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.
Allahabad Bank Vs. Kothari Petrochemicals Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: [2005]128CompCas402(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. Company petition filed under Section 433(e) read with Section 434(1a) and (1b) of the Companies Act, to wind up the respondent-company.2. The case in brief is as follows : The respondent-company is promoted by M/s. Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Limited and the group has interest in sugar, petrochemicals, industrial alcohol, bio-technology, mutual funds, financial services, international trading, safe deposits lockers, etc. The respondent set up a factory at Melavanjoore Village near Karaikal to manufacture caustic soda, chlorine and hydrogen. During October 1997, the respondent approached the applicant-bank for sanction of a term loan of Rs. 400 lakhs. The respondent had already taken a loan of Rs. 500 lakhs from M/s. Reliance Capital Limited and applied the same towards purchase of project and other fixed assets and other pre-operative expenses. The said loan had become due and carried a very high rate of interest. The purpose of applying for a loan from the applica...
K.R. Subbiah and thenammal Achi Vs. Indian Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC456; [2005]124CompCas328(Mad); (2003)1MLJ600
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The petitioners / defendants in D.R.C. No. 43 of 2001 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, have preferred the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to quash the proceedings pending before the Debt Recovery Officer, Coimbatore.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The first petitioner was working as a Manager of Manimelkudi Branch in the respondent Bank. He caused loss to the bank of Rs.11 lakhs due to his conduct in 1983-84. Enquiry was conducted and he agreed to pay a sum of Rs.11,95,200/= by selling his properties on 21.06.1984. He also executed a demand promissory note for the aforesaid amount on 16.10.1984. The respondent bank filed O.S. No. 585 of 1985 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Madurai and a preliminary decree was passed on 07.01.1986. Final decree was also passed on 12.11.1986. Two properties belonging to the 1st petitioner was sold and the bank collected a sum of Rs.4,07,000/=. After formation of...
G. Palanisamy Vs. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police,distric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4792
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Cuddalore in Crl.M.P. No.1111 of 2000 in CC No.200 of 1997, allowing the petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 319 Cr.P.C to add the petitioner as a accused, in the above CC. 2. The brief facts of the case is as follows :-a)Thiru.Muthukumarasami,Sub Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, was directed in the year 1992, to enquire into the affairs of Cuddalore District Motor Transport and Fuel Bills Maintaining Section as it was informed that some irregularities were committed by the officers concerned. Accordingly, he conducted a preliminary investigation and gave a report, on the basis of which, CBCID took up the matter and investigated the incident and later filed a final report against one C.Gajendran, who was working as a constable in the armed reserved force, South Arcot District at Cuddalore from July 1986. b)According to the final report, between the perio...
Tvl. C.K. Impex Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Roving Squad I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: [2003]131STC133(Mad)
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.2. The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for records of the respondent in G.D.No.845033/2002-2003 dated 14.1.2003 and quash the same as illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional and direct the respondent to release the goods detained by the respondent.3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It has been contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that in view of the provision contained in Article 323-B of The Constitution of India and the constitution of the Special Tribunal under the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal Act, 1992 and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in : (L. CHANDRAKUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA), the remedy of the petitioner is to app...
Natarajan Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry, Rep. by the Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2372
ORDER'We have examined the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.472/1985 decided on April 25, 1995, reported in 1995 Crl.L.J. 3992. The following corrigendum be issued:PageInstead ofReadPage 6,Line 8 to 17'does not bear the signatures or the thumb impression of the appellant. Even, the recovery memo of the revolver and the cartridges, Ex.P-9/A, which is also attested by Yash Pal and Sukhdev Singh, ASI does not bear either the signatures or the thumb impression of the accused. The absence of the signatures or the thumb impression of an accused on the disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act detracts materially from the authenticity and the reliability of the disclosure statement'.'was made long time after the appellant was taken into custody by the investigating agency and it is doubtful whether the same was voluntarily made by the appellant'. ----42. It is surprising to note that even though the corrigendum had been issued by the Supreme Court by the order dated 25.4.19...
PenquIn Leathers Rep. by Its Partner, K. Kribakaran Vs. Arunachalam, P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: II(2003)BC464; 2003(2)CTC45
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J.1. These revisions have been filed by the complainant M/s. Penguin Leathers for enhancing the punishment given to the accused by the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, in C.C.Nos.354 & 355 of 1998.2. Though notice was served on the respondent, he has neither appeared in person nor is he represented by any counsel. Hence, I am constrained to go through the records, hear the petitioner and pass the following order.3. It may not be necessary for me to narrate in detail the facts of the case, since the Magistrate has believed the evidence and found the accused guilty in C.C.No.354 of 1998 and imposed punishment till the rising of the Court and fine of Rs.3,000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five weeks and in C.C.No.355 of 1998, the accused was imposed one week simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.4,000 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Aggrieved by the same, the present revisions have been filed.4. Th...
V. Kasi Vs. Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ986Mad
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The appellant was working as a conductor in the respondent- Corporation. His services were terminated after an enquiry into the misconduct of not issuing tickets to four passengers, one of whom was a child, and for all of whom 3 1/2 tickets should have been issued. The incident occurred on February 15, 1989 when the bus was travelling from Devakottai to Madurai.2. The workman's defence to the charge was that the passengers had boarded the bus at Amaravathiputhur, in between Devakottai and Madurai; that he had collected the fare from them but, that regarding the number of tickets to be issued, there was a difference of view between the passengers and the conductor as the passengers had taken the stand that no charge was payable for the child. The fact that the conductor had collected the money from the passengers but had not issued the tickets to them is not disputed. The conductor claimed that he had made an entry in the invoice with regard to three and half tic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›