Chennai Court January 2003 Judgments
The Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: [2005]126CompCas83(Mad); 2003CriLJ3468; [2005]63SCL248(Mad)
ORDER) AND OTHERS reported in 1983 TLNJ 422.13.3.14. A prolonged custody is a question of fact and there cannot be any hard and fast rule to decide such allegations except to get satisfied by the scrutinisation of the relevant records, as ruled out by the Apex Court in MUTHUSWAMI Vs . STATE OF MADRAS reported in :13.3.15. I have perused the original records relating to the remand of the respective cases. From the records relating to the order of remand by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (E.O.I), Madras, in Crl.A.Nos.23, 31, 32 and 33 of 1995, I find that the respondent/accused was arrested at 4.00 pm on 9.11.1985 and was produced at 2.05 p.m. on 10.11.1985 at the residence of the learned Magistrate. Similarly, the respondents/accused in Crl.A. No. 148 of 1995 were arrested at and produced before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (E.O.II), Madras, at 3.30 pm on 10.7.1991, for remand. Therefore, the contention that the respondents/accused in the ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Natarajamurthy Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2003
Reported in: [2003]131STC280(Mad)
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. Since there is no factual dispute, on consent of the counsels appearing, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.3. The petitioner has prayed for issuing Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ or direction prohibiting the respondent from enforcing the direction dated 16.10.2002. The relevant portion of the direction is to the following effect :-' . . . It is hereby informed that further leasing of the above Mills or running the above mills until the receipt of further orders from this office is prohibited.'This direction is in respect of Sri Arunachaleswarar Mills located at S.F.No.645, Maivadi village, Udumalapet. The said concern was originally a partnership firm consisting of several partners. In course of time, on retirement of several partners and induction of some, the partnership firm consisted of the following partners as on 25.11.2000 :-1. M/s. Enson Cotspin (P)Ltd., rep. by its...
Tag this Judgment!T. Dulip Singh Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC295
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The writ petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in proceedings of the first respondent in Pa.Mu. No. 50470/E3/97 dated 3.11.1998 confirming the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Pa.Mu. No. 72582/E3/93 dated 5.6.95, quash the same and direct the respondent to refund the excess stamp duty collected by the respondents to the petitioner.2. Heard Mr. R. Premkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. V. Velumani, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. With the consent of either side, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.3. According to the petitioner, a senior member of the Madras Bar, he joined the firm of M/s. King and Patridge in the year 1967 carrying on business as Advocates and Solicitors. The petitioner became a partner of the firm on 1.10.1979, which firm has located its branches in Madras, Ooty, Bangalore a...
Tag this Judgment!B. Manoharan Vs. the General Manager (South) Chennai Telephones and th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad421
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. Heard Mr. N. Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. S. Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for Mrs. Meera Gupta.2. The petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any manner interfering with the telephone connection No. 4726218 installed in premises No.34-A, Pasumpon Muthuramalingam Street, Rajaji Colony, Saligramam, Chennai 600 093 without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard.3. Mr. N. Sridharan, now fairly states that the telephone is functioning smoothly and the present Number being 2366218.4. The relief prayed for in this writ petition is to restrain the respondents from interfering with the telephone connection. The respondents being public authorities, they will interfere with the telephone connection if there is default in payment or there is violation of the rules of the Indian Telegraphic Act as the case may be. A Mandamus, that too a blanket ma...
Tag this Judgment!Department of Posts, Vellore Division Vs. Smt. Beula Arulrathinam and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC342
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The petitioner herein challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal has quashed the punishment of recovery awarded to the respondent. The respondent at the relevant time was working as treasurer in Vellore Head Post Office. She was posted there by order dated 13.12.1993. She took charge from one Manoharan on that day. She acknowledged that she had taken over postage and other stamps for Rs. 5,92,903.95 from her predecessor under acquittance in the treasurer's cash book dated 13.12.1993. However, on a subsequent verification of the cash and the stamps, a shortage of Rs. 1,41,630/- was noticed in the stamp balance held by the respondent and, therefore, a notice under Rule 16 of Central Civil Service (C.C.A.) Rules 1965 was issued. She offered her explanation. In the explanation she claimed that she had depended upon the signature of the Deputy Post Master in the treasury cash book. She also stated that...
Tag this Judgment!Subbiah Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Through Its Superintendent Engineer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC647
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.7.1999 in C.M.A. No. 801 of J991 on the file of this Court wherein learned Single Judge held that the arbitrator has no right to extend the time beyond four months' period and even if the parties consent for extension of time, the award would be vitiated by illegality and it would become a non-est. Learned Single Judge has also held that the Court alone has the right to extend the period of time. In this view of the matter, learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein. It is against the judgment and decree, the present appeal has been filed.2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Government Pleader. We find that before the arbitrator, both the parties have participated in the arbitration proceedings willingly and without raising any objection even after the expiry of four months. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Hardyal, : has ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Venugopal (Died) and 4 ors. Vs. the Commissioner and Secy. to Govt. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC649; (2003)2MLJ121
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in applying the observation made by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4725/95 which is relating to the grant of interim order for the continuance of service of an employee in a matter wherein an individual has approached for the alteration of date of birth on the verge of his retirement?(b) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in holding that the appellant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the civil Court and he is bound to convince the third respondent only in deciding his community status in spite of the fact that the revenue authorities have failed to consider various documentary evidence adduced on an earlier occasion?(c) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in summarily rejecting all the documentary evidence by observing that they are related to different persons, even though, number of documents ac...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Yucub and Mohd. Sultan Abdul Cader Vs. N. Mohanraj, N. Muralidha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad190; (2003)1MLJ339
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. NO. 94 of 1997 are the revision petitioners herein. The respondents 1 to 3 herein have filed a statutory suit in O.S. No. 94 of 1997 before the Sub-court, Mayiladuthurai under Section 77 of the Registration Act to set aside the order passed by the 4th respondent herein and for other reliefs. The petitioners herein have filed I.A. No. 152 of 2001 to dismiss the suit in limini as not maintainable in law, which was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.2. The short facts involved in this case is the respondents 1 to 3 have purchased the suit property under a sale deed dated 16-04-1999 for a consideration of Rs.14 lakhs. The sale deed was presented for registration on the same day namely 16-04-1999. The respondents 1 to 3 have also paid the deficit stamp duty of Rs.78,000/- in addition to Rs.90,000/- which was already paid by way of stamp papers in which the sale deed was typed...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Muthusamy Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation, Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC15; [2003]117CompCas752(Mad); 2003(1)CTC170; (2003)1MLJ342; [2004]51SCL610(Mad)
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J. 1. This revision is filed against the order of dismissal dated 14.3.2002 made in I.A. No. 51 of 2001 in I.P. No. 2 of 1999 on the file of Sub Judge, Sankari filed by the petitioner herein seeking for a direction to direct the respondent herein to deposit the surplus amount with accrued interest into the Court within the stipulated time.2. The debtors, who borrowed loan with the respondent herein have filed I.P. No. 2 of 1999 to adjudicate them as insolvents, wherein the petitioner herein has been arrayed as 7th respondent and the respondent is the 297th respondent. The respondent herein has sanctioned term loan of Rs. 20 lakhs on 11.1.1996 to M/s. S.K. Borewell services, a partnership concern represented by Kaliannan, Sankar, Gopal and Saravanan. The said persons committed default in paying the loan amount. The respondent herein has taken possession of the hypothecated property of the said persons under Section 29 of The State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Ul...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple, Rep. by Members of Trust Committee, Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ493
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The appellants are the Trustees of Sri. Gangai Vinayagar Temple, Thirumudi Nagar, Pondicherry. They had executed a lease deed on 8.11.1967, marked as Ex.A-2, in favour of one Kanniah Chettiar, in respect of a plot of land on which the lessee was to erect a theatre. The lease was for a period of fifteen years, commencing from 1.1.1968. In that document, Ex.A-2, the persons executing the document as lessors are described as the President, Secretary, Treasurer and Member of the Trust Committee of Gangai Vinayagar Temple. It also contains a declaration that 'the lessors in the above capacity have declared that the said immovable belongs to the said Gangai Vinayagar Temple'. 2. The lessee having died after constructing the theatre, his widow filed a suit in O.S.125 of 1976, which suit came to be later renumbered as O.S. No. 5 of 1978, impleading therein the temple as the first respondent and the members of the Trust Committee as persons representing the temple Trust....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »