Chennai Court October 2003 Judgments
V. Thangaraj Vs. Sriram Chits and Investments Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTLJ291(Mad); (2003)3MLJ733
ORDERR. Banumathi, J. 1. This Revision is directed against the Order of I Additional District Munsif, Dindigul in E.P. No. 578/1998 in ARC. No. 18/1997 (dated 08.11.2000) ordering attachment of the salary of the Revision Petitioner of Rs. 2,000/=.2. This Revision raises question of frequent occurrence before the Executing Courts as to the extent of attachment of salary in execution of decree.3. We may refer to brief relevant facts most of which are uncontroverted.A.R.C. No. 18/1997:- First Respondent / Shri Ram Chit Funds is a Chit Fund Company. Second Respondent / D1 joined a Chit Group value of Rs. 30,000/=. Instalments of Rs. 500/= per month payable for 60 months. The 2nd Respondent prized the chit on 19.11.1993. The bid amount was Rs. 29,000/=. Prize amount paid was Rs. 21,000/=. Revision Petitioner and Respondents 3 and 4 stood as Guarantors. Principal Debtor / Second Respondent / D1 defaulted in payment. After statutory notice dated 22.07.1997, A.R.C.No.18/1997 was filed by the C...
Tag this Judgment!Kalimuthu Vs. Kandasamy Gounder and Rukmani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ521
ORDER1. The above civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 6.7.2000 made in E.P.No.110 of 1998 in O.S.No.992 of 1996 by the Court of I Additional District Munsif, Dindigul.2. Tracing the history of the above civil revision petition coming to be filed by the petitioner, it comes to be known that the petitioner is the assignee of the decree by the decree holder as per the assignment dated 19.1.1998 and the decree assigned was an ex-parte one dated 20.2.1997.3. It further comes to be known from the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that based on the said assignment, the petitioner, assignee of the decree, has filed the E.P.No.110 of 1998 under Order 21 Rule 16 and 66 praying to recognise the petitioner as a decree holder and permit him to sell the suit property and since the said petition was dismissed by the Court below, the petitioner has come forwar...
Tag this Judgment!V. Subramanian and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ349
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Anna University was constituted by an Act of the Legislature of the State of Tamil Nadu by Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1978. That Act was Gazetted on 24th July, 1978. By Section 36 of that Act, the services of the employees in the institutions and departments mentioned in Schedule-I to that Act were transferred to the new University provided such employees consented for such transfer. By a retrospective amendment to that Act effected by Act 44 of 1979, the consent was dispensed with in respect of persons who were not Government employees. Schedule-I reads as under :' SCHEDULE I [See sections 2 (b) and 3 (3)] I. The following Departments of the University of Madras, located in the Alagappa Chettiar College of Technology, Guindy, Madras, namely :- (1) Chemical Technology ; (2) Leather Technology ; (3) Textile Technology ; (4) The School of Architecture and Town Planning. II. The Madras Institute of Technology, Chrompet,Madras.' 2. The services of the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!S. Viswanathan and anr. Vs. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., Rep. by Its Au ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC266
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. This is an application filed by the first defendant under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the parties to the suit to arbitration and consequently dismiss the suit itself. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit is for a declaration to set aside the sale deed dated 17.9.2001 executed by the first defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3; for recovery of possession and for other reliefs. The first plaintiff, who is the husband of the second plaintiff, is an employee of the first defendant. Admittedly, there is an agreement called housing loan agreement to which the first defendant a the 'lender' (Party of the first part); second plaintiff as the 'Borrower' (Party of the third part) and the first plaintiff as the 'Guarantor' (Party of the second part) are parties. This agreement admittedly relates to the housing loan avail...
Tag this Judgment!S. Jayaraj Vs. Tahsildar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC712
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. This is a petition to quash an order purported to have been passed under Section 141, Cr.P.C. by the Tahsildar, Mayiladuthurai, on 24.5.2002.2. It is submitted that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 133(1), Cr.P.C. and later, an order was passed on 7.6.2000 by the Revenue Divisional Officer asking him to remove the nuisance. Thereafter, the Tahsildar sent the order impugned in this Crl.O.P. asking him to carry out the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer or otherwise, he will be prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 188, I.P.C.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an order under Section 141, Cr.P.C. can only be passed by a Sub Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate and not by a Tahsildar and therefore, the order dated 24.5.2002 purported to have been passed by the Tahsildar, Mayiladuthurai, under Section 141, Cr.P.C. is bad in law.4. I have perused the order and I...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Its Divisional Manager Vs. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2003
Reported in: 2006ACJ1224; (2004)1MLJ131
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous appeals have been filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Pudukkottai against the common award dated 22.4.1996 and made in MACT.O.P.No.1109 of 1992 and MACT.O.P.No.1112 of 1992 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV Additional Subordinate Court), Madurai. Hence both the above appeals can be disposed of by this Common Judgment.2. The husband of the first respondent in C.M.A.No.150 of 1997 by name Subramani along with the first respondent in C.M.A.No.151 of 1997 by name Shanmugasundaram were proceeding by walk on 27.2.1991 at about 11.00 p.m. and when they reached the junction of new jail road and A.A. Road, the lorry owned by one Shanmugham (4th respondent and 2nd respondent respectively in C.M.A.150 and 151 of 1997), driven in a rash and negligent manner came from north to south and dashed against the said two persons, in which the Subramani died on the spot, while th...
Tag this Judgment!The National Insurance Company Limited Vs. M. Nandan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC645; 2004ACJ1449; 2004(2)CTC522; (2004)1MLJ146
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. National Insurance Company Limited, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madras, in MCOP No. 435 of 1992, has preferred the above appeal.2. The first respondent herein filed a petition in MCOP No. 435 of 1992 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madras, under Sections 140 and 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 3 of the MACT Rules, praying the Tribunal to fix the compensation payable, to him at Rs. 1,00,000 and to further hold that the owner and insurer of the vehicle in question viz., lorry bearing Registration No. TN-28-Y-3839 are vicariously liable to compensate him for the injuries sustained by him.The first respondent herein, as petitioner, has stated in the petition filed by him that when he was riding in his Scooter bearing Registration No. TMA-1033 in EVR Salai from east to west, the lorry in question viz., TN-28-Y-3839, owned by the 1st respondent in the Claim Petition, which was also comi...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras High Court Staff Association, Represented by Its Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ223
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The challenge in these Writ Petitions is to the Government Orders in G.O. Nos. 71, 72, 73 and 74 dated 19-3-2003, G.O. No. 26 dated 24-3-2003 and G.O. No. 30 dated 28-3-2003, to declare the said G.Os. as unconstitutional and ultra vires of Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioners are represented by Mr. K.Chandru, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. S. Nanda Kumar, while the respondents are represented by the learned Additional Advocate General.3. In G.O. No. 71, dated 19-3-2003, the respondent-State has directed that the maximum qualifying service for a Government servant in order to be eligible for full pension after retirement to be enhanced to 33 years from the existing prescription of 30 years and also directed that pension shall be determined based on the average emolument drawn during the last 10 months of service rendered by the government servant at the time of retirement. The said G.O. was made applicable to the Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Prasad Mathew, Prop: Metro Entertainment Network Vs. S.C.V. Unit of Su ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTLJ422(Mad); (2003)3MLJ784
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J. 1. This revision was originally filed under section 115 C.P.C., against the order passed in C.M.A. NO: 67 of 2003 confirming the order passed in I.A. No. 9980 of 2003 in O.S. No. 2821 of 2003. Thereafter, CMP. NO. 14686 of 2003 has been filed for conversion of the above revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Preliminary objection was taken regarding the maintainability of the C.M.P., for conversion and thereafter the matter was argued. The question of maintainability as well as the merits of revision were heard and decided together.3. The respondent is the plaintiff who entered into a franchise agreement, (hereinafter referred to as agreement in short), with the petitioner on 15.12.1999 agreeing to provide the service which shall mean the 'channels offered by the respondent to the franchisee'. The period of agreement was five years. As per Clause 2(k) of the agreement any breach by the franchisee, gave the respondent the discretion to discontin...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaarathiya Electricity Employees Federation Affiliated to Bharatiya M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ284
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The Challenge in these Writ Petitions is to the Proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in (Per) B.P.(Ch.) Nos. 64, 65 and 66 (SB) dated 31-3-2003.2. In (Per) B.P.Ch. No. 64, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, by virtue of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978, which according to it, was applicable to the employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, it became necessary to adopt the orders relating to Government Pensioners to the Pensioners of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, that by G.O. No. 71 dated 19-3-2003 of the State Government, the qualifying service to earn full pension having been enhanced from 30 years to 33 years, the same enhancement is also made applicable to the employees of the Board after retirement to become eligible to earn full pension. For the same reasoning, the Board also directed that pension would be determined on the average emoluments drawn during the last 10 months service alone. Following the directio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »