Chennai Court August 2003 Judgments
Palat Achuthan Vs. Management, Citibank N.A. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC46; [2003]117CompCas716(Mad)
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the second respondent/Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai-2, from proceeding with the adjudication of the claims made by the first respondent.2. The petitioner was appointed as a management trainee in the year 1987. Subsequently he earned his promotion stage by stage and was promoted as a Vice-President on January 1, 1991. He was subsequently terminated from service with effect from March 31, 1998, and according to the petitioner the action of the respondents was illegal and hence he had filed an appeal under Section 41 of the Shops and Establishment Act. The Appellate Authority however, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction arising out of absence of any cause of action within Chennai. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 10655 of 2000, seeking to quash the same and the said writ petition is also dis...
Tag this Judgment!C. Palanisamy Vs. Cardamom Marketing Corporation Rep. by Its Partner S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ410
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 in C.C.No.330 of 2000 on the file of the Court of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakkanur and quash the same. 2. On a perusal of the materials placed on records and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that the respondent herein has filed a complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakkanur in C.C.No.330 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same is pending trial before the said Court. At this stage, the petitioner has come forward to file the above criminal original petition praying to quash the said criminal proceeding on ground that the respondent has fabricated all the documents and has filed the false complaint before the Court. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that on an earl...
Tag this Judgment!Ramu Gounder, Vs. K. Radhakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ223
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 1217 of 1988 on the file of District Munsif Court, Villupuram, against whom the first appellate court has passed a decree for declaration and injunction of the plaintiff's title by reversing the decree and judgment of the trial court in respect of its dismissal of the suit with respect to items 1 to 7, are the appellants herein.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows:-The plaintiff and the defendants are the sons of Kullappa Gounder, who, on 11.1.1980 had executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of items 1 to 7 and the same was accepted and acted upon, the plaintiff was also in enjoyment thereof. On 27.2.1976, the plaintiff was assigned with item No. 8 by the Government and items 9 to 11 were self acquired properties of plaintiff by right of purchase under sale deed dated 8.6.1972, 19.6.1972 and 26.2.1983. There was a prior suit in O.S. No. 87 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Villupuram, w...
Tag this Judgment!Salem Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Rep. by Its Special Officer Vs. S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ436
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in suit O.S.No.223 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal laid by the respondent/plaintiff for a bare injunction to restrain the revision petitioner/defendant from proceeding with the auction notification inviting the tenders for labour contract to run the petrol bunk of the petitioner/ Cooperative Sugar Mill, on the basis that the respondent/plaintiff continues to be an agreement holder for running the petrol bunk of the revision petitioner/ Cooperative Sugar Mill.2.1. Admittedly, the respondent was appointed as a Labour Contractor to run the petrol bunk of the revision petitioner/ Cooperative Sugar Mill for a period of one year from 1.6.2000 to 31.5.2001 as per the agreement entered into between the petitioner/defendant and the respondent/ plaintiff dated 2.6.2000. The said period of contract came to an end and the revision petitioner/defendant proposed to invite tenders for labour contract to run the petrol b...
Tag this Judgment!Elango Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Mad)62
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dt. 29th Feb., 2000, informing the petitioner that their payment under VDIS is belated by three days and the delay cannot be condoned by the designated authority, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and direct the first respondent to issue a certificate for payment of Rs. 1,48,400 paid by the petitioner on 30th March, 1998, under VDIS' 97, for the asst. yr. 1995-96 by condoning three days delay in payment and further quash the demand notice dt. 12th March, 2002.2. Learned junior standing counsel appearing for the respondents, even at the outset, points out that the order passed by the first respondent which is under challenge, is perfectly in order and, as rightly said, the designated authority has no power to condone the delay. In this case, admittedly, the date of filing of the declaration is 27th Dec., 1997 and the last date for payment of tax expires on 27th March, 1998. The peti...
Tag this Judgment!V. Muneesan Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Rep. by Its Executive Director Ce ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ296Mad; (2003)3MLJ319
ORDERD. Murugesan, J. 1. The petitioner was proceeded with disciplinary proceedings while he was working in the East Mada Street Branch of the respondent bank during the year 1991-92. By charge sheet dated 12.12.91, the following charges were framed against the petitioner viz., (1) that he had dishonestly and fraudulently discharged and handed over bill of lading relating to IDBF 11/91 for Rs.5,95,000/- to M/s Peacock Polymers (P) Ltd., one of the clients of the respondent bank on 29.10.91 without receiving payment therefor; (2) that he had addressed a memo dated 26.8.91 to foreign exchange department to debit the branch account for IDBF 5/91 and 6/91 stating that there was sufficient balance in the customer's account, whereas actually the account was showing debit balance. The imputation further alleged that the petitioner had knowingly mislead the bank and made a false statement to foreign exchange department of cathedral branch thereby being a party to the cheating by the borrower. ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Vs. Nagarathinamma,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ880; (2003)3MLJ357
E. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The above appeal has been preferred by the insurer challenging the award and decree dated 30th March, 1990 made in MCOP.No.273 of 1983 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional Sub Judge) Chengalpattu.2. With the consent of either side, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard Mr.K.Padmanabhan, for M/s.Kurian and Associates for the appellant and Mr.A.M.Viswanatha Rao, for respondents 1 to 3, the 4th and 5th respondent not appearing. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 herein instituted MCOP.No: 273 of 1983 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chengalpattu against the appellant and respondents 4 and 5 herein claiming a compensation of Rs.1 lakh. The first claimant is the widow of Ravindran. The second and third claimants being the mother and father of the deceased. On the date of death the deceased was aged 21 years. The first claimant was aged 19 years, second claimant was aged 38 years and third claimant was aged 45 years. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Hydhras Vs. P.P. Kunhavaa and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC167; 2005ACJ913; (2003)3MLJ276
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 30, 000/= in addition to Rs. 5, 000/= awarded by the Tribunal below. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and none appears for the respondents.3. It is the case of the claimant that while he was proceeding by a van bearing Registration No. KRP 4698 belonging to the first respondent accompanying the consignment of goods, the vehicle driven rashly and negligently, hit against a tree and as a result of the said accident, the claimant suffered grievous injuries and he was hospitalised. The claimant in all claimed a sum of Rs. 30, 000/= towards loss of goods and Rs. 30, 000/= towards injury sustained by him as well as pain and suffering.4. Before the Tribunal below the claimant examined two witnesses and marked Exs. P-1 to P-4. The claim petition was resisted by the insurer of the vehicle denying the accident and also contending that the claimant being a pas...
Tag this Judgment!Sivagnanamoorthy Vs. M. Shanmugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ342
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant before the lower appellate Court has filed this Second Appeal.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 314/1990 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Trichirapalli, for partition of his half share in the suit properties. The suit properties are four in number. According to the plaintiff, who is the father of the defendant, the suit properties are the joint family properties and so the same have to be divided and half share has to be allotted to the plaintiff. 3. The defendant-son, though originally filed a written statement giving consent for such partition, subsequently filed additional written statement and took a different stand stating that there was a partition on 18.11.1986 itself, and in the said partition, item Nos. 1 and 3 and northern portion of item No. 4 were allotted to him. He has also stated that he paid the loan amount and discharged the mortgage with respect to the 1st item. He claimed that after partition ...
Tag this Judgment!Mallika Vs. S.K. Rajendran,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC184; 2005ACJ1218; (2003)3MLJ460
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. CMA NO. 998 of 1995 has been preferred by the claimant in MCOP. No. 21 of 1991 on the file of the District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Nagercoil. In MCOP. No. 21 of 1991, the Tribunal below awarded a compensation of Rs. 26, 400/= with interest and cost of Rs. 4403 in all. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal below the claimant has preferred the present appeal, while the insurer has filed the Cross Objection No. 105 of 1998 contending that the deceased was neither required to be covered by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, nor covered under the policy of insurance as the deceased fall under the category of non fare paying passenger for whom a limited sum of Rs. 10, 000/= only has to be paid under policy.2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that no amount has been awarded towards funeral expenses, though the claimants claimed Rs. 5 lakhs only Rs. 26, 400/= alone has been awarded for ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »