Chennai Court June 2003 Judgments
A.M. Ramakrishnan Vs. Madurai Virudhunagar Nadargal Uravinmurai Pariba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ330
A.K. Rajan, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 1092 of 1994 on the file of III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai is the appellant herein.2. The appellant herein is the tenant of the respondent's property. Originally the property was rented out for running a hotel. But the tenant/defendant started running wine shop and, therefore, the suit was filed earlier for cancellation of his lease and recovery of possession and that suit was dismissed as withdrawn on the ground that subsequently, the liquor shop was removed.3. Once again the tenant/defendant started running liquor shop after two years and hence, the lease was sought to be terminated. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendant filed an appeal in A.S. No. 47 of 1999 before the District Judge, Madurai who in turn confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court....
Tag this Judgment!Egmore Benefit Society Employees' Union (Regn. No. 1711/MDS) (rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ52Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent, dated June 4, received by the petitioners on July 6, 1996 bearing reference No. B/4274/95 and quash the same and consequently remand the matter back to the first respondent for disposal in accordance with law.2. By the impugned proceedings, the first respondent, as Certifying Officer of the Standing Orders under the provision of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, set the union ex parte in the certification proceedings of the Draft Standing Orders submitted by the second respondent-management and proceeded to certify the same by making certain modifications in tune with the provisions contained in the Model Standing Orders.3. According to the petitioner, after the submission of the Draft Standing Orders by the second respondent on June 18, 1995, the petitioner filed its objections on December 4, 1995 an...
Tag this Judgment!M. Perumal and Union of India (Uoi), by Commissioner of Income Tax, (D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ364
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. Writ Petition in W.P. No. 11629 of 1997 has been preferred by one Thiru M. Perumal, who is employed in the Office of the Income Tax Department and his challenge is to the proceedings of the first respondent therein, dated 5-3-1997, wherein the first respondent, while informing the second respondent that the community certificate dated 30.4.1983 produced by the petitioner at the time when he joined the service was not a true one, stated that appropriate action should be taken against him. 2. Writ Petition in W.P. No. 17747 of 2000 has been filed by the Union of India, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 689 of 1998 dated 17-4-2000 wherein, the Tribunal has directed the Union of India, to promote the petitioner in W.P. No. 11629 of 1997 to the post of Income Tax Officer as per the panel drawn for the year 1997-98. 3. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in W.P. No. 116...
Tag this Judgment!M. Doraisamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Govt., Hand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ871Mad
P.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner was serving under the Khadi & village Industries Board, the second respondent. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in March, 1989 and an order was passed on 31.7.1989 directing recovery of Rs. 6,27,521/-. The petitioner filed WP. No. 12160 of 1989. By order dated 1.2.1990, the said writ petition was allowed and the order dated 31.7.1989 was quashed solely on the ground that reasonable opportunity has not been given to the petitioner and principles of natural justice had been violated. Thereafter the Chief Executive Officer of Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board passed final order dated 29.9.1985 in Rc. No. 50689/E3(2)/88 terminating the petitioner from service. As against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner and the Special Secretary to the Government raising various contentions. By a laconic order dated 8.2.1999 passed by the Secretary to the Government, such appeal has been dismissed. A ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohideen Khan, Vs. Sabjan Sahib and Korima Bi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad70
V. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The above Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.7.1991 rendered in A.S. No. 122 of 1989 by the Court of Additional District Judge, South Arcot at Cuddalore thereby varying the judgment and decree dated 7.3.1989 rendered in O.S. No. 107 of 1986 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam. 2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, it comes to be known that the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit are the appellants herein and that the first respondent herein has filed the suit before the trial Court for partition and separate possession of plaintiff's 2/9th share in the suit properties and for mesne profits from the date of plaint till delivery of possession to be ascertained in the final decree proceedings and for costs. The case of the plaintiff is that himself and defendants 1 to 3 are brothers and the 4th defendant is their sister; that their father Nawazkhan died about 15 o...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliappan (Died)and ors. Vs. Venkatachalam and Chinnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ282
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1991 rendered in A.S. No. 35 of 1990 by the Court of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 10.8.1989 rendered in O.S. No. 878 of 1979 by the Court of I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.2. The deceased first appellant is the first defendant in the suit. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the second respondent, who is none other than the wife of the deceased first appellant is the second defendant in the suit.3. For the sake of convenience and for easy reference, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.4. The suit was originally filed only against the deceased first appellant herein for specific performance of the agreement dated 29.9.1978 executed by him in favour of the plaintiff further directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, failing which the Court to exec...
Tag this Judgment!Sengoda Goundar (Died), Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ729
P. Shanmugam, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed for a declaration that the suit property was only a Samadhi and not a religious institution and for permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed and the appeal is against this judgment and decree.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is called Malaikaruppaswami Temple and is a Samadhi of the forefather of the plaintiff, namely Malaiswami; the said Malaiswamy had spiritual powers and became a Yogi and he had been treating the diseases of the villagers; he was worshipping Muneeswaram and Karuppannaswami; he attained Samadhi and was buried at the foot of Bargur Hills and a samadhi was constructed; subsequently, 'Bali Peetam' was constructed and images of Thavasi and Muni were constructed to guard his Tomb; for identification purposes, it is called 'Malaikaruppaswami Temple' and the Samadhi was treated as a sacred place by offering regular Guru Pooja; and therefore, the said Samadhi is not a religious instit...
Tag this Judgment!National Clearing Cell, Reserve Bank of India Vs. S. Amose and Three o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad253; 2003(3)CTC304; (2003)3MLJ630
ORDERAr. Ramalingam, J.1. Heard the arguments of either side in the light of connected material papers.2. This Civil Revision petition has been filed by one of the proposed parties viz., National Clearing Cell, Reserve Bank of India, Chennai against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kanyakumari District on 16.12.2002 in C.M.P. No. 24 of 2002 in O.P.No. 45 of 2002.3. Facts loading the said order is to be stated as follows:The complainant viz., S. Amose seems to have produced a cheque for collection, received from one Devaraj on 25.8.2001 drawn on Union Bank of India, Ashok Nagar Branch, Chennai and the said cheque was not honoured on the basis that there was no sufficient funds in the account of Devaraj. However, it was also informed by the Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore an associate of State Bank of India, Service Branch through the Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Thiruvidhancode Branch on 5.12.2001 to the effect that the said chequ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopal Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC645; I(2004)DMC749
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J. 1. The appellant, who hereinafter will be referred to as the accused for the sake of convenience, was tried before the Second Additional Sessions, Erode, in Sessions Case No. 97 of 1995. The accused was tried under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and the allegation against him is that at 9.30 p.m. on 1.11.1990, he caused the death of his wife Mahapackiam by beating her and after she fell down unconscious, the accused, thinking that she is dead, hanged her to the roof to make it appear that it is a case of suicide. The learned Sessions Judge, after accepting the prosecution version, convicted and sentenced the accused to imprisonment for life for the offence of murder and for the offence under Section 201, IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one Year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 with a default sentence of six months, rigorous imprisonment. Hence, the present appeal. 2. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased and P.W.2 is the neighbour of the deceased. The decea...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ganeshammal, Vs. M. Jeganathan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ839
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Seeking to set aside the orders impugned passed in the applications filed by the defendants/petitioners requesting for amendment and permission to file additional written statement, these two civil revision petitions have been filed.2. The respondents filed a suit against the petitioners for the relief of specific performance. According to the plaintiffs, the second petitioner entered into a sale agreement with the respondents and agreed to execute the sale deed within a period of one year from 19.8.1993 and on 28.5.1994, the second petitioner had received a sum of Rs.25,000/- and made an endorsement on the backside of the agreement and despite the notice dated 24.8.1995, the petitioners/defendants have not executed the sale deed. Hence, the suit has been filed in the year 1997. The written statement has been filed by the petitioners stating that the sale agreement is true, but the plaintiffs have not shown their readiness and willingness to get the sale ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »