Chennai Court July 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.
Kamala Anbarasu Vs. the State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
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...
Piranavasundaram M. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ289Mad
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the award of the Labour Court in refusing 50% per cent of back wages while directing reinstatement with remaining 50 per cent to be paid. It is not in dispute that the order of termination of the petitioner was held bad by the Labour Court. For denial of 50 per cent back wages, the Labour Court has stated as follows:(Vernacular matter omitted)2. From a cursory reading of the above, it is obvious that the Labour Court has not applied its mind much less the judicial mind. No material is placed before the Labour Court for denying 50 per cent of back wages. The discretion which is sought to be exercised by the Labour Court has not been properly exercised as the denial of back wages is not supported by acceptable reason and has been made in a casual manner. On this sole ground the award of the Labour Court denying 50 per cent of back wages is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is remitte...
P. Saroja Vs. N. Meera Bai and 10 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC683
ORDERAr. Ramalingam, J. 1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Chingleput in Election O.P.No. 168 of 2001 on 31.1.2003. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this civil revision petition can be stated as follows :There was election for the President of Urapakkam Panchayat Board on 18.10.2001 and in that election, one Meera Bai contested in the symbol of Aeroplane as DMK party candidate and one Saroja in the symbol of Light House as AIADMK Party candidate and likewise eight more candidates also contested on various symbols. Counting of votes was held on 21.10.2001 in the presence of Returning Officer cum Commissioner, Kattankulathur Panchayat Union, Chingleput District. As per the counting, Meera Bai secured 818 votes and Saroja secured 825 votes and other candidates also secured votes of different denomination put of the total votes polled viz., 4176. Out of the total votes, 379 votes were declared as invalid. Meera Ba...
Vimalammal W/O. Karthikeyan Vs. Duraisamy Naidu S/O. Muthiyalu Naidu a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC339; (2003)3MLJ287
ORDERP.K. Misra, J. 1. Third defendant has filed this second appeal against the confirming decisions of the Courts below.2. The suit was filed for specific performance of the contract. It is the case of the plaintiff / respondent No. 1 that he had entered into an agreement with Rajagopal Naidu, father of the defendants 1 & 2 for purchase of the disputed property for a sum of Rs. 30,000. At the time of agreement dated 14.2.1991, the defendants 1 & 2 and their father had received a sum of Rs. 20,000. The plaintiff approached the defendants on several occasion, but the execution of the sale deed was being delayed on some pretext or the other. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that Rajagopal Naidu and the defendant No. 3 (appellant) had colluded with each other and a sham and nominal sale deed has been created in favour of the third defendant by Rajagopal Naidu and the second defendant. A lawyer's notice was issued calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed. The defendants...
Tamil Nadu Government Press Workers Sangam, Rep. by Its Secretary N. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ274Mad; (2003)3MLJ269
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Tamil Nadu Government Press Workers Sangam, aggrieved by the order in No.A3/17887/87 dated 23.12.1987 passed by the respondent--First Trade Union Additional Registrar (Deputy Commissioner of Labour I), Madras, has filed the above appeal under Section 11 of the Trade Union Act, 1926. 2.Though notice was duly served on the respondent, the Additional Registrar has not chosen to contest the appeal by engaging a counsel. 3.Heard the counsel appearing for the appellant. 4. After taking us through the impugned order as well as Section 10 of the Trade Union Act, 1926, hereinafter referred to as the Act, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that first of all the impugned order cancelling the registration of the appellant sangam cannot be sustained for not following the mandatory provision namely, Section 10 of the Act and in any event, there is no ground for cancelling the registration. It is also brought to our notice that even the order dated 23.12.1987 was not...
K. Pounrajan Rep. by His Power Agent M.V.V.N. Arumuga Pandian Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1465
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above petition was originally filed as Writ Petition in W.P. No. 16779 of 2003 and when the same was posted for admission, a learned single Judge of this Court, after having observed that as the subject matter is governed by Section 145 Cr.P.C. relating to breach of peace, all the contentions in the above petition could be advanced in a proceeding that may be initiated under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has directed the Registry to covert the writ petition into a criminal original petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the writ petition was converted into the above criminal original petition.2. The above petition has been filed praying to call for the records in respect of the order dated 5.6.2003 passed by the first respondent in his proceeding J3/55003/2002 and quash the same.3. The petitioner has come forward to file the above petition challenging and seeking to quash the order passed by the District Collector, Chennai dated 5....
Anthonisamy S. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ154Mad
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records connected with the award of the Labour Court, Pondicherry, in I.D. No. 17 of 1990, dated October 13, 1995, and to quash the said award.2. The petitioner an employee under the second respondent seeks for the issue of certiorari, to call for the award of the Labour Court, Pondicherry, in I.D. No. 17 of 1990, dated October 13, 1995, and to quash the same.3. The petitioner was charged for theft of four metres of white polyester cloth from the mills. After show-cause notice only an enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of the charge. Consequently, he was dismissed from service. The Labour Court also on the dispute raised by the petitioner confirmed the order of dismissal. Hence the above writ petition.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three contentions for consideration:(a) On the same charges, the criminal Court had acquitted h...
Management of Tansi, Mettur Dam and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ415Mad
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above writ petition is filed questioning the order of the Labour Court made in C.P.No.87 of 1995, dated December 29, 1995.2. The crux of the matter in issue in this case is the interpretation of one of the clauses with regard to compensation in the voluntary retirement scheme, which has been disputed by the respondents herein, who went out of service of the petitioner-management under voluntary retirement scheme.3. In the voluntary retirement scheme it isstated that the workmen would be paidretrenchment compensation as follows:'(a) Average of the full wages drawn for the last three months shall be taken and 15 days' average wages shall be paid for every completed year of service as retrenchment compensation.'The other conditions attached to the voluntary retirement scheme are not relevant for the purpose of this case. This clause has been interpreted by the management that 15 days' salary has to be calculated for a month (for thirty days). On the cont...
Savithri Ammal (Deceased) and ors. Vs. R.M.Sp. Ramasami Chettiar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC470; (2003)3MLJ247
ORDERP.Shanmugam, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. The four appeals along with the transfer appeal are filed against the common judgment dismissing their suits for recovery of Rs. 45,854; Rs. 45,854, Rs. 45,854, Rs. 45,854 and Rs. 26,882 respectively due on mortgage.2. The parties are described as per their rankings before the trial Court. The plaintiffs belong to the same family and are the mother, the father and the sons.3. The plaintiffs, in their pleadings, have stated that the first defendant, as the family manager, was carrying on paddy business and the plaintiffs had supplied the paddy to them. According to them, defendants 1 to 4 in O.S. Nos. 38, 65, 40 and 69 of 1986 respectively, who remained ex pane before the trial Court and who were the owners of the suit properties, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000 each from the plaintiffs in O.S. Nos. 38/86, 40,86 and 65/86 on 16.6.1969, 14.9.1969, 15.9.1969 and also Rs. 14,650/-from the plaintiff in O.S. No.69/86 on 15.9.1969, agreei...
Palaniammal W/O Nallusami, Vs. Palaniswami,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ408
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. What is challenged herein is an order of the learned Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur dismissing an application filed by the petitioners herein for appointment of a handwriting expert to compare the signatures in the agreement of sale dated 19.8.1981 marked as Ex. A2 and the signature in the receipt dated 30.1.84 marked as Ex. A4 along with the signatures in the admitted documents dated 30.1.84 marked as Ex. A3, on the basis of which the relief was sought for by the petitioners/plaintiffs.2. It was a suit filed by the petitioners herein for specific performance seeking a direction to the respondents/defendants to execute a sale deed on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 19.8.81 and the receipt dated 30.1.84. The execution of those documents was flatly denied by the respondents/defendants. On trial, the suit by the revision petitioners was dismissed. Aggrieved plaintiffs have brought forth an appeal in A.S. No. 34 of 2001 pen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »