Chennai Court January 2003 Judgments
Kalyanam Vs. Ramesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3390; 2003(1)CTC467
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Kalyanam, who worked as Private Secretary to Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of our Nation, for about four years, having aggrieved over the issuance of process against him in the private complaint filed by one Ramesh under Section 500 I.P.C., has approached this Court through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking for quashing of the above said proceedings.2. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner and the Editor of The New Indian Express under Section 500 I.P.C. stating that The New Indian Express published an article carrying the title as 'Mahatma's Secretary seeks peace' at the instance of the first accused Kalyanam containing the imputation indicating that the Mahatma's Secretary is struggling for peace from the hands of the hands of the complainant and since the said article containing the imputation published in The New Indian Express dated 13.4.2000 would harm the reputation of the complainant, both the accused are liable to be ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sayambu Nadar Vs. V. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ656
A.K. Rajan, J.1. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the suit on an insufficiently stamped promissory note is maintainable on the original cause of action? 2. Whether the appellant is liable to pay interest as ordered by the lower court or as from the date of demand? 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,700/- on 10.12.1987 for the purchase of spare parts for the lorry. On 6.6.1988 he has given a receipt acknowledging the debts payable by him. On the basis of the same, the suit has been filed for recovery for the amount of Rs.5,700/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit to the date of the decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% interest till the date of realisation. The trial Court decree the suit as prayed for. The first Appellate court confirmed the same. Against which the Second Appeal has been filed.3. Learned counsel for the appellant subm...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Subbaraya Gounder and Sons, Partnership Firm, Rep. by Its Partner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ536
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The petitioner-firm, aggrieved by the order dismissing the application filed by it in I.A. No.570 of 2001 in O.S. No.16 of 2001 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead it as a defendant in the suit, has filed this civil revision petition. 2. The first respondent-firm, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No.16 of 2001 against the petitioner-firm (represented by its Partner V.R. Sadasivam), the first defendant, the petitioner herein, one Madhura Enterprises, the second defendant and the Inspector of Police, Erode North Police Station, the second respondent herein, for permanent injunction restraining the second respondent herein from interfering with the peaceful running of the business in its suit premises. 3. During the pendency of suit, the petitioner/first defendant filed I.A. No.413 of 2001 for appointment of Commissioner to take inventory of the goods deposited by the petitioner in the suit premises. After filing of the said application, the first re...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. S. Ramadoss and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC461
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The proceedings were initiated by this court on the basis of the letter dated 23.10.2002 written by Honble Mr. Justice A. Thangamani, who was appointed as the Chairman of Sri P.T. Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker Trust in accordance with the Scheme framed by this court in the suit C.S.No.242 of 1986, as confirmed by the Apex Court. As the said Chairman nominated by this court reported that he was not permitted to enter into the premises and virtually his car was blocked and a mob prevented him from proceeding towards Trust office.2. Subsequently, when the matter was listed on the basis of the said letter, the respondents herein, the contemnors filed affidavits, giving out their own suggestions for the modification of the Scheme and also stated that the functioning of the Trust had become stand still because of the resignation of the Chairman and the proposed resignation of those Trust Board members nominated by this court who do not belong to Vanniyar Community.3. On ...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsyan Nec Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: 2003LC554(Madras); 2003(157)ELT627(Mad)
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. In both these writ petitions, the respective petitioners/companies seek for Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the third respondent dated 16-9-2002, to quash the same and to direct the first respondent to permit the examination of the National Metallurgical Laboratory Scientists as prayed for in the petitioners reply dated 16-8-2002 and 14-8-2002 respectively.2. The following facts are sufficient for the disposal of these writ petitions :-The petitioners/companies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, claim to have negotiated the purchase of steel scrap in the course of their business. Before the clearance of the goods, an investigation was launched by the second respondent alleging that the goods thus imported are not melting scrap, but appeared to be steel sheets/plates and such goods are being imported and cleared as melting scrap. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioners are evading ...
Tag this Judgment!Satwant Singh Vs. Bharati Mobinet Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: [2004]121CompCas878(Mad); (2003)4CompLJ118(Mad); [2004]55SCL667(Mad)
ORDERMalai Subramanian, J.1. The petitioner is the accused in EOCC 577/2002 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate pending against him.2. The petitioner was one of the directors of the complainant/company. He was also functioning as Chief Executive Officer. The assets listed in the complaint were given to him for use. Pursuant to the appointment of Mr. P.H. Rao, as managing director of the company on 13.8.1999, the appointment of the petitioner stood terminated. When the company requested the accused to return the assets, he opted to buy some of them, but did not keep his commitments. Therefore, the company sent a letter dated 24.3.2000 with a debit note dated 21.3.2000 to the petitioner calling upon him to pay the value of the assets held by him, the value of some of the assets being Rs. 8,00,450. There was no reply. On 31.3.2000, the company forwarded a debit note to him, but the petitioner did not come forward to pay for the assets. Therefore, a legal notice was sen...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Hari Govindan Vs. A.R. Rajaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad315
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The appeal is against the order of the Family Court, Madurai dated 9.10.2001 in G.W.O.P.12 of 1998. The respondent herein filed the said O.P for appointing himself as the guardian of the person of his grand daughter minor Adharsha. The respondent is the maternal grand father of the said minor who was born on 20.11.1992. The appellant herein is none other than the paternal grand father of the minor. It is an admitted case that both the parents of the minor are no more. The mother died on 7.8.1995 due to the fire accident occurred on 17.6.1995. The father of the minor died on 11.5.1997. 2.It is the case of the respondent that the minor was all along under the custody of the respondent and he is seeking the relief of appointing himself as the guardian of the person and not in respect of the properties of the minor. The minor is being taken care of by himself and if the minor is separated at this stage, it may be adverse to the interest and welfare of the minor. His fur...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sridhar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad216; 2003(1)CTC385; (2003)1MLJ583
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of all the writ petitions mentioned above. The petitions have been mostly filed in pair. While in W.P. Nos.7070, 9111, 14048, 9970, 10006, 13482 of 1995, the constitutional validity of Chapter X-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (in short 'the Act'), consisting of Sec.217-A to 217-Q, and the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Hill Stations) Building Rules, 1993 (in short 'the Rules') was challenged on the ground of the provisions being discriminatory and arbitrary and, therefore, contravening Art. 14 of the Constitution of India; in the other writ petitions, viz. W.P. Nos.7069, 9971, 12396, 14047, 9112, 13481 of 1995 and 663 and 2142 of 1996, the notices issued by the Collector (2nd respondent) for demolition or as the case may be for initiating the enquiry into the legality or otherwise of the constructions were challenged and a simple Writ of Mandamus was sought for. Since all the writ petitions pertain to the cons...
Tag this Judgment!G. Krishnamoorthy Vs. Sukumar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC405; (2003)1MLJ623
S. Jagadeesan, J. 1. The appeal arises out of the final decree passed in Application No. 1502 of 1994 in C.S.62 of 1982. The appellant, third party to the proceeding, has filed this appeal. The respondents 1 to 3 filed the suit for partition, claiming 3/8th share in the properties against the respondents 4 and 5. A preliminary decree was passed on 19.10.1990. Pending the suit the fourth respondent died. Consequently the respondents 1 to 3 are entitled for half share and the fifth respondent for the remaining half share in the suit properties.2. The respondents 1 to 3 filed Application 1502 of 1994 for passing the final decree. Three Advocate-Commissioners were appointed at different point of time. Finally the Report of the Advocate-Commissioner dated 19.9.2000 was accepted and the learned Judge passed the final decree, allotting item Nos.1a, 3, 4, 6 and 8 of the plaint schedule property to the share of the respondents 1 to 3. By way of owelty to equalise the value of the share, the fif...
Tag this Judgment!Chockalingam Vs. Swastik Filaments Pvt. Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC293; 2003CriLJ2500
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. Both the above Crl. O.Ps have been filed by the same petitioner. The first Crl.O.P. No. 1969 of 2003 has been filed by the petitioner praying to call for the records relating to Crl.M.P. No. 5281 of 2002 in C.C. No. 4153 of 2002 on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and set aside the order dated 15.11.2002 made by the said Court. The second Crl.O.P. No. 1975 of 2003 has been filed by the petitioner praying to call for the records in Crl.M.P. No. 5282 of 2002 in C.C. No. 3431 of 2002 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and set aside the order dated 15.11.2002 made by the said Court.2. The petitioner in both the C.C.Nos.4153 of 2002 and 3431 of 2002 has filed applications before the trial Court in Crl.M.P. No. 5281 of 2002 and Crl.M.P. No. 5282 under Section 205 Cr.P.C on certain grounds such as, that he is a business man dealing in fish-nets at Peravurani, Tanjavur District besides being an agriculturist;...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »