Chennai Court September 2002 Judgments
Assistant General Manager, T.i. Cycles of India Ltd. Vs. Presiding Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ214Mad
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The employer charge-sheeted the respondent workman who was a watchman charging him with complicity in theft of the materials belonging to the employer, namely, two typewriters and dynamo lamp sets, which had been stolen from the factory on July 7, 1986, and February 23, 1987, respectively. The charge-sheet was issued on June 16, 1988. It was stated in the charge-sheet that the delay in framing the charge was due to police investigation which had revealed the workman's involvement only at the time of issue of the charge.2. At the enquiry the employer produced and relied upon a letter which it had received from the Superintendent of Police, Chengalpet (East) District, dated June 13, 1988, wherein it was stated that the investigation made by the police had revealed that the workman, Narayana Singh, along with another watchman Havildar Neem Bahadur in association with a well-known receiver of stolen goods by name Chockalingam were responsible for the theft of t...
Tag this Judgment!Bison Laboratories (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Balsara Hygiene Products Limi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: 2004(29)PTC226(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. The above appeals are filed against the order dated 12.3.2002 made in O.A. Nos. 751 of 2001, 929 of 2001 and Application No. 5488 of 2001 in C.S. Nos. 736 of 2001 and 919 of 2001, respectively.2. By the said order, an order of injunction has been granted by the learned trial Judge of this Court pending the suits. The defendants 1 and 2 in the suit in C.S. Nos. 736 of 2001 and 919 of 2001 are the appellants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as referred to in the suits.3. The respondent Balsara Hygiene Products Limited filed the suit in C.S. No. 736 of 2001 for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants (appellants herein) from infringing the registered trade mark 'ODONIL' and/or 'ODOMOS' of the plaintiff in any way and from selling the first defendant's products under the said trade mark 'ODOSCENT' or any mark deceptively or confusingly similar to or in colourable imitation of the plaintiffs said registered trade mark...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mohan Vs. the Commissioner and Management of the Muthialpet Benefit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ723; [2003]41SCL91(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench, Chennai made in C.A.No.75 of 2002 dated 6.9.2002. The Company Law Board has passed the above order in the application filed under section 167 of the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' by one Veeraraghavan seeking a direction against M/s. Muthialpet Benefit Fund Limited, hereinafter referred to as 'the company' to convene and hold Annual General meetings for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002. 2. The appeal is filed by the second respondent in the company application, viz., Mohan. We are of the opinion that it is necessary to refer to certain facts for the disposal of the appeal. M/s. Muthialpet Benefit Fund Limited is a Mutual Benefit Fund and it is stated that the company was started in the year 1895 and incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1882 and the company has been functioning for more than 107 years. The company is a N...
Tag this Judgment!Sarala Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1195
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Sarala, the appellant was tried for the offences under Sections 364 and 302 I.P.C. for having kidnapped the child by name Subash Pandi, aged about 4 years, from his parents house at Madurai and took him to Anaipatti village and pushed him into the well, thereby caused his death.2. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court found the accused guilty for both the offences, namely Sections 364 and 302 I.P.C. by the judgment dated 25.7.2002. Challenging the same, the appellant has filed this appeal before this Court.3. When the appeal came up for admission on 22.8.2002, this Court asked the counsel as to how the appeal against conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. could be brought before the single Judge instead of Division Bench. At that point of time, the learned counsel would submit that the trial Court though convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 364 and 302 I.P.C., she was only sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Palanisamy @ Uthayarpalayanthan Vs. Apparsamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad56; (2002)3MLJ704
C. Nagappan, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred against the order under Rule 23 of Order XLI CPC remanding the case in A.S.No.161 of 1999 by the II-Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. The respondent before the lower appellate court, who is the defendant in the suit, has preferred this appeal.2.The respondent in the present appeal, who is the plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S.No.1789 of 1996 on the file of III-Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry, for permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein, who is the defendant in the suit, from interfering in his possession in the plaint schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that he and his parents are in occupation and enjoyment of the suit property from 1.6.1960 onwards and they have right of adverse possession over the property and the defendant is trying to interfere with their possession. Denying the plaintiff's case, the defendant contended that the plaintiff, who was a tenant in the suit property, w...
Tag this Judgment!The Khatau Makanji Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. Bapalal and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: [2003]113CompCas477(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The Revision Petitioner is a tenant in the eviction proceedings taken by the respondent/landlord in R.C.O.P.613 of 1990 before the Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. The respondent, who is the landlord has filed a petition against the revision petitioner for eviction. During the pendency of the said petition, the revision petitioner has filed a petition in M.P.569/1992 under Order XXVIII Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent ) Control Rules 1974 praying the Court to stay the trial of the main R.C.O.P. Itself till Board of Industrial and Financial reconstruction dispose of the application of the revision petitioner. 3. The Revision petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petition has stated that it is one of the tenant under the respondent and the petitioner-Company is in a critical stage and also claim that the revision petitioner is a sick industrial company as defined under Section 22(3) of the Sick Industrial Company (Special Provision Ac...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Mohamed Ali and Five ors. Vs. S. Govindan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ644
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The revision petitioners, who are tenants, are the respondents in R.C.O.P.Nos. 9 and 10 of 1999 before the learned Rent Controller, Tiruvannamalai, laid by the respondents herein for eviction of the revision petitioners under Sections 10(2)(iii), 10(2), 10(3)(a)(iii) and Sections 10(2)(iii), 10(2), 10(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') respectively, based on the alleged family partition of the respondents herein.2. Pending the above R.C.O.Ps, the revision petitioners/tenants filed interim applications, viz., I.A.Nos. 8 and 9 of 2001 in R.C.O.P.Nos.9 and 10 of 1999 respectively, before the learned Rent Controller, Tiruvannamalai, under Section 19 of the Act, to reject the said R.C.O.P.Nos.9 and 10 of 1999, placing reliance on the order dated 1.9.1995 made in R.C.O.P.No.l5 of 1994 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Tiruvannamamali, which was subsequently confirmed by the learned Rent Co...
Tag this Judgment!S. Devaraj and D. Balasundaram Vs. Uco Bank and Soundararajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: [2003]113CompCas463(Mad); [2003]42SCL142(Mad)
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The defendants 2 and 4 in the original suit filed by the UCO Bank in CS.No.669 of 1987 before this Court, are the revision petitioners.2. The first respondent/ UCO Bank filed the suit against the petitioners and others in CS.No.669 of 1987 before this Court for directing the defendants to pay certain amount being the cash credit outstanding together with interest thereon and also in respect of term loan outstanding, bills purchase outstanding, advance bills purchase account outstanding etc., and the said suit was filed in the month of August, 1987.3. The defendants have filed the written statement in the month of March, 1988.During the pendency of the suit before this Court, 'Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, (Act 51 of 19993)' was enacted by the Parliament and as per Section 1(3) of the said Act, it shall be deemed to have come into force on the 24th day of June, 1993.4. As per Section 31 of the Act, 'Every suit or other proceed...
Tag this Judgment!Sadhasivan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC481
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. This criminal revision case is filed by the fourth accused the petitioner herein to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate I at Kuzhithurai made in C.M.P.No.1029 of 2001 in C.C.No.353 of 1998 dated 9.5.2002 dismissing the petition for discharge filed under sec.239 Cr.P.C. 2. The case of the petitioner who is A4 before the court below is as follows:-The petitioner is the President of Checkala Community of Ambalakadai village. He is neither related to the complainant nor related to A1 to A3. It was falsely alleged by the de facto complainant that A1 to A4 demanded Rs.1,00,000/= as dowry prior to her marriage with A1, but her family has prepared to give Rs.80,000/= which was allegedly agreed by A1 to A3. Since the petitioner was not related to the family of the accused, charge under sec. 498A IPC and sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is not sustainable. The de facto complainant has stated in her complaint that additional dowry of Rs.50,000/= w...
Tag this Judgment!Joshi and Co., Represented by Power Agent L. Rajendran Vs. Uco Bank, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ661
ORDERP. Thangavel, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the second defendant/judgment debtor as revision petitioner against the order and decretal order dated 4.1.1999 and made in E.P.No.3038 of 1997 in O.S.No.2603 of 1981 on the file of the learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:- The Plaintiff/decree-holder, the respondent herein, is UCO Bank, Main Branch at 169, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-1. The revision petitioner and two others received a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 21.9.1973 and executed a deed of hypothecation as well as a promissory note on 21.9.1973 as security in favour of the respondent herein agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at 15% per annum. The revision petitioner and two others/defendants submitted to a decree on 5.1.1983 and the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.52,781-69 together with interest at 15% per annum from 1.11.1978 till realization a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »