Chennai Court February 2003 Judgments
O.N.G.C. General Workers Union, Rep. by Its General Secretary, M. Geor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ812Mad
P.K. Misra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of O.N.G.C. General Workers Union espousing the cause of nine persons who were working as Instrument Technicians under the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, the respondent No. 1. Prayer has been made for issuing Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to regularise the services of nine employees.2. It has been asserted that nine persons were Ex-servicemen and had been discharged from Defence Services on completion of their tenures. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 3, the Tamilnadu Ex-servicemen Corporation Limited, in short TEXCO, had interviewed these nine persons for the post of Instrument Maintenance Mechanics which is in the category of Instrument Technicians. It is further stated that TEXCO has taken contract for the supply of labours to the respondents 1 & 2 and accordingly the nine persons were engaged. It is further stated that since the Government of India has issued notification dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Pr. Chockalingam Vs. M. Pichai and V. Lakshmanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ399
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai made in I.A. NO. 89 of 2002 in A.S. NO. 15 of 2002 dated 26.11.2002.2. The said interlocutory application was filed by the respondents herein seeking for appointment of an advocate commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to inspect the suit property and also the adjacent properties with the help of a municipal town surveyor and to find out as to whether the suit property is in Duraisinga Nagar Lay Out. The said application was allowed. The respondent in the said application has filed the present revision.3. Few facts leading to the filing of the civil revision petition are as follows :The petitioner filed O.S. NO. 79 of 1999 before the District Munsif, Karaikudi for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from trespassing into the suit property. After contest, the suit was decreed in favour of the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Aerated Water Works (Karaikudi) Rep. by Its Proprietor K.P.R. Nag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(155)ELT233(Mad)
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to cancel and return the security bond No. 3/1995 dated 15.2.95, which had been furnished pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in C.M.P. No. 19305/94 arising out of W.A. No. 1571/94. The relevant portion of the order passed in the aforesaid matter is to the following effect:'Heard. During the pendency of the Writ Appeals, there shall be an interim order in the following terms:- (1) The appellants shall furnish security either in the form of immovable property or a bank guarantee in respect of the excise duty arrears for the period from 1.4.1994 till today as may be determined by the competent authority. Security to be furnished within two weeks from the date of determination of the duty payable by the appellants.(2) As far as the duty payable from tomorrow is concerned, the appellants shall pay 50% of the current excise duty as determined by the competent autho...
Tag this Judgment!Bindu Industries, Rep. by K. Bakthavatsalu and K. Bakthavatsalu Vs. So ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3625
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioners, who are the accused in C.C. Nos. 4913 and 4914 of 1999 on the file of the Court of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, have come forward to file both the above criminal original petitions against one and the same respondent, who is the complainant in both the matters before the trial Court, praying to call for the records in both the above Calendar Cases from file of the trial Court and quash the same.2. Tracing the history of the above criminal original petitions coming to be filed, the petitioners/accused would submit that the respondent/complainant has filed both the above calendar cases against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonor of cheques for insufficiency of funds to the extent of Rs.66,000/= in the first case and Rs.60,000/= in the second case above; that subsequently, three witnesses have been examined in each case and the above cases are now post...
Tag this Judgment!N.A.R. Nagarajan, Vs. Additional Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: [2003]116CompCas543(Mad)
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. Both the above criminal original petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records respectively in C.C. Nos. 133 and 132 of 1989 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Tiruchirapalli and quash the proceedings therein so far as the petitioners are concerned. 2. The petitioners, in the similar petitions filed in both the cases, would submit that they were the Directors of Rama Sayee Agro Industries Limited, a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, and the respondent initiated the legal proceedings against the company and all the Directors including the petitioners under Section 58A of the Companies Act and Rule 3(a) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 1975; that the said complaints have been filed by the respondent on 22.2.1984 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Tiruchirapalli and on petitions filed by the petitioners, this Court quashed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Camtex Mill Nalloor, Rep. by Its Proprietor Vs. the Assist Provident F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ509Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. M/s. Camtex Mill, the petitioner in W.P.No:18519 of 1997 has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondent relating to the proceedings TN/II/33154/Enf.1(5)/97 dated 9.6.197 quash the said order and direct the respondent to give proper opportunity before passing any order under Sec. 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act either about the applicability of the Act or about the determination of Contribution and pass such further orders.2. The very same petitioner in W.P.No: 18520 of 1997 prayed for the relief of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondent relating to the proceedings TN/II/33157/Enf.1(5)/KK-II/97 dated 13.10.1997 quash the said order and direct the respondent to give proper opportunity before passing an order under Sec. 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act either about the applicability of the Act or about the dete...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Dhanaraj, Executive Engineer (O and M), Coimbatore Electricity Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ773
ORDERE. Padmanbhan, J.1. The petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board initially prayed for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings (permanent) B.P. (Ch) No. 178 dated 25.7.1995 and quash the same as illegal, and direct the respondents to accord all attendant benefits withheld in view of the punishment awarded in the above impugned order and pass such further or other orders. 2. As an objection was raised by Mr. V. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the petitioner moved for amendment of the relief. The amendment was ordered by this court and the amended relief prayed for by the petitioner reads thus:-'The petitioner, prays for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings (permanent) B.P. (Ch) No. 178 dated 25.7.1995 and that of the appellate order namely, (Permanent) B.P. (F.B.) No. 37/96-1, dated 31...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniswami Vs. P. Vellingiri Gounder,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ636
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 967 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore is the appellant.2. The case of the plaintiff can be set out as hereunder:-The plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers and sons of one Patti Gounder who died in the year 1977. The defendants 2 to 4 are sons of the first defendant. The plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule and other items of properties belonged to the plaintiff, the first defendant and their father late Patti Gounder. There was a partition in the family on 31.3.1955. According to the plaintiff, Patti Gounder assured at that time that in respect of his share, he would see that after his demise the properties go to both of them, namely, the plaintiff and the first defendant in equal share. Only because of that, the plaintiff agreed for the 1955 partition and allotment of one share to the first defendant, even though under law, the first defendant was not entitled to any share after execution of the deed of s...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras Stock Exchange Limited Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. S.S.R. Raj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: [2003]116CompCas214(Mad); (2003)4CompLJ50(Mad); [2004]49SCL319(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. We have before us an application to review the judgment rendered in O.S.A. No. 158 of 1988, two O.S.As. filed against the orders made on two applications filed before the learned Company Judge during the pendency of the review application, two letters patent appeals filed against the orders made on sub applications in a contempt application filed by Sri. Raj Kumar alleging willful disobedience of the orders of this Court made by the learned single Judge in those two subsequent applications, and a contempt appeal.2. After hearing arguments, we indicated to counsel for the respondent that we propose to allow the review application and directed him to address arguments on the restored Original Side Appeal No. 158 of 1988. Counsel has been heard on the merits of that appeal.3. We will first take up the review application. The orders sought to be reviewed was made on 22nd February, 1994 and is a short order which reads thus:'Mr. Subba Reddy has appeared for the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Adimadavan and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4310
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in Roc. No. 5430/2002/A2 on the file of the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem and quash the same.2. The petitioners, who are 'A' party respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 6 among seven in the row, in which the 'B' party respondents, are also six in number, in the above proceeding initiated by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Salem against both the parties under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have come forward to file the above criminal original petition seeking for the relief extracted supra on grounds such as that the said Executive Magistrate, as per his preliminary order dated 28-1-2003 has called for the petitioners to appear before him on 31-1-2003 at 10.00 a.m. and show-cause as to why the petitioners should not be directed to execute bonds for maintenance of peace and t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »