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.
First International Line S.A. Vs. Chokhani International Ltd., D.B. Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR225(Madras); (2003)3MLJ48
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The present writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant herein, who had challenged therein the order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on the administrative side. 2. The appellant had approached the Hon'ble Chief Justice against an order passed by the arbitral tribunal whereby, the arbitral Tribunal had refused to join the appellant has the party to the arbitration proceedings. This application to join the appellant as a party to the arbitral tribunal was made not by the appellant but by the first respondent herein M/s. Chokhani International Limited, Chennai. The appellant had approached the Hon'ble Chief Justice by way of two applications, A.Nos. 5624 and 5720 of 2001. While by the first application, the appellant sought to be impleaded as a party and more particularly as the third respondent in O.P. No. 972 of 1997 while by the other application, the proceed...
R. Vellingiri and ors. Vs. Kuppathal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ41
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. The defendants, unable to resist the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent, successfully before the courts below, have filed this second appeal.2. The plaintiff/respondent had filed the suit for declaration that she is entitled to the drainage channel, indicated as 'C D E F' in the plaint plan and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants on the grounds that she is the absolute owner of the suit property, including the drainage channel, in which the defendants/appellants have no right of any kind to interfere; but contrary, they are attempting to lay a claim, which should be prevented by way of declaration, followed by permanent injunction. 3. The appellants/defendants, questioning the averments in the plaint in to, would contend that for the last several years, the parties were draining the drainage water through the suit drain, that this customary right was attempted to be prevented by the plaintiff by illegal method, by laying ...
The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Chief Secretary to Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC257; (2003)IIILLJ203Mad; (2003)2MLJ683
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. 1. At issue, is the constitutionality of the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002, as also the Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.3 of 2003, and the consequential actions of dismissals and arrests, made there under. The above Act and Ordinance are hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Ordinance. The Act was enacted and was brought into force w.e.f. 1.10.2002. Section 3(1) of the Act enables the Government to impose ban on strikes in essential services, as may be notified, and after the imposition of such ban, any strike, in essential services, is treated as illegal and also a crime rendering the strikers punishable for the said crime, apart from the disciplinary actions, and even the instigators and financiers are punishable for the crime as abettors.2. The Government had evolved a policy and issued G.O.Ms.Nos. 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75, all dated 19.3.2003, by which the pensioners rights are slightly affected, touching upon their qualifying service, ...
Dr. Ajith and Dr. Ashok Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4387
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The petitioners seeking to call for the records in PR No.20 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil and quash the same, has come forward to file the above Criminal OP on grounds such as that they were qualified doctors and performed a surgery on the deceased for severe stomach pain while the patient died and that a case has been registered against them. 2. On the part of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, they would strongly plead that being qualified doctors, the petitioners have only discharged the duties and responsibilities entrusted by law and that if at all negligence is attributed, the same being a medical negligence, only a civil liability could be contemplated and not criminal liability as decided by the Honourable Apex Court in the judgment (State of Haryana v. Santra) and would pray for the relief extracted supra. 3. On the part of the learned Government Advocate on the Criminal Side, he would ...
Usv Limited Vs. Systopic Laboratories Limited and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(27)PTC203(Mad)
Prabha Sridevan, J. 1. O.A. No. 95 of 2003 is an application for injunction restraining the respondent from dealing with medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations under the trademark PIO, PIO-15 and PIO-30, which are identical with or deceptively similar to the applicant's trademark PIOZ-15 and PIOZ-30, pending the suit, Since the second respondent is outside the jurisdiction of this Court, applicant prayed for leave to sue, which was granted on 22-01-2003. According to the applicant, the first respondent had its office within the jurisdiction of this Court and had effected sale of the products bearing the offending trademark within the jurisdiction of this Court. 2. Notice was ordered in the injunction on 28-01-2003. The first respondent filed its counter. The first respondent filed application No. 1396 of 2003 for issuance of notice to the applicants as to why they should not be prosecuted for their acts of perjury and for making false statements. Both the applications were taken up ...
Parvathi Ammal (Died) and C. Loganathan Vs. Kamalammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC404; (2003)3MLJ131
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court rendered in A.S.No. 403 of 1985 dated 20.08.1999 reversing the judgement and decree made in O.S.No. 756 of 1973 dated 23.03.1985 on the file of the Ist Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem.2. The first appellant-Parvathi Ammal is the second plaintiff in the suit and the first plaintiff-Munusami Naicker in the suit is her husband. The suit was instituted by the first plaintiff represented by his wife and next friend the second plaintiff, and as the first plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit, the suit was prosecuted by the second plaintiff and the suit was filed against the first plaintiff's brother Muthuswamy Naicker, who died on 6.11.1971. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge and on appeal before this Court, the learned Judge of this Court reversed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge. During the pendency of the Letters Patent Appe...
Kalia Pillai (Died) and ors. Vs. Kathayee Ammal Dharmam (Charities) Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ122
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. These three appeals are the typical examples of the case as to how the properties endowed for charities by charitably inclined persons are misused and resisted by suitors raising indefensible pleas when suit is instituted for recovery of possession of the trust properties. In all the appeals, various defendants in the suit are the appellants. The first respondent in all the appeals is the plaintiff. The plaintiff is represented by the Executive Officer of Sri Arunachaleswarar temple, Tiruvannamalai which is a famous temple in South India. The suit has been instituted by Kathayee Ammal Charities represented by the Executive Officer of Sri Arunachaleswarar temple. The plaintiff has instituted the suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties, to be precise, four items of landed properties and movables which originally belonged to one Kathayee ammal, the lady who executed a will dated 17.1.1925 which is her last will and testament. The lady has a mind o...
A.R. Deivasigamani Mudaliar Vs. T.N. Somasundara Nadar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)91MLJ3
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in A.S. No. 732 of 1981 dated 11.3.1997 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the First Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai dismissing the suit in O.S. No. 3614 of 1971 on his file.2. The plaintiff who lost his case before the trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court is the appellant herein. The first respondent herein is the first defendant in the suit and he is the purchaser of the suit property by a sale deed dated 11.6.1956 and the suit has been filed for the cancellation of the said sale deed and for declaring the sale deed to be collusive, fraudulent, mala fide and not binding on the plaintiff and for other incidental reliefs.3. The purchaser of the suit property, viz., the first defendant died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives have been impleaded as res...
Subramani Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)319
S. Swamidoss Manokaran, J.1. The sole accused/appellant, who stood charged, tried and found guilty under Section 392 r/w 397 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I., has brought forth this appeal.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated as follows:P.W. 1, Rajendran, is running a Hotel, namely, Rajendra Hotel at Arachalur, Erode District. The accused was working as Tea Master under P.W. 1 for some time. There was a dispute between them as to the payment of wages. Hence, the accused left the job. On 18.6.2001 at 1.00 p.m., the accused came to the shop of P.W. 1 and demanded Rs. 300/- as balance of his wages. When the same was refused by P.W. 1, the accused took the knife, threatened him and took away the cash of Rs. 150/- from the cash box of P.W. 1. P.Ws. 2 and 3 witnessed the said occurrence. P.W. 1 lodged a complaint under Ex.P. 1 to P.W. 5, Grade I Constable attached to Arachalur Police Station. On the strength of Ex.P. 1, P.W. 5 registered a cas...
Dr. K.M. Cherian Vs. K.V. George
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ171
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Appellant is aggrieved by his suspension on 16.04.2002 and subsequent removal on 26.10.2002 from the position of Chairman, Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences established, owned and run by the Madras Medical Mission (MMM), a registered society open only to the members of the Orthodox Syrian Church and which presently has hundred and thirty five members. The patron of MMM is the Catholics of the East, and it's President the Bishop of that Church at Madras.2. The MMM which was registered on 12.01.1982 was initially dependent upon donations, but after it established an Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (ICVD) at Chennai in 1987 with the appellant, Dr. K.M. Cherian, a reputed Cardio Thoracic Surgeon, as it's lifetime Director, it was able to generate significant surpluses over the years which together with borrowed funds enabled it to acquire assets worth about Rs. 55.00 crores by the year 2000. The total receipts of ICVD from 1987-88 to 2000-01 was Rs. 31...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »