Chennai Court January 2003 Judgments
United India Insurance Company Ltd. by Its Divisional Manager Vs. Muth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1780; AIR2003Mad284; (2003)1MLJ441
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The defendants 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of of one K.R. Raman who carried on the goods transport business in the name and style, Sri Velmurugan Transport at Sattur. The third defendant booked a consignment on 15.6.1979 with the said Sri Velmurugan Transport for transporting certain bundles of matches from Mudukku Meendanpatti village, Sattur taluk to Lalithapur, Maharashtra State. The goods were transported by Sri Velmurugan Transport through its lorry and the lorry on its way to the destination overturned and fell and on account of the heavy impact due to the said fall, the match bundles loaded in the lorry got fire and the entire match bundles were completely burnt. The third defendant who booked the consignment informed the plaintiff of the accident and also gave a notice to the proprietor of Sri Velmurugan Transport claiming the value of the goods lost in the fire. The proprietor of Sri Velmurugan Transport disowned his l...
Tag this Judgment!Dcw Ltd., Rep. by the Senior Vice-president, M.A. Ramaswamy Vs. the Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(159)ELT57(Mad); (2003)1MLJ608
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The appellant is a manufacturer of Caustic Soda by electrolysis of the brine solution. Hydrogen and Chlorine fumes are released in that process of electrolysis. Those fumes when dissolved in water result in the production of Hydrochloric acid. The appellant thus produces Hydrochloric acid as a byproduct. The industrial licence which the appellant had obtained when it established the manufacturing facility in the year 1962 specified one of the items of manufacture as 100% Hydrochloric acid.2. The appellant commenced manufacture in January 1963. As Hydrochloric acid was exempt from the levy of Central Excise upto 28.2.1979, there was no occasion for the appellant to file any price list for that byproduct till then. It is the case of the appellant and that is also accepted by the Department that almost all of the Hydrochloric acid so manufactured was captively consumed.3. The appellant filed classification list and price list for that 100% Hydrochloric acid on 16....
Tag this Judgment!R. Ravi Vs. the Regional Transport Officer and the Commissioner of Cus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad68; 2003LC20(Madras); 2003(159)ELT158(Mad)
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Ramaswami for respondents.2. The petitioner has prayed for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the order dated 31.10.2002 in R. No. 80730/D1/2002 and for giving direction to the respondents to register the vehicle bearing Chassis No. AW110052004 and Engine No. 4A 0460522.3. In a public auction dated 19.2.2002 held by the Customs Department the petitioner had purchased Toyoto MR II Car, which had been seized by the Customs Department at the time of importation, on the ground that there was no bill of entry. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the respondent under Rule 57 in Form No. 32. Under the impugned order dated 30.10.2002, the petitioner was informed that he has to move the Customs Department, the second respondent herein, to get the vehicle registered in the name of the Customs Department and file an application thereafter for transfer. This is bein...
Tag this Judgment!S. Abdullakhan Vs. the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ597
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. Both these writ petitions have been filed by one Abdullakhan, who was working with the Vegambur Town Panchayat, Erode District. In the first-mentioned writ petition, the prayer is for setting aside the order passed in the original application (O.A. No. 1841 of 1989) filed by the petitioner before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal. By that original application, the petitioner had challenged the departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against him. In the second writ petition also, the petitioner seeks the setting aside of the order of the Tribunal whereby, the Tribunal had confirmed the earlier orders in the departmental enquiry No. 140/88 Ref. No. 2568/88/A3, dated 3-4-1989, and G.O. Ms. No. 479. The following facts will highlight the controversy.2. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as Executive Officer (Selection Grade) and was posted at Vengambur Town Panchayat. He had joined the services in his capacity as Junior Assistant in Krishnag...
Tag this Judgment!K. Pandurangan, Provident Fund Inspector/Enforcement Officer Vs. Abdul ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ318Mad
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1.1. The appeals are directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.3.2002 made in C.C.Nos.58 to 69 of 1999 respectively on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District, acquitting the respondents herein, who were arraigned as A1 and A3 respectively. 2.1. The prosecution was initiated at the instance of the appellant herein, alleging that the first respondent firm (A1), the Managing Partner of the first respondent firm (A2) and the Manager of the first respondent firm (A3) avoided payment to be made on behalf of the first respondent firm towards the employees provident fund contribution, as contemplated under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the Schemes framed thereunder, after getting previous sanction as contemplated under Section 14AC of the Act. Accordingly, they were charged for the offence punishable under Section 14(1A) and 14A ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Muthulakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: I(2006)ACC448
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of one K.R. Raman who carried on the goods transport business in the name and style, Sri Velmurugan Transport at Sattur. The defendant No. 3 booked a consignment on 15.6.1979 with the said Sri Velmurugan Transport for transporting certain boundles of matches from Mudukku Meendanpatti village, Sattur Taluk, Lalithapur, Maharashtra State. The goods were transported by Sri. Velmurugan Transport through its lorry and the lorry on its way to the destination overturned and fell and on account of heavy impact due to the said fall and the match bundles loaded in the lorry caught fire and the entire match bundles were completely burnt. The defendant No. 3 who booked the consignment informed the plaintiff of the accident and also gave a notice to the proprietor of Sri Velmurugan Transport claiming the value of the goods lost in fire. Proprietor of Sri Velmurugan Transport disowned his liabil...
Tag this Judgment!Rajammal, Vs. Marudammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ468
M. Chockalingam, J.1. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the appellants herein, and the defendant is the cross objector herein.2. Both the second appeal and the cross objection have arisen from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur made in the first appeal preferred by the defendant.3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff received a loan of Rs. 1,000/- from the defendant's husband on 27.12.1968; that the same was a mortgage by conditional sale; that under the agreement dated 23.4.1969, the defendant has agreed to sell the property to the first plaintiff alone; that the first plaintiff was ready and willing to pay Rs. 1,000/-; that the defendant was in possession of the property; that despite many demands, the defendant failed to complete the sale transaction, and hence, the suit property has to be handed over to the first plaintiff.4. The defendant contested the suit by stating that the suit property was treated as joint family property; that the sale ...
Tag this Judgment!Rukmani and ors. Vs. the Wellington Cantonment, Rep. by Its Executive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC77
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The appellants have preferred these appeals against the common order of the learned Judge in C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 4207, 4206, 4205 and 4204 of 2001 wherein the suits filed by the appellants in O.S. Nos. 99, 96, 97 and 98 of 1999 respectively on the file of the learned District Munsif, Coonoor, were dismissed.2. The appellants herein, who are the tenants under the respondent, filed the said suits for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent-Cantonment from interfering with the peaceful possession, enjoyment and cultivation of the suit schedule property until the appellants are evicted under due process of law. Though originally interim injunction was granted, the same expired on 16.8.2000 and the appellants filed applications in LA. Nos. 467, 461, 463 and 465 of 1999 in O.S.Nos. 99, 96, 97 and 98 of 1999 respectively for extension of the interim injunction. Those applications were dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Coonoor, on 1.8.2001. A...
Tag this Judgment!Rajammal and ors. Vs. Marudammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR69(Madras)
M. Chockalingam, J.1. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the appellants herein, and the defendants is the cross objector herein.2. Both the second appeal and the cross-objection have arisen from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur made in the first appeal preferred by the defendant.3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff received a loan of Rs. 1,000 from the defendant's husband on 27.12.1968 ; that the same was a mortgage by conditional sale ; that under the agreement dated 23.4.1969, the defendant has agreed to sell the property to the first plaintiff alone ; that the first plaintiff was ready and willing to pay Rs. 1,000 that the defendant was in possession of the property; that despite many demands, the defendant failed to complete the sale transaction, and hence, the suit property has to be handed over to the first plaintiff.4. The defendant contested the suit by stating that the suit property was treated as joint family property; that the sale d...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayarajan and anr. Vs. Mariammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC750
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J. 1. Heard. By consent of parties, the civil revision petition itself was taken up for final hearing. 2. The defendants to O.S. No. 124 of 2001 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti, have filed the revision petition aggrieved against the orders passed in I.A. No. 332 of 2002 filed by the proposed party. 3. The case in brief is as follows:- The proposed third party named Mariammal, who is the wife of the plaintiff Rathinavel Chettiar, filed petition under Order 1, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure to implead her as the 3rd defendant in the suit on the ground that she is a necessary and proper party for effective adjudication. The lst defendant is her son and the 2nd defendant is the daughter-in-law. Door No. 89/A2 is in the possession of her husbandand belongs to him and the house was let out by him. Defendants land 2 alone filed a counter alleging that the third party is not a necessary and proper party to decide the matter. 4. The court below, after he...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »