Chennai Court February 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.
State Vs. Radhakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC530
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai, has filed this petition to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent/accused in Crl.M.P.No.880 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. 2. The petitioner is the Investigating Officer in the case in Crime No.42 of 2003 on his file. The petitioner has registered the case on the complaint of one K. Jayaraman against the respondent and 16 others under Section 420 I.P.C. read with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, Section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act, Sections 3 and 4 of Drug and Magic Remedies Objectionable Advertisement Act and Section 506(i) I.P.C. on 24.1.2003. The respondent herein, who is accused No. 1 in the case, filed a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P. No. 880 of 2003 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, seeking anticipatory bail in the case. The petitioner herein filed a counter opposing ...
K.V. Muthuramalingam Vs. Soloman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC577; (2003)1MLJ700
ORDERA. Ramamurthu, J.1. The first respondent in Election O.P.No. 18 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram has preferred the present revision petition aggrieved against the orders dated 28.11.2002.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The first respondent herein, who is the petitioner in the election original petition, filed a petition under Section 258 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act and also under Rule 122 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Election Rules, for declaration that the election of the revision petitioner herein is illegal and also to declare that he has been duly elected. On 18.10.2001, election was conducted for the post of Panchayat President, Malaramanadhi Panchayat. The revision petitioner as well as the 1st respondent have contested. The revision petitioner was working as a Contractor in Public Works Department as well as in Highways Department. He has not completed the work undertaken by him and it was subsisting. The 1st respondent also gave a rep...
P. Senthil, Vs. the Principal, Sivet College,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad326; (2003)1MLJ644
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The writ petition and contempt petition are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners 1 to 7 have filed the writ petition to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for records and quash the impugned order of the first respondent dated 15-10-2001 and direct the College authorities to permit the petitioners to resume studies and attend the classes.3. The contents of the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, in brief, are as follows:-'(a) The petitioners 1 to 7 are the students of the South India Vaniar Educational Trust (SIVET) College (hereinafter referred to as 'the College'), Gowrivakkam, Chennai. There are more than 1,500 students studying in the College. (b) The elections were not held for about two years for the College students' Union and the College timings were advanced during the current year from 9.30 am to 9 am, which caused inconvenience to the students. (c) In order to request the College authorities ...
Amarjothi Spinning Mills Ltd., by Its Collection Officer, Mr. G.L.N. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: [2003]117CompCas224(Mad)
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J.1. This revision has been filed against the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Gobichettipalayam in Crl.M.p. No. 268 of 2000 in CC No. 10 of 2000, discharging the accused, by dropping the proceedings against the respondent herein who was accused of offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.2. When the revision was admitted here, notice was issued to the accused through this Court and the same appears to have been received by the accused. However, he has not appeared either in person or through counsel. The matter has been appearing in the list on several occasions and on none of the hearings, there was any representation. The matter was last posted to 06.02.2003, on which day also there was no representation. Subsequently, when the matter was called on today, i.e. 10.2.2003, today also there is no representation. Hence, I am constrained to hear the petitioner, peruse the records and pass orders.3. A complaint had been given against the accus...
Aralvaimozhi Sri Nainar Kulasekara Vinayagar Vellala Samudaya Temple, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ1
K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. The plaintiffs are the appellants herein. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs' institutions is a denominational institutions and are entitled to protection under Art. 26 of the Constitution of India. 2. The plaintiffs' case is that Vadakoor Aaralvoimozhi is a well defined locality in Aaralvaimozhi hamlet of Thovala Village and Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The vellalas inhabiting in Vadakoor Aralvoimozhi are collection of individuals, having a common faith and are followers of Saivite form of Hindu religion and designated by the distinct name 'Vadakoor Vellala Samudhayam' and this constitutes a denomination by itself. It is stated that the said Vellala Community has got their own peculiar customs and practice in the religious worship of the suit temple. The main deity Sri Nainar Kulasekara Vinayagar is situated in the sanctum sanctorum and in the Ardhamandapam Acharya Vinayagar is situate. Deeparathanai will be done for the main deit...
Sri Swaminathan Constructions, a Registered Firm Vs. the Divisional En ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad202
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner, who submitted a tender for re-construction of a bridge at Kms. 5/6, Sembanarkoil - Nallodai Road across the Kadaladi river within the jurisdiction of the second respondent, was entrusted with the above-said contract by the respondents herein under an agreement dated 21.12.1999. The value of the contract as per the said agreement dated 21.12.1999 is Rs.92,13,377/- and the petitioner was expected to complete the work on or before 20.9.2000.2. Concedingly, the petitioner-contractor completed the work in all respects on 25.2.2001, raised a final bill for a sum of Rs.6,17,374/- and also requested for refund of the security deposit, viz., a sum of Rs.1,38,268/-. As the said dues were not settled, the petitioner has preferred the above writ petition seeking the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner all amounts due including the final bill and security deposit.3. Mr. M.S. Palanisamy, learned Additional Government Ple...
R. Varadachari Vs. the Management of the Press Trust of India, Parliam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ420Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. In W.P. No. 10076 of 1998, the petitioner, R. Varadachari has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in I.D. No. 53/91 dated 12.3.97 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, the 3rd respondent herein, and quash the same.2. In W.P. No. 14576/98, the very same petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the award dated 15.2.97 made in W.J. No. 3 of 1990 on the file of the Labour Court and quash the same.CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER IN W.P. NO. 10076/1998 3. The petitioner joined the Press Trust of India, the first respondent on 13.12.1958 and he was superannuated on 31.8.1998 on his completing 60 years. The first respondent is a non-profit making concern, which is headed by a General Manager appointed by the Board of Directors. The first respondent is a news agency entrusted with the collection and distribution of news to its clients. The petitioner joined the first respondent as a S...
Chinnammal Vs. Periyasami,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC545; (2003)1MLJ659
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. This judgment shall govern both the appeal suits in A.S.Nos.1088 of 1987 and 767 of 1989.2. The 5th defendant is the appellant in A.S. No. 1088/87, while the first defendant is the appellant in A.S. No. 767/89.3. Both the above appeals have arisen from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, granting the relief of specific performance along with the other reliefs sought for by the first respondent/plaintiff.4. The plaintiff filed the suit with the following averments:The suit properties belonged to the first defendant. An agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant on 24.9.1980 for the sale of the suit properties to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.37,000/-. A sum of Rs.1,000/- was paid as advance by the plaintiff. The balance of sale consideration is to be paid within six months i.e. 24.3.1981. The first defendant executed the said agreement for himself and as guardian for his minor daughter Dhanalakshmi, who ...
The Madras Medical Mission, represented by Its Hon. Secretary, K.V. Ge ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ839
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Madras Medical Mission (appellant) established in 1982 at Chennai by the members of Orthodax Syrian Church, is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It has established an institute for Cardio Vascular diseases, an institute for Reproductive Medicines for Women's Health and a Transplant Center for organ transplantation. It has recently set up a 300 bed hospital and has established facilities for commencing a new medical college at Ganapathichettykulam, Kalapet, Pondicherry under the name and style of 'Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences' (PIMS). The estimated project cost is Rs.80.00 crores of which Rs.46.00 crores which includes borrowed funds of Rs.34.00 crores is said to have been already invested. 2. It applied to the Central Government in the year 2001 for permission to establish the new medical college commencing from the academic year 2002-03, such permission having been sought in terms of Section 10A read w...
The Kumbakonam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. by Its Secretary Vs. A.R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad377; [2003]116CompCas124(Mad); (2003)1MLJ544
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 100 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, is the appellant. 2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 32,638.85 being the principal and interest due on two Fixed Deposit Receipts and for costs. 3. The case of the plaintiff can be briefly stated as under:- The plaintiff is a merchant and landlord carrying on business in Kumbakonam. He used to deposit amounts in his name, in his wife's name so also in his son's name with the appellant/first defendant bank. There was repeated canvassing by the bank officials for depositing amounts in the first defendant-bank. On 16.2.1983, the plaintiff went to the first defendant-bank to invest and deposit Rs. 20,000/- as fixed deposit. The plaintiff met the 2nd defendant viz., the Special Officer and told him that he would go to the United Commercial Bank of India, withdraw the amount and deposit the same with the first defendant-bank. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »