Chennai Court April 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.
Samba Sivam, Vs. Mr. Gunasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ676
V. Kanagaraj, J. 1. Second Appeal No.1080 of 1998 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1996 rendered in A.S.No.27 of 1994 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, thereby dismissing the Appeal without costs and confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1993 rendered in O.S.No.353 of 1989 by the Court of District Munsif, Harur. 2. Tracing the history of the above Second Appeal coming to be preferred by the defendants in the suit, it comes to be known that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and injunction, on averments such as that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff by way of the sale deed dated 23.8.1989 and the said property was purchased from one Venkataraman, who got the power deed from the 1st defendant; that ever since, the plaintiff, being in possession, is cultivating the same; that the defendants have no right in the same, but the 1st defendant asked the plaintiff to quit the suit property since he has to cancel the ...
Gabriel Vs. the Deputy Registrar (Housing) and T.No.1735, Anna Nagar C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ624
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. This civil revision petition is directed against the decree and judgment of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur passed in C.M.A.No.18/95 dated 20.11.1997 confirming the order of the Deputy Registrar, Housing, Cuddalore, passed in Rc.No.752/92/Sa.Pa dated 2.7.1993. 2. The first respondent initiated action against the revision petitioner under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983,(hereinafter called as 'Act') wherein the charges were framed against him stating, while he was working as a Senior Inspector/Special Officer in Anna Cooperative House Building Society at Thanjavur, had misappropriated amount to a sum of Rs.35,840/- for laying road and for constructing culvert and no prior permission was obtained from the Registrar (Housing) and also falsified the records to that extent and thereby he had caused loss of Rs.35,840/- to the society. The petitioner was called upon to give his reply and he in his reply had stated that only af...
Noor Ahmed Vs. S. Ramasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ604
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The tenant, in RCOP. No. 25/1994, on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Erode, is the revision petitioner. 2. The respondent/landlord filed an application under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for eviction of the tenant, on the ground that he requires the petition premises on the ground of additional accommodation to carry on his business. 3. The case of the landlord is that the petition premises was given on lease by the vendors of the landlord to the respondent for running an automobile spare parts business on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- and the tenancy is according to the English Calendar. The landlord had purchased the building on 16.2.1989 and on intimation of the said purchase, the tenant has been paying the rent to the petitioner. The landlord is running 3 flour mills, one for chillies, one for rice and wheat etc., and another for salt. He also installed 2 pulverisers, one for p...
The Special Tahsildar (La), Chennai Export Processing Zones and the De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ436
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The above appeals have been preferred by the Land Acquisition officer challenging the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Learned Subordinate Judge of Poonamallee in LAOP Nos.: 462, 455, 456, 484, 486, 450, 454, 452 and 451 of 1987 respectively. 2. Heard Mr. R. Ashohan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first appellant in all the appeals, Mr. J. Madanagopal Rao, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appering for the second appellant in all the appeals and Mr. V. Lakshminaraynan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in A.S. Nos: 1154 to 1157 of 2001 and Mr. Veeraraghavan for Mr. P.B. Ramanujam, appearing for the respondent in A.S. No. 1202 and Mr. T.V. Sekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in A.S. No. 1204 of 2001. 3. Vast extent of identical land measuring 135.85 acres, in Kadaperi village, Saidapet Taluk were acquired for the Madras Export Processing Zone (MEPZ) by SIPCOT under the Land Acquisition A...
A. Stephen Samuel, Proprietor, Industrial Security Agency and Saraswat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC469; [2004]118CompCas82(Mad); 2003(3)CTC95; (2003)2MLJ220
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. These two Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 19700/2000 and 20725/2000 dated 23.7.2001.2. The appellants are the tenants of the properties covered in the notice issued by the second respondent. According to the appellants, the properties were let out to them by one P.V. Paulson Ukkuru and the said P.V. Paulson Ukkuru is the sole proprietor of M/s. Josephaul Steels to which the third respondent, namely, Canara Bank, Chennai had extended certain credit facilities which were collaterally secured by the deposit of title deeds. Since P.V. Paulson Ukkuru did not repay the loan borrowed by him, the third respondent filed the suit for recovery of the outstanding amount and on the formation of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the said suit was transferred to the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai and it is stated that an order was passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal dir...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Tmt. Ponnammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ149; (2003)IIILLJ111Mad; (2003)2MLJ352
Sathasivam, J. 1. The New India Assurance Company, Mettupalayam challenges the identical order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Coimabtore 12, granting compensation to various persons. 2. Though the Commissioner has passed separate orders, since the issue raised is one and the same in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment. 3. It is seen that the first respondent in all these appeals sustained injuries while in the course of employment with the second respondent herein. It is further seen that all of them were employed as a brick loaders under the opposite party No. 1 in the heavy goods vehicle, i.e., lorry bearing registration No. TCO 2262. It is further seen that on 30.12.1991, after loading bricks in the lorry, all of them were traveling along with the bricks and near Bathirakali Amman Koil at Mettupalayam, the lorry was upset and fell down in a pit, due to this all the applicants sustained grievo...
S.P. Saravanan, S/O. Palani Gounder Vs. the Commissioner, Sathyamangal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ619
P.K. Misra, J.1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the resolution No. 1212 dated 30.1.2001 passed by the second respondent and the consequential order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka. No. 2535/2002/H1 dated 11.11.2002.2. Petitioner is the owner of an agricultural and poultry farm. The petitioner in his own building, coming within the area of the second respondent, decided to install a mutton and chicken stall. He filed an application requesting the respondents to grant licence for running the mutton and chicken stall. Since the formal application dated 21.7.2002 had remained pending, the petitioner opened the stall on 11.8.2002, but subsequently a notice was issued by the respondent under Sections 269 and 313 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act directing the petitioner to close the shop as he was running the shop without licence. Subsequently, a further notice dated 19.8.2002 was issued. At that stage, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 35300 of 2002. Learned single Judge...
Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mohan (Deceased),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ2046; (2003)IIILLJ890Mad; (2003)2MLJ443
1. The Oriental Insurance Company, Virudhunagar, aggrieved by the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner for Labour), Madurai dated 08.08.1994 made in W.C. No. 171 of 1993 has preferred the above appeal.2. In respect of grievous injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 30.11.1992, the first respondent herein - applicant has prayed for a compensation of Rs. 1,04,960/- before the Deputy Commissioner for Labour. Before the said Authority, the applicant himself was examined as A.W.1 and Dr. L.T. Thulasi Raman as A.W.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.12 in support of his claim for compensation. On the side of the management, no one was examined, however, the Insurance Company has marked Exs.R.1 and R.2 in support of their defence. The Authority, after considering all the materials, after holding that the applicant sustained injuries in the course of his employment, based on the evidence of the Doctor, disability and after assessing the loss of...
S.R. Kumaraswami Vs. Sellamuthu,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ516
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. He filed the suit against the respondents herein and five others in O.S. No. 71 of 1995 for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the suit property by forming a pathway. Earlier, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the suit property and the report was filed by him. Having not satisfied with the report of the Commissioner, the petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 1376 of 2002 to re-open the matter and to re-issue the warrant directing the Advocate Commissioner to make further inspection and to file the report. This has been dismissed. Hence, this civil revision petition.2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, during the pendency of the suit in O.S. No. 71 of 1995, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 937 of 1997 for the appointment of Advocate Commissioner to verify whether any pathway exists in the suit property as alleged by the defendants, the resp...
Association of Nse Members of India, Rep. by Its Joint Secretary, Vija ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: [2003]47SCL200(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J. 1. W.P. No. 18735 of 1996 has been filed by an individual stock broker, who is a member of National Stock Exchange of India, the third respondent in the said writ petition. The connected W.P. No. 442 OF 1997 has been filed by National Stock Exchange Members Association, rep. by its Secretary. The prayer in W.P. No. 18735 of 1996 is to the following effect :- ' . . . issue a writ of declaration or any other writ in the nature of declaration or such other appropriate order, declaring that section 12 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India act, 1992 (act 15 of 1992) regulation 10 and Schedule III of the Security Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and sub brokers) regulations, 1992 as void and ultravires the constitution of India and also pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.' The prayer in the connected writ petition is also substantially the same. 2. It appears tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »