Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(1)CTC117
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 9.5.2001 by executing sale deed with respect to the suit property and for declaring that the plaintiffs have an equitable charge over the schedule mentioned property on the payment made by him and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their men from alienating the property or demolishing the property or structures either by way of sale, mortgage, joint development, lease or otherwise.2. In the plaint it is stated that a total sum of Rs. 70 lakhs was paid by four cheques on 9.5.2001; the first defendant gave the Xerox copies of the documents stating that the originals were with the Egmore Benefit Society, the mortgage. Since the defendants did not pay any amount to the Egmore Benefit Society towards the mortgage, they wanted to enter into a written agreement for the joint development agreement and it was agreed between the parties for the paymen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : II(2004)ACC388; 2004ACJ185; 2003(2)CTC546; [2004(101)FLR405]; (2004)ILLJ49Mad; (2003)3MLJ314
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. The petitioner in W.C.No. 272 of 1992 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II) Madras-6 is the appellant in the above appeal. In respect of death of her husband Parthasarathy in the course of his employment on 26.11.90, the petitioner has prayed for a compensation of Rs. 66,516 as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The said application was resisted by the Management-Railway administration by filing counter statement. The Commissioner, on consideration of the claim of both parties, after holding that the death of Parthasarathy due to heart attack was nothing to do with his employment and the death was not in the course of his employment, dismissed her petition for compensation. Questioning the said order, the petitioner-wife has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 2. Mr. K. Elango, learned counsel for the appellant, after taking me through the specific averments in the application, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)3MLJ294
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J. 1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.461 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli. The suit was decreed on 01.10.2002 granting the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The petitioners/plaintiffs made arrangements to construct a compound wall in the suit property, but the same was effectively prevented by the men of the respondent/defendant. Therefore, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a complaint before the police, but the police did not come to their rescue. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application E.A.No.886 of 2002 before the learned District Munsif, Tirunelveli to give a direction to the Police to give protection at the time of construction of the compound wall. The learned Principal District Munsif dismissed the same on the ground that such police protection can be granted only in case of execution of decree of mandato...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)3MLJ273
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The revision petitioner is the defendant. The respondent/plaintiff, who is none other than the brother of the defendant, filed the suit in O.S. No. 277 of 1999 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, for an injunction against the defendant to restrain him from interfering with the business of the plaintiff. The trial commenced on 21.10.2002. The plaintiff filed an affidavit of proof with certain documents, for which the defendant ought to have cross examined the plaintiff. At that stage, the defendant filed a memo stating that as the amended Code of Civil Procedure is prospective and not retrospective, the plaintiff should have been examined in Court rather than the Court directs him to file an affidavit as evidence in chief examination on the ground that the defendant will lose his chance of opposing marking of document and copies thereof has also not been furnished as per the C.P.C. Amendment Act 22 of 2002. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)3MLJ455
P.K. Misra, J.1. One Abimannan was working as Havildhar in Indian Army and retired as such from service and thereafter he was receiving pension. While so, he expired on 5.4.1994. There is no dispute that the present petitioner is the widow of late Abimannan. Though disputed by the petitioner, for the purpose of this writ petition, it is assumed that the aforesaid Abimannan had married for the second time during life time of his first wife and the third respondent is the daughter begotten through the second marriage. 2. The dispute in the present writ petition is relating to eligibility of the third respondent to receive 50% of the family pension payable after the death of Abimannan. The second respondent in Proceedings No. G4/VI/MISC/DSC-96 dated 29.2.96 has sanctioned payment of 50% of the family pension to the third respondent on the footing that she was begotten through the second wife.3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the deceased had nominated her as the beneficiary i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)IIILLJ1127Mad
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. In this writ petition, the management, Binny Ltd., Engineering Division, Meenambakkam, sought for the relief of issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent, Industrial Tribunal, Madras, in Application No. 77 of 1992 and quash the order dated April 7, 1995, as modified by the order, dated April 28, 1995, whereby the approval application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking for approval of the orders of dismissal of the second respondent was rejected on the grounds that the domestic inquiry conducted by the enquiry officer was not fair and proper and further directed the petitioner to adduce oral evidence to prove that the enquiry is fair and proper, which order has been subsequently modified to the effect that it is not just and necessary to reopen the petition, to advance arguments or to adduce additional evidence.2. The material facts are as follows:The second responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(1)CTC600
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. This Court by an order dated 20.3.2003, nominated Mr. N. Doraisamy as Legal Aid Counsel for prosecuting the matter of behalf of the appellant herein. He has argued this matter and hence whatever fees he is entitled, shall be paid to him by the Legal Services Authority.2. The appellant/accused was charged under Sections 392, 302 and 201, I.P.C., for causing murder of one Sathiaseelan at about 12,00 noon on 19.5.1999 in the road leading to Pugaipatti village from Kunjaram Village, near the border of Veeramangalam village in the sugarcane field of one Babulal and also having committed robbery of Rs. 3,000. The appellant/accused was found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge by her judgment dated 13.10.2000 in S.C.No. 82 of 2000. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed by the accused.3. The short facts of the prosecution case are as follows:(a) The villages Pugaipatti, Kunjaram and Veeramangalam are adjoinged villages. P.W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)ILLJ6Mad
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is for issuing writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2, namely the Commissioner of Labour (Registrar of Trade Unions), Madras and Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Additional Registrar of Trade Unions), Coimbatore, to act in accordance with Section 28 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, by permitting only the office bearers of the Koval Periyar Maavatta Dravida Panchalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam whose names are found in the records of the second respondent as representatives of the said Sangam and not to allow any other person to represent the said Sangam in any proceedings under the various labour enactments.2. It is not disputed that Kovai Periyar Maavatta Dravida Panchalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam having Registration No. 2658 was started in the year 1958 and a certificate of registration has been issued. The union represents thousands of textile workers in various textile mills in Coimbatore and Periyar districts. The w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(4)CTC280
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The Criminal Original Petition No. 23917 of 2003 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to give effect to the orders of this Honourable Court in Crl.O.P. No. 17132 of 2002 and direct fresh investigation in Crime No. 1317/2002 by the respondent. The Criminal Original Petition No. 23918 of 2003 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in C.C. No. 3976 of 2002 pending on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-15.2. The case of the petitioner is that she lodged a complaint against one Lalitha, who is claiming to be the second wife of her husband Anbarasu, on 24-10-2001, since the said Lalitha threatened the petitioner and her sons with dire consequences and also tried to hit the petitioner with a stick besides abusing them in filthy language; that on the same day, the said Lalitha also preferred a complaint against the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)3MLJ256
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit O.S. No. 7280 of 2000 on the file of the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.34,504.90 towards principal and interest by the petitioner/defendant.2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-The plaintiff is a manufacturer of steel strips. On 11.11.1997 under Invoice No. 333/97-98, rolled steel strips for the value of Rs.20,297/- were supplied to the defendant and as per the terms of payment, seven days credit was also allowed. The defendant failed to pay the amount within seven days from the date of invoice, and he issued a cheque to the plaintiff on 28.01.2000. When presented, the cheque bounced with an endorsement 'insufficient funds' on 10.05.2000. A statutory notice was issued to the defendant and its Director on 25.05.2000 demanding the payment of above referred cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice....
Tag this Judgment!