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.
M. Kalanithi Maran Vs. State, by the Inspector of Police, Cbcid
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1288
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records and quash the written order of the respondent issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C., dated 4.7.2003.2. Petitioner, who is the Managing Director of the Sun TV Limited, is the accused in the above case registered by the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. 417 and 153 IPC. The charge against him is that when Mr. M. Karunanidhi, the former Chief Minister of the Government of Tamil Nadu, was arrested in the wee hours of 30.6.2001, from the morning of 30.6.2001, the SUN TV was continuously telecasting news as if Mr. Karunanidhi was attacked and manhandled by the Police at the instance of the State Government and there was a deliberate human rights violation in his arrest and that the SUN TV edited the entire recorded events, inserted dubbing voices and misrepresented the entire facts with the deliberate intentio...
The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. Athappa Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC329; (2004)1MLJ654
P. Shanmugam, J.1. The three appeals and the Cross Objections are filed against the Land Acquisition Awards passed in L.A.O.P. Nos. 13, 14 and 16 of 1984 on the file of the Sub-Court, Erode, Periyar District. A total extent of 156.78 acres of land in Erode and Soorampatty Villages of Erode Taluk were acquired for the construction of houses under the Low Income Group and Middle Income Group Schemes and also for the construction of the Office of the District Collector as well as the District Court Building. 2. In the three appeals, we are concerned with three sets of L.A.O.Ps. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was approved by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 156, Housing dated 27.2.1973 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 14.3.1973. The following lands are covered under these L.A.O.Ps. as per the Reference by the Land Acquisition Officer :L.A.O.P. No. 13 of 1984 :Survey (Field) No. Extent 412/15 0.09.5 (0.24 acres)L.A.O.P. No.14 of 1...
Kothai Finance Rep. by Its Partner, Parthasarthy Vs. Chinnasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC179; [2004]118CompCas290(Mad)
M. Chockalingam, J.1. A judgment of acquittal made by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in a criminal appeal which arose from an order of conviction by the trial Court namely Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur in a complaint under Sec. 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, is under challenge.2. The appellant before this Court filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act with the following facts:The respondent who was originally the accused before the trial Court, had money transactions with the complainant, and in that way he owed Rs.70,000/-. He issued Ex.P1 cheque dated 21.4.93 drawn on Indian Bank, Rasipuram. The complainant sent the same for collection on 26.4.93 through its Bank namely Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Tiruppur, and the same was dishonoured and returned with the endorsement 'exceeds arrangement'. The complainant issued a notice on 12.5.93 under Ex.P3. On receipt of the said notice, the accused made a request to wait for some time and present the same again on ...
V. Chinniah Vs. Pitchaimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad254
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. The Court is of the view that in order to avoid the avoidable delay, notice to the opposite party is not necessary, and the available materials would be suffice to give disposal to the revision.2. What is challenged herein is an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur dismissing an application to send Ex. A-1 promissory note for comparison of the signatures found therein with the admitted signatures by an expert in the field of handwriting. 3. It was a suit filed by the respondent for a money decree based on a promissory note marked as Ex. A1. Following the written statement filed by the defendant, the revision petitioner herein, issues were framed. The trial has actually started. It is pertinent to point out that the plaintiff's evidence was over. When the defendant was about to march his witness in order to prosecute his defence, the instant application was filed by the defendant seeking for sendi...
Tayub Khan Alias Tayub Sultan Vs. Hairunnissa Beevi,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ103
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 8/86 on the file of District Munsif, Ramnad, whose suit for partition was on reversal of the judgment and decree of the trial court, was dismissed in the first appellate Court, against which the Second appeal was preferred.2. The averments found in the plaint are as follows:The suit property belonged to one Nalla Meera Ravoothar, from whom his second wife Kadar Beevi purchased it on 23.8.1915 and was in enjoyment thereof. Her only son Varusai Mohammed predeceased her. Kadar Beevi also died in 1949. The issues of Varusai Mohammed are Tayub Khan, the plaintiff, Hajee Mohamed Zackariya, the fourth defendant and one Syed Mohammed, whose wife was the first defendant and children are second and third defendants. After the death of Kadar Beevi, Syed Mohammed and the fourth defendant were commonly in enjoyment of the suit property and assessment was also made only in the name of brothers. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to one fourth share...
A. Raja Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Education ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ1192
P.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner was serving as a Secondary Grade teacher under Bishop Corrie Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, represented by 5th respondent. Said school is administered by the Church of South India of Madras Diocese, the fourth respondent and it is partly aided by the Government. Sixth respondent, the Headmaster of the school served a charge memo dated 28.11.1995 alleging inter alia that the petitioner had misbehaved with a girl student and had abused his profession and failed to maintain discipline in the class room. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations. Thereafter he was placed under suspension pending enquiry. Seventh respondent was appointed as the enquiry officer. Enquiry Officer submitted his report containing findings against the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was terminated from service by order dated 25.3.1996. The petitioner preferred appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent forwarded the appeal to t...
Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ206
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court whereby, the respondents herein were directed to be reinstated with continuity of service but without backwages. The respondents have, however, not challenged the denial of backwages. The case of the three respondents, as is clear from the award, is that they were appointed as 'cleaners' in Mannargudi Branch by the Branch Manager of Cholan Roadways Corporation. Their further case was that they were to attend daily for cleaning the buses for which they used to be paid Rs.8/- per day. They further pleaded that on or about 1-6-1987, they were informed by the Branch Manager that they were removed from the service on the instructions of the Managing Director. They had pleaded that they had worked more than 240 days in the year 1986. They, therefore, sought their reinstatement by approaching the employer-Corporation and ultimately approached the Labour Officer and, on failure of the conciliation, ...
T. Uttamchan, Prop. JaIn Garments, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ450; (2003)3MLJ323
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are tenants in the property situated at New No. 10, (Old No. 12), Whites Road, Chennai-60 014. It is not in dispute that the property belongs to one Smt. Badrul Arifa, wife of S.A. Jawersha, who had suffered detention under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The properties of the said S.A. Jawersha as well as the property which stood in the name of his wife Smt. Badrul Arifa were forfeited pursuant to the forfeiture notice in File No. OCA/MDS/209/76, dated 31.8.1976 invoking Section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Forfeiture of Property Act, 1976 (for brevity the 'Act').2. Admittedly, there is no complaint against the procedure followed by the respondents under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act for forfeiting the said properties either by the petitioners herein or by the said S.A. Jawersha or his wife Smt. Badrul Arifa. Even though, the ...
Arthur Mary Ammal Vs. Aruldoss Pillai (Deceased),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad57; (2003)3MLJ229
P. Shanmugam, J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant in all the three appeals. A.S. No.101 of 1988 is an appeal filed against the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No.187 of 1983 for probating the will. Tr.A.S. No.375 of 2000 is filed against the dismissal of the suit O.S. No.73 of 1984 for declaration of the plaintiff's title and for a mandatory injunction and vacant possession. Tr.A.S. No.376 of 2000 is filed against the dismissal of the suit O.S. No.177 of 1985 for damages of Rs.800/- for the trees cut and removed. 2. The facts of the case are as follows :- The parties are described as per their rankings before the trial court. The plaint suit properties originally belonged to one Duraisamy Pillai. The said Duraisamy Pillai executed a document styled as trust deed (Ex.B.1 = Ex.A.17) on 8.7.1937 in favour of Aruldoss Pillai, the first defendant in the suit, dealing with a house, which is the plaint schedule property and three other businesses. Aruldoss Pillai filed a suit O.S. No.71 of 1945 a...
Madura Coats Ltd. and Millennium Mills Vs. Devadoss Sathraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ1132Mad; (2003)3MLJ261
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 109 of 2002. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioners/defendants for a declaration that the transfer order dated 27.12.2001 issued by the first petitioner to the respondent transferring him to Bombay, is not sustainable, and for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants from disturbing the respondent/plaintiff in his continuous employment with the second petitioner/second plaintiff.2. The petitioners/defendants filed I.A. No. 720 of 2002 wherein they had contended that under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), plaintiff can approach only the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit with regard to the dispute between the workmen and the management under Section 2-A and 2(k) of the Act. The learned Principal District Munsif has held that the Civil court has got juri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »