Chennai Court January 2004 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.
Rukmani Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police Prohibition Enfor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC605
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This Revision has been filed against the order of the learned District Munisif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur in Crl.M.P.No. 7290 of 2003 by which the learned Magistrate has issued an order of proclamation.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The respondent police registered a case in Thiruvottiyur P.E.W. Cr.No. 768/2002 under Sections 4(1-A) (aaa) TNP Act (Transport) and s. 328, 465, 471 and 420, IPC read with 34 IPC against one Ruban @ Rubanraj and 16 others for transporting 81,050 sachets of I.D. arrack (Poisonous) in Drum, Gunny bags and Card Boxes which were said to have been supplied by the revision petitioner in a Van bearing Registration No. TN 29 W 3232 from Maloor in Karnataka State. The accused were found in possession of forged documents, receipts and used the same as genuine and thereby cheated the check post authorities with forged documents as valuable security and thus committed the offences noted above. The case is under inves...
V. Chellappan Vs. the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Ad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC325
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.No. 12916 of 1994 and he challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.4.2001. The writ petition was filed challenging the order of the revisional authority dated 30.6.1994 by which, the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, dated 15.7.1974 was set aside and the property in dispute was treated as P.W.D. tank poramboke. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the revisional authority has properly exercised his powers and it needs no interference, which is being challenged in the present writ appeal.2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the revisional authority had no powers to exercise suo motu revision to set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 15.7.1974.3. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader submits that the power is vested in the revisional authority to exercise suo motu revision under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu (Tr...
Sri Ganapathy Mills Company Ltd. (Rep. by Its Joint M.D.) Vs. Deputy C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ739Mad
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the orders passed by the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli in PSA No. 1 of 1995, dated September 25, 1995, and quash the same.2. The petitioner is a spinning mill. The second respondent was employed with the writ-petitioner and he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under charges of misconduct. Pursuant to the enquiry, final orders were passed on December 8, 1983 ordering that the period of suspension from November 23, 1993 to December 8, 1993 will be treated as a substantive punishment. It was therefore consequently ordered that wages will not be paid for the said period of suspension. However, the petitioner approached the first respondent claiming that he was entitled to the payment of subsistance allowance during the relevant period.3. The first respondent agreeing with the claim held that the employee was entitled to subsistance allowanc...
Dhanasekaran K. and anr. Vs. Bobba Aviation Service (Private) Ltd., Ge ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ177Mad
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioners, who were temporary employees in the first respondent/management, raised an industrial dispute against the first respondent, with regard to their non-employment from December 15, 1997. The fifth respondent, by proceedings even, dated August 5, 1998, under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity the Act) of course after calling for the remark of the management and considering their comments submitted a failure report and the same was forwarded to the fourth respondent, who by independent proceedings even, dated December 17, 1999, refused to refer the matter for adjudication holding that:(i) the petitioners have been reportedly retrenched from service as the management had no work to offer them;(ii) there was no violation of the provisions of the Act; and(iii) the management was willing to give compensation.Hence the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Government to r...
Basappa Vs. Basamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad390
V. Kanakara, J. 1. Appellant, who is the plaintiff, has filed the suit in O.S. No. 399 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Hosur, for the relief of specific performance and permanent injunction on averments such as that the suit property belongs to the respondent/defendant and he agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 43,375/-; that after receiving a sum of Rs. 36,325/- as advance, the defendant executed an agreement of sale on 10-7-1995, as per which, the plaintiff has to pay the balance of Rs. 7,050/- within a period of three months, on receipt of which, the defendant has to execute the sale deed; that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; that on coming to know that the defendant decided to sell the property to her sister Krishnamma, the plaintiff sent a notice on 22-7-1995; that on receipt of the said notice, the defendant sent a reply containing false allegations. On such averments, the plaint...
Usv Limited (Rep. by Its Manager-legal and Constituted Attorney, Mr. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC418
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. Plaintiff in C.S. No. 58/03 on the file of the Original Side of the High Court, Madras, is the appellant in O.S.A. No. 258/03 and the defendant in the said C.S. No. 58/03 is the appellant in O.S. No. 360/03. The said C.S. No. 58/03 was filed by the plaintiff for passing off action against the defendant and along with the civil suit, he also filed O.A. No. 95/03 for injunction, pending the suit, restraining the defendant/respondent from dealing with the medicinal and pharmaceutical preparation under the trade mark 'PIO-15' and 'PIO-30', which according to him are identical with and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark 'PIOZ-15' and 'PIOZ-30'.2. The learned single Judge ordered notice on the said application on 28.1.03. The defendant/respondent appeared and filed his counter. He also filed O.A. No. 1396/03 for issuance of notice to the plaintiff/applicant as to why he should not be prosecuted for the acts of perjury and making false statements. The lea...
K.R. Ramkumar Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC42
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. All the above Criminal Original Petitions are filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to register a case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioners therein.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners place reliance on the Judgment in Chelpark Co. v. Commissioner of Police, Madras, 1969 Crl.L.J. 206, wherein this Court has held that when a Magistrate can order investigation under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. it cannot be said that High Court has no power to order investigation and direct the police to do its duty. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohindro v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2001 (2) Sup141, that:'Police cannot refuse to register a case on report of cognizable offence on basis of any alleged enquiry'.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the above decisions, these petitions are to be allowed as prayed for.3. Heard the learned Government Advocate on the Criminal side on these aspect...
i.T.C. Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(93)ECC569
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. I.T.C. Limited has filed the above writ petition for declaration, declaring Second Proviso to Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules inserted by M.F. (D.R.) Notification No. 28/95-CE (NT) dated 29.6.95 as ultra vires or in the alternative declare that the Second Proviso to Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, inserted by M.F. (D.R.) Notification No. 28/95-CE (NT) dated 29.6.95 has no application in respect of inputs in respect of which the relevant documents specified in the first proviso to Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules was issued prior to 29.6.95.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:The petitioners are manufacturers of printed paper board cartons falling under chapter heading 4819.12 of the Central Excise Tariff. For the manufacture of these printed paper board cartons, the petitioners import inputs from the market on which the customs duty is paid. From the year 1986, manufactures became eligible for credit of excise duty and...
Lourdumary Vs. State, Rep. by the Inspector General of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC700
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. These petitions, though the prayers are worded differently, in effect it is to investigate the case and to register the complaint.2. These petitions are filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. As per the Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak, : [1963]2SCR52 and Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad and Anr., : 1972CriLJ298 , it has been held that the statutory right of Police to carry on investigation into cognizable offence cannot be interfered with under Sections 401 and 482 before launching prosecution. Interference with such investigation would be impeding investigation and jurisdiction of statutory authorities to exercise the power in accordance with Cr.P.C.The Supreme Court held so in these two cases following its earlier decision in R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab, : 1960CriLJ1239 , held that:'The High Court does not interfere with such investigation because it would then, be impeding investigation and jurisdiction of statutory authoritie...
Jayant Rajan Vs. Dr. S. Lakshmanan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad298
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Original Petition is filed by the petitioner praying to--(a) declare the petitioner, the father of the minor Sumant Arjun Rajan as the lawful guardian of the person of the minor and(b) grant such further reliefs as the Court deems fit and proper.2. The averments of the petitioner is that the petitioner married the respondents' daughter Shanthi Durga on 5-2-1993; that out of which the only child Sumant Arjun Rajan was born on 26-10-1993; that his wife Shanthi Durga committed suicide on 17-4-1997; that during the days preceding her death, her behaviour was totally abnormal and she seemed very depressed; that while so on 15-4-1997 his wife informed him that she had an affair with her cousin Venky before her marriage to the petitioner and that he also visited her on a few occasions even after the marriage; that he asked his wife to forget about the past, but she continued to be agitated to the extent that she did not even take care of his son Sumant Arjun Rajan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »