Chennai Court April 2003 Judgments
Rahael, Vs. Palammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad443
T.V. Masilamani, J.1. The defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants herein. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a petition under Section 264 of the Indian Succession Act before the District Court, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil for granting order of probate of the last Will of K. Thangayyan bequeathing the properties in her favour. Since the petition was contested, a suit was registered and tried by the District Judge, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil. 2. The first respondent/plaintiff's case before the trial Court may be briefly stated as follows:- The plaint schedule properties originally belonged to the brothers, K. Nesamony, K. Nesayyan and K. Thankayyan and out of the plaint schedule items, items 1 and 2 are garden lands and items 3 to 5 are paddy lands. There had been a partition about 20 years prior to the suit among the three brothers. Item No.3 was divided into two plots of which the western 2/3rd share had been in possession of Thankayyan and his brother Nesayyan, the 5th defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane, S.P.A. Rep. by Its Deputy Administrativ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC275; (2003)IIILLJ453Mad; (2003)2MLJ445
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Appellant/petitioner is a corporate body, registered in Italy and is an air-carrier of passengers and cargo all over the world. Its' head office for India is in Mumbai. 2. The first respondent was working as Resident Sales Manager and he was in charge of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. Prior to his posting as Resident Sales Manager, the respondent was working as District Sales Manager in Mumbai. On receiving certain complaints regarding the irregularities committed by the respondent as also the misconduct, the respondent came to be terminated by the petitioner by order dated 26-6-1991. Even before that, since there were complaints against him received by the petitioner's Head Office in Rome in Italy and since the respondent smelt about it, he had tendered his resignation on 25-3-1991 wit...
Tag this Judgment!J. Nici Sugantham, Vs. District Elementary Educational Officer and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ621
P.K. Misra, J. 1. All the writ petitions were heard together and shall be governed by this common Judgment For convenience reference is made to averments in WP. No. 13263 of 1996. The said petitioner is working as a teacher in third respondent school from 6.8.1984. She had obtained Secondary Grade Teacher's Certificate from Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, Bangalore in 1982. After the petitioner had joined the service on the basis of such certificate, allegations were received that the certificate produced by the petitioner was not a valid certificate. Action was sought to be taken against the petitioner and many such teachers and several writ petitions were filed by them including the present petitioner. The batch of cases was disposed of by judgment dated 14.7.94. The termination/suspension orders were quashed. The writ petitions were allowed on the following terms :-' 10. For the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are allowed in the following terms: (i) The o...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnayya Gounder, Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ481
P.K. Misra, J. 1. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :-The petitioners are the owners of the properties in S. Nos. 313/1, 313/2, 313/3, 313/4, 314/1 & 314/2 measuring 10.24 acres in Kalapatti village. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 25.2.1994 was published in Gazette on 27.4.1994. Subsequently, declaration under Section 6 was made on 27.6.1995. The acquisition is challenged by raising several grounds, namely (1) declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made beyond the stipulated period of one year (2) notice under Section 5-A has not been served in accordance with Section 45 of the Act (3) there is violation of Rule 3(b) of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules and report of the requisitioning authority has not been furnished. Apart from these technical grounds, it is also contended that acquisition is contrary to the policy of the Government and even though many of the construct...
Tag this Judgment!N. Vellaichamy Vs. the Returning Officer Cum Commissioner,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ660
P.K. Misra, J. 1. The question raised in this writ petition relates to election for the office of Vice President of Pudupatti Panchayat. There is no dispute that a meeting of the Village Panchayt was convened on 31.10.2001 for the said election. Nominations were filed by the present petitioner and the third respondent. The Assistant Returning Officer (second respondent) was authorised to conduct the election. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that after the election was held the petitioners got four votes, the third respondent got three votes and the second respondent declared the petitioner elected as Vice President and prepared a record of the proceedings of the meeting accordingly, which was signed by all those who were present. It is stated that certificate was to be issued after sending report to the first respondent-the District Election Officer. It is alleged that at that stage the third respondent along with his henchmen came along with the deadly weapons and after attacking ...
Tag this Judgment!Rani D/O. Thanislas, Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC513
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. 1. These 5 writ appeals emanate from the common order dated 3.10.2002, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 15595 of 1997 and batch. While there were 7 writ petitions before the learned single judge, the writ appeals are five in number against the orders in 4 of the writ petitions, which are detailed below. Writ Appeal Writ Petition 3128 of 2002 4283 of 1998 3129 of 2002 1569 of 1998 3130 of 2002 1570 of 1998 3214 & 3215 of 2002 15596 of 1997 2. Ms. Rani is the petitioner in W.P. No. 4283 of 1998 and the appellant in W.A. No. 3128 of 2002; Fr.John Joseph is the petitioner in W.P.No. 1569 of 1998 and the appellant in W.A. No. 3129 of 2002; Mr. Santhanarajan is the petitioner in W.P. No. 1570 of 1998 and the appellant in W.A. No. 3130 of 2002. The above appeals have been filed aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge in not quashing the Charge Sheet No. 865 of 1997 dated 3.12.1997 filed in PRC No. 21 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), H.R. and C.E. (A) Dept. and Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ151
P. Thangavel, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the defendants as appellants against the judgment and decree dated 25.3.1986 and made in O.S. No. 29 of 1984 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Madurai. 2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this First Appeal are as follows:- Arulmigu Kannimar Temple at Chinnapatti village, Kancharampettai, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District is an ancient temple and for the support of the said temple an Inam grant has been awarded by ancient Rajas. The said Inam was confirmed by the Inam Commissioner in the year 1865. The temple and the lands granted for maintenance of the said temple were managed by one Manicka Gounder and his descendants hereditarily as hereditary trustees. The genealogy of the descendants of Manicka Gounder is annexed to the plaint. As per Inam Fair Register, permanent tenure was granted in favour of Manicka Gounder as worshiper of the said temple meaning thereby as poojari of the said temple. The said Manicka...
Tag this Judgment!S. Prem Giri Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and the Customs Excise an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(155)ELT235(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for issuing Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent dated 24.9.2002 and directing the first respondent to pay the interest of Rs. 1,47,798/-. 2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:On 27.11.1989 the authorities under the respondent had seized Indian Currency Notes worth Rs. 4,25,000/-. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Customs passed an order for confiscation of gold bars and currency notes and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal. By order dated 17.1.2000, the Appellate Tribunal while upholding the direction regarding confiscation of gold bar and imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,00,00/-, directed to return the currency notes worth of Rs. 4,25,000/-. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner had made a pre-deposit of Rs. 25,000/-. Subsequently the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application No. 104/2000 in C.A. No. 220/91 before the T...
Tag this Judgment!Peerammal Beevi Vs. V. Chinnasamy Nicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ372
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of appellate authority under Rent Control Act, Court of Small Causes, Madras in RCA No. 282 of 1994 in reversing that of the Rent Control Act in RCOP No. 2650 of 1991. The landlord is the revision petitioner.2. The petition was filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The revision petitioner claims to be the landlady of the premises. The said property was let on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- and for a further sum of Rs. 100/- towards amenities for non-residential purpose. The tenant was also liable to pay monthly electricity consumption charges separately. The tenant was using the petitioner-premises as a godown for storing plantain for his business. Originally, the father-in-law of the respondent was the tenant in the year 1976. Pursuant to rental agreement dated 29.4.1996, the tenancy was subsequently renewed. The respondent became the tenant after his father-...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Educational Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ420
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal raises an important question of law for consideration regarding the enforceability of 3% reservation for the persons suffering with disabilities as provided in the 'The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, hereinafter referred to as the Disabilities Act.2. Few facts, leading to the filing of the Writ Petition No. 36781 of 2002, may be necessary to be stated. The respondent is a minor represented by his father and is 50% physically disabled because of polio attack during his childhood. He appeared in Entrance Examination conducted for Medical/BDS course for the academic year 2002 - 2003 and secured 285.37 out of 300 marks but he could not get admission in Open Category and among physically disabled, he was placed at fifth rank. He could not get a seat in M.B.B.S. course as only three seats were earmarked for disabled. However, he was offered a seat in B.D.S. in payment category...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »