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.
S. Narayanan, Vs. the Tamil Nadu Treasuries and Accounts Officers Asso ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ32
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Three writ-petitioners have challenged the order of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal') by which, the Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the first respondent herein, i.e. Tamil Nadu Treasuries and Accounts Officers Association, represented by its President K. Kamalakanna. Few facts would be necessary for understanding the controversy.2. The original application was filed by the first respondent association seeking to challenge the order G.O. Ms. No. 469 dated 2-9-1997 perhaps, on behalf of M/s. A. Narayanan, V. Sankaranarayanan, R. Kannan and M. Balakrishnan, who were members of that association. In that order, while the petitioners and one other person were promoted, the four aforementioned members of the first respondent association were excluded. This order was a revision of the earlier G.O. No. 726, dated 6-12-1996 in which, the aforementioned four members were also included for promotion to the post of Class ...
G. Ganesan, Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Ho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ304
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Mr. M.S. Palanisamy, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf the first respondent. Mr. D. Veerasekaran, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of respondents 2 to 6.2. The petitioners are diploma holders in Civil Engineering. They were appointed by the respondent Board as Technical Assistants in December 1989 on daily wages at Rs.34/- per day, which was increased from time to time. Now, the daily wage is at the rate of Rs.192/- per day. Apprehending that their services would be terminated, they approached this Court in WP. Nos. 8175 to 8179 of 2001 seeking to regularize their services and this Court, by a common order dated 10.3.2003, directed the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners made on 3.8.2000 for regularization of their services within three months from the date of receipt of the said order dated 10.3.2003.3. As a result, by the impugned proceedings dated 9.6.2003, the second respondent passed the fol...
Mrs. G. Sumati Vs. State of Tamilnadu, Represented by the Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4659
V. 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 in STC. No. 843 of 2001 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur and quash the same as against the petitioner and for the other reliefs as found in the prayer column of the petition.2. The petitioner would submit that the case is not maintainable against her on ground that the petitioner is a whole time employee and the General Manager of the Industrial Development Bank of India, which engaged in the business of financing medium and large scale industries; that she has been appointed as a Nominee Director in the Board of G.K. Steel and Allied Industries Limited (the first accused in the above case) and was never in charge of or concerned with the day-to-day management of the first accused company and that such arrangements have been made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and other documents exec...
Sureshkumar @ Suresn @ Suran Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad1
M. Chockalingam, J.1. The sole accused before the trial court, who stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. Under Section 397 I.P.C. and one year R.I. under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. has preferred this criminal appeal.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can briefly be stated as follows:a) On 24.7.1999 at about 6.00 p.m., P.W.1, milk vendor, after supplying of the milk to society, parked his M.O.2 cycle in front of a shop near Maharaja Bakery, Avinashi Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore. At that time, the appellant/accused took M.O.2 cycle, which was objected to by P.W.1. The appellant/accused took M.O.1, knife and threatened P.W.1 that if he came nearby, he would stab him. P.Ws.2 and 3, who were present at that place and witnessed the said incident, were about to interfere and were also criminally intimidated with dire consequence by the appellant. The appellant took away M.O.2, cycle , from th...
R. Shanmugam Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ873
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. Challenging the judgment of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Coimbatore made in S.C.No.356 of 2001, wherein the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty under Section 392 r/w 397 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I., this appeal has been filed by the appellant.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:P.W.1, Dhilipkumar, is a resident of Nanjundapuram, Pothanoor, Coimbatore. On 27.10.2000 at about 6.45 p.m., when he was proceeding to his house in his scooter at Pothanoor Main Road, he was suddenly stopped by the accused. The appellant/accused showed M.O.2 knife and asked him to take money what he had. But, P.W.1 informed that he had no money. The accused forcibly snatched M.O.1 watch from his wrist. On hearing the alarm, P.Ws.2 and 3, who witnessed the occurrence, made their attempt to chase the accused and tried to apprehend him, but they could not. P.W...
Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Tvl. Kanmani Ice Fact ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2003
Reported in: [2004]52SCL329(Mad)
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,65,561.2. The petitioner granted term loan of Rs. 3,80,000 on 25-6-1987. Again second term loan of Rs. 1,25,000 was sanctioned on 28-4-1988. The first respondent is a partnership firm, respondents 2 to 6 are the partners of the first respondent firm. The term loans were issued in favour of the firm.3. Subsequent to that, the first respondent executed deeds of hypothecation of its machineries one on 24-11-1987 and another on 13-6-1988. On the same date respondents 2 to 6 have executed guarantee deeds on 24-11-1987 and on 6-6-1988. Since there was default in repaying the loan, the loan was foreclosed on 8-1-1983. Subsequently, the machineries hypothecated were attached and sold on auction on 20-12-1995. It was sold for a sum of Rs. 3.5 lakhs. Subsequent to that on 7-4-1999 notice was given to all the respondents for balance of the amount. Sinc...
Jeeva Transport Corporation Limited Represented by Its Managing Direct ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ422Mad
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. The short point that arises for consideration in this writ petition wherein the petitioner Transport Corporation has chosen to challenge the order of the first respondent- Labour Court dated 30.12.1994 made in C.P. Nos. 160 to 181 of 1992 is as to whether the non-inclusion of City Compensatory Allowance while calculating the wages of the respondent Nos. 2 to 915 for the purpose of payment of minimum bonus of 8.33% for the years 1986-87,1987-88,1988-89 and 1989-90 was justified.2. As far as the legal position as to whether the City Compensatory Allowance should be taken as part of wages under the Payment of Bonus Act is concerned, it is not in dispute that it would form part of wages. It is also not in dispute that in the case on hand, the petitioner Corporation did not include the City Compensatory Allowance while calculating the wages of respondent Nos. 2 to 915 and while calculating their minimum bonus of 8.33% for the above stated years. The petiti...
Pakkirisamy Vs. S. Raman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ338
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and for costs. It is stated that during the pendency of the suit, on 19.08.1999, the petitioner herein who is the defendant in the suit, induced his daughter, son-in-law, Padmavathy and also Maha to trespass into the suit property and they have also laid foundation and the same was reported to the police. The plaintiff filed an application in I.A. No. 561 of 1999 against the defendant for contempt. 2. It is also stated that the defendant put up a bathroom and in order to prove the act committed by the defendant, the plaintiff filed an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner who had inspected the suit property and found out that the suit survey number was wrongly given and the correct suit survey number is 582/28 and as the defendant put up bath room, latrine, septic tank, the plaintiff filed an application to amend the plaint. These are the averments set out in the affidavit filed in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›