Chennai Court October 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its Managi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC344
ORDER1. The Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115, C.P.C. praying to set aside the fair and decretal dated 16.4.1999 made in I.A.No. 6610 of 1999 in O.S.No. 2356 of 1999 by the Court of XI Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras. 2. Private notice served and the petitioners have filed an affidavit of service and the name of the respondent has also been printed, but he has not chosen either to appear in person or through his counsel, when the above matter was taken up for consideration and hence, this Court is left with no choice but to hear the petitioners and pass orders and having regard to the materials placed on record and in accordance with law. 3. Tracing the history of the above civil revision petition having come to be filed, it comes to be known that the respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No. 2356 of 1999 before the Court of XI Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras for recovery of a sum of Rs. 83,12,5.95. Pending the suit, the respondent/plaintiff has filed the peti...
Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its Managi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ21
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 C.P.C. praying to set aside the fair and decretal dated 16.4.1999 made in I.A. No. 6610 of 1999 in O.S. No. 2356 of 1999 by the Court of XI Assistant City Civil Judge. Madras.2. Private notice served and the petitioners have filed an affidavit of service and the name of the respondent has also been printed, but he has not chosen either to appear in person or through his counsel, when the above matter was taken up for consideration and hence, this Court is left with no choice but to hear the petitioners and pass orders and having regard to the materials placed on record and in accordance with law.3. Tracing the history of the above civil revision petition having come to be filed, it comes to be known that the respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S. No. 2356 of 1999 before the Court of XI Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras for recovery of a sum of Rs. 83, 12, 5.95. Pending the suit, the respondent/plaintiff ...
Ponnammal and anr. Vs. State, Rep. by Revenue Inspector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC232
N. Dhinakar, J.1. This is a petition to quash the proceedings in M.C.No. 1 of 2000 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, which were initiated under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioners. The petitioners challenge the preliminary order dated 6.12.2000 passed by him on the ground that the order does not satisfy the requirements of Section 145, Cr.P.C.2. The petitioners are 'A' party and according to the Executive Magistrate, the Revenue Inspector, Kinathukadavu, has laid an information before him that a dispute is likely to arise between 'A' party, the petitioners herein, and 'B' party regarding a dispute concerning the boundaries for patta lands in Survey Nos. 21/1 and 21/2 of Sokkanur Village, Pollachi Taluk. The said Revenue Inspector has further averred that the members of 'A' party have put up barbed fire fencing and preventing Veluchamy belonging to 'B' party from reaching his patta lands and that both parties are confronting with each other and therefore, there ...
Pushpak Akarwal, Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1853
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. Both the above Criminal Original Petitions have been filed in one and the same case in Crime No.12 of 2003 registered by the respondent. Crl. O.P. No. 17225 of 2003 is filed by the accused Nos. 5 and 6 and Crl. O.P. No. 17271 of 2003 is filed by the 7th accused in the said case, both seeking to call for the records of the case in Crime No.12 of 2003 on the file of the respondent and quash the complaint.2.The allegations are such as that the petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 17225 of 2003 are dealing in yarn respectively under the name and style of M/s Arvind Cotten and M/s Swastik Yarn Agency in Kolapur District, Maharashtra; that one D. Krishnan, owner and representative of Shri Textiles and S.P. Trading Company of Coimbatore appears to have filed a complaint against the petitioners in both the above Crl. O. Ps. for the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, alleging cheating by way of dishonour of cheques, cr...
Sheik Mohammed and anr. Vs. Shah Abdul Aul Aulad Family Charitable Tru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad287; (2004)1MLJ477
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 25-9-2000 made in O.S. No. 372 of 1999 by the Court of District Munsif, Mannargudi and to direct the said Court to proceed further in the said suit in accordance with law.2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the absence of any representation made on the part of the respondents, in spite of their names having been printed in the list, what comes to be known is that the petitioners herein had filed the said suit in O.S. No. 372 of 1998 as against the respondents herein for rendition of accounts regarding the first respondent Trust and for other consequential reliefs on 25-9-2000 since the Counsel for the plaintiffs represented and made endorsement to the effect that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the said suit, the learned Magistrate, by his order da...
Keerapalayam Panchayat Union, Represented by Its Commissioner and Rama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ARBLR171(Madras); (2004)1MLJ1
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The first respondent minor girl aged 8 years suffered serious burn injuries on 06.03.1998 when, according to her boiling tar came into contact with exposed skin when she was on road, that accident having occurred by reason of the alleged negligence on the part of the employee of the appellant Panchayat Union. She through her natural guardian filed a writ petition claiming compensation. In that petition, the learned single Judge appointed an arbitrator to assess the amount of compensation payable. That order was challenged by the Panchayat Union by way of an appeal. The Division Bench confirmed the appointment of arbitrator. That order was made on 29.09.1999.2. Thereafter the arbitrator appointed by the Court who was a retired District Judge received the claim petition, counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat Union and recorded evidence of witnesses for the claimant as also for the Panchayat Union. At the conclusion of his enquiry he assessed the amount payable ...
K. Radhakrishnan Vs. Indian Bank, Rep. by Its Chairperson and Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ1144Mad
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay monthly pension to the petitioner in accordance with Regulation 29 of the Indian Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, at the rate which is on par with the rate of pension payable to the employees of the respondents, who retire under normal Voluntary Retirement Scheme. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows :The petitioner, who was employed in Indian Bank, joined as a Sub-staff on 09.02.1972 and he was later promoted as a Clerk-cum-Shroff. He continued in that post till the year 2000. A Special VRS Scheme was offered from 27.11.2000 to 26.12.2000. About 4, 000 employees of the Indian bank opted for that and retired from service voluntarily. The petitioner also opted for that; his offer was accepted and he was relieved from service on 30.12.2000.3. According to the scheme or package that was offered, the provision with ...
The Managing Director, Pullikai Mills Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ1148Mad
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The petitioner filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in I.D. No. 274 of 1992 dated 25.08.1995 and quash the same.2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:The second respondent was employed as Apprentice in the weaving department of the petitioner. On 31.10.1988, the second respondent approached the Weaving Master at about 11.45 a.m. and submitted two leave letters of his co-employees and compelled him to grant leave to those persons. The Weaving Master objected the same explaining the reasons for rejection of leave letters. On hearing the same, the second respondent quarreled with him and behaved very indecently. For that action, the second respondent was suspended for one day and on the next day, the second respondent threatened the Weaving Master with dire consequences and filthy languages and also threatened him to take awa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›