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.
C. Ramanujam Vs. the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and the Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ294Mad
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. Petitioner prays for a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the award dated 31.7.1995 in complaint No. 5 of 90 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras and quash that portion of the Award depriving the petitioner entire back wages and direct the second respondent management to pay to the petitioner entire back wages and attendant benefits.2. In view of the nature of the disposal of the writ petition, it is not necessary to go into the details of the charges against the petitioner which ended in the removal from service. On the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Industrial Tribunal held that the worker was bound to opt for either of the two options viz., he should either get reinstatement with no back wages or only back wages without reinstatement. The award was passed directing the management to reinstate the complainant with continuity of ...
Duraikannu Padayachi Vs. Meera
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ67
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The defendant has preferred this Second Appeal as against the decree for specific performance and possession of suit property, passed by the lower appellate Court, on reversal of the dismissal of the suit in the trial Court.2. The averments found in the plaint are as follows: The suit property originally belonged to Chandraraju pillai who on 09.05.1984 had executed a will in a sound disposing state of mind and the said will was duly executed and attested and it was his last will, as per the terms of which the plaintiff was given the suit property and another item with absolute right.Chandraraju pillai died and the Will took effect. Even prior to the will, he had sold the property to the defendant by a registered sale deed dated 30.12.1983 for Rs. 1, 500/- and on the same day Chandraraju pillai and the defendant entered into an agreement of reconveyance as per the terms of which the former was entitled to get reconveyance within five years there from on payment o...
Ministry of Finance, Central Government Vs. Mohamed Hussain,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC317; [2004]121CompCas146(Mad); 2003(4)CTC222
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The second defendant-Reserve Bank of India in O.S. No. 9566/85 is the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1906/2002, the third defendant-Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi is the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1820/2002. Both the revision petitions have been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the I Assistant, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S. No. 9566/1985.2. The brief facts of the pleadings before the Trial Court are as follows. Thiru Mohamed Hussain Sulaiman, the first respondent in these revision petitions filed O.S. No. 9566/85 claiming himself to be a person appointed by one Chelliah Nadar to transfer his funds of Rs. 45 crores from Burma to one of the branches of the Reserve Bank of India at the time of World War No. II during 1944. According to him the money belonging to Chelliah Nadar of Burma was transferred to one of the branches of Reserve Banks of India at New Delhi, Calcutta, Bombay or Madras by his own efforts on an agreement between...
N. Rengasamy Vs. S. Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad436; (2003)3MLJ79
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 148 of 1986 on the file of District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam had preferred this Second Appeal, since a decree passed in his favour in the trial court was reversed in the first appellate Court.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows The defendant, on borrowing a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the plaintiff had executed a Pronote on 6.4.1983 for the said sum, agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest and the said pronote was shown to have been attested by Rajendran, As no amount was paid despite reminders, the suit was filed for recovery of the sum due on pronote.3. The defendant filed his written statement, wherein it was contended as follows:The alleged execution of the pronote is specifically denied. It is not supported with any consideration. The defendant was employed under one Gopal of Paraithodu in Kerala District, who had an estate. Since there were union activities against the employer, there was some misunderstanding b...
Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Joint Secretary (E), Ministry of Railway ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ506Mad
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This is a writ petition by the Railway Administration against the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), allowing the original application filed by the second respondent herein, who had challenged the departmental proceedings started against him and the consequent punishment of ten per cent cut in his monthly pension awarded by the Hon'ble President of India. 2. The respondent, at the relevant time, was working as the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer and ultimately retired from railway services but, before that, a memo of charges was served on him on 18-1-1993 wherein, the following charges were framed against him:'Article of Charge I: In the procurement of wheel discs for construction of 2' - 0' NG coaches- a. He accepted supply of 30 Nos. of wheel disc 2'-0' with defects even though he was aware of the position that the boredia and the boss wall thickness of the wheel disc were dimensionally not agreeing to drawing N...
V. Venkatesa Subbu Vs. Jaya Bhaskaran and Co., Rep. by Its Partner T. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ855
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Challenging the judgment, acquitting the respondents/accused in respect of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellant/complainant has filed this appeal. 2. The trial Court acquitted the accused on two grounds, namely (i) the complainant has not produced any records to show that the complainant is a partner of the partnership firm in favour of whom, the cheque has been drawn and (ii) the cheque was dishonoured on the reason that the account was closed and therefore, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not attracted. 3. Assailing the above grounds, Mr. V. Sitharanjandas, learned counsel for the appellant would read the relevant portion of the evidence and contend that there are materials through oral evidence to show that the complainant is a partner of the partnership firm and the said complaint was presented through P.W.1, being the partner of the firm and the said material ought to have been acted upon by the ...
Kartheepan Tourist Bus Service, Rep. by Its Proprietor Vs. the Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC401; (2004)1MLJ370
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner, a Tourist bus service has sought for Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent dated 30.6.1995 and to direct the respondents to grant exemption of stamp duty in respect of the sale deed dated 25.4.94 bearing pending document No. 375/94 Sub-Registrar's office, Adayar, executed by the 4th respondent Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Limited (TANSI) in favour of the petitioner and register the same.2. According to the petitioner, they have purchased an extent of 2283 sq. mts. together with an AC sheet roofed building measuring 1012.31 sq. mts. and an AC sheet roofed shed measuring 221.18 sq. mts. land in Thiru Vi. Ka. Industrial Estate, Guindy from TANSI under the sale deed dated 25.4.94. The petitioner submits that TANSI is an undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu and a Company registered under the Companies Act. The total sale consideration for the purchase was Rs. 56,65,194....
P. Perumal, S/O. Patti Kandasamy Vs. Minor Kumaresan, S/O. P. Perumal, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ837
ORDERP.K. Misra, J. 1. The first defendant is the petitioner in both the cases. He has challenged the two separate orders dated 1.3.2002 in I.A.Nos.54 and 55 of 2001 in O.S.No.56 of 1996 refusing to condone the delay in filing applications under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. A caveat petition had been filed on behalf of the respondents. 2. Both the counsels were heard and orders were reserved. The present common order shall govern both the Civil Revision Petitions.3. In O.S.No.56 of 1996 filed by the respondents, the present petitioner had entered appearance and filed written statement. However, subsequently, Mr.V.V. Ramanathan, the counsel engaged by the petitioner, had left practice. Subsequently, preliminary decree was passed ex-parte and thereafter final decree was also passed ex-parte. Two separate petitions were filed under Order Rule 13 C.P.C., one for setting aside the preliminary decree and the other for setting aside the exparte final decree. Both the applications were barred by tim...
Mayar (Hk) Limited and anr. Vs. Owners and Parties Interested in the V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad422
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The vessel M.V. Neetu wasarrested pursuant to the order, in application No. 2221 of 2003, and is now detainedin the territorial waters of India at the portof Vishakapattinam. It has been there since20-5-2003 and now the respondents havefiled application Nos. 2396 and 2397 of 2003,for vacating the order of arrest and for directions to provide security to meet, the expenses of the vessel at the port ofVishakapattinam respectively.2. On 23-2-2003, a charter party Agreement was entered into between the respondents on the one hand and the applicants on the other. The cargo meant to be transported was 1100/1200 HT Myanmar Round Timber Logs per voyage on consecutive voyage basis, The duration of the, contract was three months, extendable at the charterer's option the charterer being the first applicant. After the expiry of the first three months' period, the charterer was bound to advice his intention to extend the arrangement. The charterers were also bound to ensu...
Vellingiri Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ738
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This is an appeal by the sole accused in a case of rape, wherein he stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1, 000/-, in default, to undergo 1 year R.I.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:(a) P.W. 6 Sanitary and P.W. 7 Sivanappa, the residents of Velliankadu Village, were mother and father of the young victim. P.W. 3 Pushpa, the young victim of 16 years old, was also living with them. The appellant/accused belonged to the same Village. He used to go along with P.W. 3 for looking the goats at the time of grazing. On 12.1.1997, P.W. 3 along with P.W. 4 Chinnasamy and one other person by name Pappa went to Mangal Kuzhi for looking their goats grazing. At about 3.00 P.M., the accused asked P.W. 4 and the other Pappa to move their goats to some other place. Taking advantage of their absence, the accused took P.W. 3 to a remote...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »