Chennai Court October 2003 Judgments
Cholan Paper and Board Mill Private Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Directo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: 2003LC1033(Madras)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. Cholan Paper and Board Mill Private Ltd., aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs - first respondent herein dated 27.08.2003, rejecting the request for release of the goods after mutilation, has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and consequently issue direction to the respondents to permit mutilation of goods for clearance covered under Bill of Entry No.325280 dated 07.07.2003.3. Heard, Mr. R. Thiyagarajan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents.4. After taking me through the order of the first respondent, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that the first respondent failed to appreciate the question and erred in thinking that the request for mutilation was made by the petitioner for the first time on 27.09.2003, after the respondents have found it f...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaveni Vs. State, Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC713
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Heard the Petitioner apprehends arrest for the offences under Sections 341, 324 and 506(ii) IPC.2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner and two others attacked the complainant who has informed to the police about the offence being committed by the petitioner under NDPS and TNP Acts. The occurrence took place on 4.10.2003.3. The learned Government Advocate would strenuously oppose the application on the ground that the petitioner has got a bad record to her credit, since she has involved in a total of 18 NDPS Act cases, 38 TNP Act cases and two other cases under Section 307, IPC. Though, I feel that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, it is pointed out that A2 and A3 were arrested and released on bail.4. Therefore, I am of the view that instead of dismissing the application, it would be proper to impose some stringent conditions by asking the petitioner to pay some substantial amount by way of costs as donation to any charitable ...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Tahsildar (La) Neighbourhood Scheme Vs. Arthanari Gounder ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC121
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J. 1. Vast extent of lands were acquired for the purpose of Neighbourhood scheme for the construction of LIG/MIG/HIG Scheme by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in the Village of Erode. Section 4(1) Notifications were issued on three different dates as detailed in the tabular column given below:A.S.NoLAOP NoDate of Section 4(1) Nan.VillageSurveyNos.ValueFixed By The Lao In Rs. (Per Sq. Ft)ValueFixed Uy The Sub-Court In Rs.(Per Sq. Ft.)55/9232/8715.7.81Periasemur504/33-086.5 Hectares1.29128/9225/8718.2.81Erode144/61.40 Hectares1.206.08569/93Spl. Tahsildar23/8718.2.81Erode144/452 Arcs1.186.251359/9523/8718.2.81Erode144/41.186.251080/9543/8719.2.81Pcriascmur517/11.14.50.884.00410/0228/8718.2.81Erode146/40.41.01.3513.00754/024/8719.8.81Krode 755/023/8719.8.81Erode 756/022/8719.8.81Erode512/1-5 757/025/8719.8.81Erode515/1-40.86.00758/026/8719.8.81Erode516/1-4 759/029/8719.8.81Erode6.87.5Hectares 760/0219/8719.8.81Erode 102/0322/8718.2.81Erode144/50.29.01.2514.00103/0324/871...
Tag this Judgment!Titan Industries Limited, Rep., by Its Vice President-corporate Affair ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
Reported in: 2003LC819(Madras); 2003(158)ELT437(Mad)
ORDERP.K. Misra, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This writ petition is for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to release the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner in respect of imports made against the Value Based Advance Licences as sought for in their letter dated 17.3.1999. 3. The petitioner is a manufacturer of quartz analog watches and is an exporter of the same, has imported several items as per the Export Import Policy 1992-97. The petitioner had obtained the Value Based Advance licence (hereinafter referred to as 'VABAL' in short) for the export of watches and import of components. The petitioner imported certain items against the export already made. At this stage, the Customs authorities had entertained a doubt regarding the valuation of the import and after lot of correspondences, they permitted release of the consignment on furnishing of bank guarantee during the period 19.5.1998 to 9.1.1999. Certain doubts h...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnabai, Vs. K.A. Krishnamurthy,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad108; (2004)1MLJ91
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The petitioners are the defendants 4 & 6 to 11 in the suit for partition filed by the 1st respondent herein namely O.S. No. 203/98 before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai. The suit was dismissed. Against that, an appeal was filed before this Court in A.S. No. 256/81. That was also dismissed. Against that, L.P.A. No. 129/2002 and S.A. No. 796/83 were filed and they were disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court granting a decree for partiion of 8/21 share for items 12 and 13 and 1/7th share in items 1 to 11.2. The properties in respect of which the dispute arose belongs to one Appadurai who had two wives. The plaintiff and defendants 4, 5 and 6 were children through the first wife. The second wife was the first defendant and defendants 2 and 3 were her son and daughter respectively. The defendants 7 to 11 were the tenants. The defendants 1 and 2 claimed that they were beneficiaries under the Will executed by the late Appadurai. The Divis...
Tag this Judgment!Nandh Products Promoters (P) Ltd. Vs. the District Forest Officer, Sal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
Reported in: [2005]123CompCas367(Mad); [2005]64SCL548(Mad)
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated in Bangalore. The petitioner had participated in the auction for sale of sandal wood and sandal sapwood held by the District Forest Officer, Salem Division, the respondent in the present case and was the successful bidder. Subsequently, auction was confirmed and the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 17, 48, 182. It is the case of the petitioner that even though substantial amount had been paid and the petitioner was prepared to pay the balance amount to take delivery, the respondent did not accept the same. At this stage, the respondent issued a show cause notice wherein it was pointed out that the firm of M/s . Sri Mahalakshmi Flour Mills, Bangalore had taken sandalwood on earlier occasion and was liable to pay a huge amount towards sales tax and penal interest and demurrge charges, and filed WP. No. 2239 of 1994 and had obtained interim order subject to...
Tag this Judgment!G. Kotteeswaran Vs. P. Venkatesan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC850; (2004)1MLJ24
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Court of Small Causes), Chennai in MACT.O.P. No. 2727 of 1991 dated 4.8.1994. The unsuccessful petitioner/claimant is the appellant herein. He filed the petition claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on the ground that while he was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing No. TMZ.662 in Periyar Salai, Chennai at about 8 p.m. on 28.9.1991 in east-west direction, another motorcycle coming in opposite direction tried to overtake a bus belonging to Pallavan Transport Corporation and dashed against the motorcycle driven by the claimant as a result of which the accident had occurred and the claimant sustained injuries and hence, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was claimed as compensation for the injuries sustained by him.2. The plea of the claimant that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle coming in the opposite direction was deni...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Pallavan Transport Corporation Vs. Presiding Officer, I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ355Mad
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner, Management of Pallavan Transport Corporation, put in issue the award of the Labour Court, dated August 7, 1995, made in I.D.No. 831 of 1991, whereby the Labour Court allowed the claim petition of the second respondent thereby directed the petitioner herein to reinstate the second respondent in service with full back-wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.2. The precise facts are as follows:The petitioner was driving a town bus in the Madras city in Route No. 18A, Fleet No. MD.690. On the fateful day, the vehicle met with an accident near Saidapet and fell under Maraimalai Adigal bridge. Apart from the criminal action taken against the second respondent, the petitioner terminated the service of the second respondent on the ground that he has caused the accident by his wilful negligent driving of the vehicle. That order has been passed after conducting an enquiry. That order has been put in issue under the provisions of th...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ravichandran Vs. the Director, Employment and Training,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC496
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as casual labour on 18.5.92 in the third respondent society namely, the Government Telecommunication Employees' Cooperative Society Limited. His services were regularised with effect from 6.1.96 as Peon. Factually, the name of the petitioner was not sponsored through employment exchange and he was recruited directly by the third respondent society. He was served with a memo dated 9.9.96 by the third respondent to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated, as directed by the first respondent namely, the Director of Employment and Training in his letter dated 17.6.96, since the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 1138 Labour and Employment Department dated 25.9.78. Questioning the letter dated 17.6.96 and the Government order dated 25.9.78, the present writ petition has been filed.2. Mr. K.M. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the third respondent society is a society re...
Tag this Judgment!Athmajothi @ Krishnamurthy and anr. Vs. K. Jothimani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC372
ORDER1. This revision has been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against the order passed in E.A.No. 1 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvarur, dated 12.4.2001 allowing the above said E.A. filed by the respondent herein/the third defendant in the suit. 2. The respondent herein/third defendant in the suit filed the application under Rule 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to send for certain documents in proceedings E.A.No. 1 of 2000 in E.P.No. 4 of 2000 in O.S.No. 48 of 1984 during the execution of the final decree proceedings. 3. In the said application, the third defendant/respondent herein has prayed for send for certain documents from the office of the Director of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy relating to the appointment order in the name of one Krishnamoorthy; from the Assistant Commissioner of Archieves, Egmore, Madras relating to Gazettee in the name of one T.V.Stalin @ Krishnamoorthy and relatin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »