit from which the appeal arises claiming increase of maintenance of Rs.400/- on the ground that cost of living has increased. The respondent resisted the claim. The Trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.250/ - per month. This has been reduced and hence the appeal. 3. The reasons given by the Appellate Court for reducing the maintenance are totally unsustainable. According to the Appellate Court, the wife who had been forced to live apart because the husba...
Sri Ganapathi Mills Co. Ltd., Shankar Nagar, Tirunelveli, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR817]; (2002)IIILLJ1149Mad
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, in I.D.No.576 of 1992 dated 14.7.1994. The Management is the writ petitioner. 2. According to the management, the second respondent herein, the employee indulged in riotous and violent behaviour on 30.9.1991 at about 7.15 a.m. before the gate of the Mill. The second respondent and two other workers had beaten the co-workers and caused injuries. While the second respondent and two other workers belong to C.I.T.U., Velu belongs to D.M.K.Union. There appears to have been some misunderstanding between the members belonging to the said Unions which had resulted in the alleged violation on the part of the second respondent. This resulted in the management issuing charge-memo and suspension order to the second respondent on 3.10.1991. An explanation was submitted on 11.10.1991 which was found to be unsatisfactory to the management. An enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer he...
Tamil Nadu Matriculation and CBSE School Teachers' Association, repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ351
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Tamil Nadu Matriculation and CBSE School Teachers' Association seeks to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department-first respondent herein, in consultation with the second respondent as ultra vires of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder. 2. The case of the petitioner Association is as follows: The petitioner Association is a body registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and their Association has substantial teachers working in various Matriculation Schools in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Matriculation Schools in the State of Tamil Nadu were initially affiliated to the University of Madras created under the Madras University Act, 1923. Subsequently when Madurai Kamaraj University was formed such of the Matriculation Schools operating in Madurai Area and w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »