Chennai Court February 2003 Judgments
Sapthagiri Educational Trust rep. by Its Chairman, M. Jothiprakasam, V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ358
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The above three writ petitions involve consideration of common issues and hence taken up together.2. W.P. No. 32296 of 2002 is filed by a Private Unaided Non Minority Institution, established at Pondicherry, seeking to quash G.O.Ms. No. 41, Chief Secretariat (Education) of Pondicherry Government dated 11.4.2002.3. W.P.Nos.37348 and 37349 are filed by a Minority Unaided Institution. In W.P. No. 37348 of 2002, the institution prays for quashing G.O.Ms. No. 29, Chief Secretariat (Education), dated 25.3.2002 and G.O.Ms.Nos.41 and 42 dated 11.4.2002. In W.P. No. 37349 of 2002, the prayer is to quash G.O.Ms. No. 29, Chief Secretariat (Education), dated 25.3.2002 and G.O.Ms. No. 35, Chief Secretariat (Education), dated 28.3.2002.4. The main or the only issue which arises for consideration in these writ petitions is the manner and extent of control which the State Government/Government of Union Territory can exercise over the process of admission of students in ...
Tag this Judgment!E. Satheesh Kumar Vs. Vijaya Bank,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad306; [2003]116CompCas549(Mad); (2003)1MLJ741
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in I.A. No. 226/2002 in T.A. No. 189/2002, appointing an Advocate Receiver.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: According to him, on 2-6-2000 he entered into an Agreement with the second respondent herein for the purchase of a textile unit comprised in Survey No. 278/2, 273/2B, 279/2A, measuring an extent of 1.74 acres situated at Madampatti village, Coimbatore. The sale consideration of the entire property is Rs.1,50,00,000/-. On the date of agreement, the petitioner herein had advanced a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the 2nd respondent herein. As per the sale agreement, the petitioner herein undertook to discharge the debts payable to the 1st respondent bank and other creditors of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent herein entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, and in pursuance to that, the petitioner h...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Visalam Chit Fund Ltd. by Its Manager Vs. Vasudeva Achari and Gna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ105
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein.2. This appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge allowing the claim of the appellant/plaintiff in part in a suit filed by them for recovery of money.3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The plaintiff is transacting chit business through its various branch offices. Their branch office at Bangalore commenced the Chit No. TNBZ.1/48 on 30.5.83. The first defendant joined as a member of the said chit. The duration of the chit is 25 months. The total value of the chit is Rs.30,000/-, which is payable in installments of Rs.600/- in fortnight. The first defendant took the said chit in auction on 15.2.84 for Rs.20,450/- and received the same on 6.3.84 from Tindivanam office, and he passed on a receipt in favour of the plaintiff at Tindivanam. The second defendant executed a guarantee agreement in favour of the plaintiff on 6.3.84 at Tindivanam guaranteeing regular payment of remaining insta...
Tag this Judgment!Land Acquisition Officer-cum-deputy Collector (Rev) Vs. Angeline Devad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ7
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. An extent of 4 acres (1.58.19 Hectares), belonged to respondents 1 to 3, comprised in T.S. Nos.151, 152, 163/1 and 163/2 in Valatheru Village, was acquired by the Government of Pondicherry for the implementation of Housing Scheme. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act came to be published on 13.4.1982. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued by the Revenue Department in G.O. No. 3 dated 6.1.1985. The Land Acquisition Officer conducted the award enquiry as contemplated under the Act and passed the award dated 31.3.1986, wherein he has fixed the compensation payable at Rs.4,581/- per Are. Possession of the land was taken on the very next day, that was on 01.04.1986. 2. The dissatisfied land owners/claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before a Civil Court. The Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Kariakal, took the reference on file and the same was numbered as LAOP No. 5 of 1991. B...
Tag this Judgment!M. Venkatachalam Vs. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Rep. by Its Chairm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ338
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The writ petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated 5.4.1999 bearing Proceedings No. 1800/A3-98-1 as confirmed by the order of the second respondent confirmed in their 177th Meeting held on 8.9.1999 communicated to the Petitioner on 6.10.1999 by the order dated 10.9.1999 bearing Proceedings No. 2266/A3/99-1 imposing on the petitioner the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and quash both the orders as without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and in violative of Article 14 of The Constitution.2. Heard Mr. Balan Haridass, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. R. Viduthalai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.3. Practically there is no controversy in the factual matrix. However, the factual matrix could be summarised briefly:-4. The writ petitioner was the Manager...
Tag this Judgment!M.O. Hasan Muthoos Maricar (P) Ltd., by Its Managing Director, M.O.H. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3620
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J.1. These revisions arise out of a common order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pondicherry in C.C. No. 336 of 2000 directing the cognizance of offence under Section 120(b), 456, 467 IPC against A1 to A4 who are the petitioners in Crl.RC. No. 89 of 2000 and two others viz., A9, A10 who are the petitioners in Crl. RC. No. 97/2000. The other accused namely A5 to A8 are respondents in Crl.RC. No. 89 of 2001 who have also claimed the same benefit as that the petitioners in both the revisions.2. The brief facts and circumstances which led to the filing of these revisions are as follows:-The respondent, by name, U. Nargis filed a private complaint before Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pondicherry stating that accused Nos 1 to 4 asked for a loan from the firm of accused Nos. 5 to 8 to meet their expenses for which accused Nos. 5 to 8 wanted the properties as collateral security for which they executed by a general Power of Attorney on 10.11.1997 in favour of the fir...
Tag this Judgment!Damodara Naicker (Died) and 10 ors. Vs. Collector of Chengalpattu Dist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC551
ORDERA.S.Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The legal representatives of the first claimant in A.C.No. 3 of 1983 on the file of District Judge, Chengalpet are the appellants herein. 2. An extent of 9 acres and 6 cents comprised in survey No. 29 in Mukthapudupet village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District was acquired for defence purposes i.e, for Central Vehicles Depot, In fact, originally this land was requisitioned by the Military Department during the second world war in 1944-45 and that was held till the date of acquisition. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Ambattur, in his enquiry found that the said land stands registered in Patta No. 70 in the name of Damodara Naicker. However, during enquiry, Harikrishna Naicker, brother of Damodara Naicker and Varadammal, wife of late Balakrishna Naicker (another brother of Damodara Naicker) also claimed a share. Thus, while Damodara Naicker claimed that he is absolute owner of the property, the two other brothers viz., Harikrishna Naic...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Goyanga Vs. P.M.S. Traders
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)4CompLJ120(Mad)
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J.1. This revision has been filed against the orders passed by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate in Criminal M.P. No. 2154 of 2000 in C.C. No. 7725 of 1996 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein to drop the proceedings against him for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. It may not be necessary for me to advert to the facts of the case in detail, suffice it to say that the cheque issued by the petitioner herein for an existing liability to the complainant/respondent had been dishonoured on presentation. After complying with the all the formalities contemplated in the Negotiable Instruments Act, the prosecution, for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act had been launched before the lower court. The complainant/respondent is said to have issued a notice on 16.8.1996, a copy of which has been placed before the court along with the cover in which the said notice had been sent and the same had been received...
Tag this Judgment!Aathi @ Aathiappan Vs. the State, Represented by Its Inspector of Poli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC32
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The appellant, in the appeal stands convicted by judgment dated 20,3.1998 in S.C. No.34/96 on the file of Court of Sessions, Tirunelveli, for offences under Sections 449, I.P.C. and 302, I.P.C. (2 Counts). For the former offence, he stands sentenced to undergo 2 years RI and for the latter offence, on each count, he was sentenced to undergo 14 years Rl. The sentence imposed on each count of murder was directed to run consecutively. Finding that the sentence of 14 years RI imposed for the offence of murder, on each count is illegal, we caused notice to be issued to the appellant as to why, if the Court ultimately agrees with the finding rendered by the learned Sessions Judge on that offence, the sentence imposed on him by the Sessions Court should not be enhanced to fit in with the sentence prescribed by law. Notice was served on the accused in prison and he sent a written response stating that the offence complained of could not be under Section 302, IPC ...
Tag this Judgment!Sales Service Company Vs. Akb Paper Mill Plant Suppliers (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: [2005]127CompCas447(Mad); [2006]69SCL300(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. Company petition filed under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act to wind up the respondent-company.2. The petitioner is the supplier of bearings and other allied items. The respondent approached the petitioner on November 9, 1995 and January 3, 1996 and gave quotation. The petitioner as per the quotation supplied various articles worth about Rs. 1,38,927.77. The respondent company made payments by means of cheques and the particulars are also given. After giving credit to the payments already made, the respondent is still liable to pay Rs. 18,929.27. The respondent also agreed to pay interest at 24 per cent per annum. The petitioner orally as well as in writing called upon the respondent to make the payment. The petitioner also issued a statutory notice dated November 23, 1996, and it was received by the respondent on December 6, 1996. The respondent sent a reply dated December 20, 1996, containing false allegations. Right from the date of delivery of goods ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »