Chennai Court October 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.
iyyankannu @ Kannan Vs. State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC335
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J.1. Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing on criminal side.2. The above petition is filed for the relief as stated therein.3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though a specific complaint is lodged, the respondent-police has not registered the said complaint and pursuing with the investigation. The learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court with regard to the powers of the police officer under Section 154, Cr. P.C. pertaining to the information received in cognizable cases.4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would contend that even though the petitioner was directed to appear for an enquiry, he has not co-operated and further action need to be pursued.5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties.6. The main grievances of the petitioner herein is that even though the complaint preferred by him clearly makes put a case of cognizable in...
El Forge Limited Vs. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: [2005]64SCL529(Mad)
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the respondent's communication bearing Ref. No. AD 5/GMP/113/84, dated 15.9.1997 and quash the same.2. The petitioner is the public limited company; it has its manufacturing units at five locations in Tamil Nadu including one at SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Gumidipoondi; Plot No. 67 in the Industrial Estate was allotted in favour of one Minjur Shell Castings Private Ltd.; since it defaulted in the payment, the respondent took possession and later on the property was auctioned; the offer given by M/s. Chendur Forge Exports Ltd., was accepted by the respondent; on 4.6.1993, the respondent entered into a long term lease of 99 years with M/s. Chendur Forge Exports Ltd.; by a further deed of sale, dated 28.7.1993, the respondent sold the lease hold rights to M/s. Chendur Forge Exports Ltd. together with the partially constructed factory building and it was put in possessio...
Egmore Benefit Society Employees Union Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ254Mad
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. Though notice has been served, nobody appeared on the side of the third respondent. Name of the third respondent has been printed in the case (sic) list. Even today also, there is no appearance on the side of the third respondent.2. The writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ of mandamus to forbear the third respondent from interfering with the service conditions mentioned in their Section 9-A notice of the I.D. Act till a proper adjudication by a Tribunal is over or by a proper settlement.3. A settlement was entered into between the employees and the management under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on May 8, 1989 and on March 14, 1991. While so, by an order, dated September 22, 1997, in accordance with Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the management issued a notice stating that it intended to effect the changes specified in the annexure, with effect from October 14, 1997 in the conditions of service applicable to workmen in respec...
indira Devi Vs. Inspector General of Registration and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC733
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of both parties, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. The appellant challenges the order of the Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600028, the first respondent herein dated 10.3.2003 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 28.11.2002.3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.4. In the order which is under challenge, the first respondent herein rejected the appeal filed by the appellant on 10.2.3003 has been rejected on the ground that the same is barred by limitation as per Rule 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under-Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1960. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent has passed the order in the petition filed under Section 47-A(l) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989 on 28.11.2002 and the same order was received by the appellant only on 17.12.2002. In sup...
C. Ranganathan, Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ2087; AIR2005Mad171
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- or any other sum that may be fixed and determined by this Court by way of Compensation to the petitioners consequent upon the death of Mrs.Sumathi on 24.07.1996 caused by the negligence and carelessness of the respondents 2,3 and 4.2. The petitioners are father and minor children of one Sumathi. Sumathi fell in love with one Chandrasekar and married him. She gave birth to a son. The said Chandrasekar ill-treated her and she was sent to her matrimonial residence. Thereafter she gave birth to another son. Village Panchayat was also held; in that they were separated. Thereafter, the daughter was living with the father. While so, on 16.07.1996, a mid-wife employed in the Chengleput Medical College Hospital, Chengleput who is also a relative of Chandrasekar made Sumathi to undergo family planning operation immediately after t...
J. Jonah S/O. Late Josuah Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Directorat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ2202
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the petitioner-in-person and Mr.R. Santhanam for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1430 of 2000 dated 1 7.8.2001. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to award pension including Workmen's Compensation as per the CCS(P) rule Appendix 4: 9th paragraph (as amended) with effect from 1 5.12.87 as per the letter dated 20.7.92 with D.C.R.G and C.G.E.C.G.I.S. amount of Rs. 20,000/- with 24% interest per annum and issue the dues as per the promised letter No.C.V.R.D.E/PC/480/LB dated 3.7.1992 . 3. The petitioner was appointed as Machinist on 3.10.1978 in the office of the Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment ( hereinafter referred to as CVRDE in short). In course of time, he was upgraded as Trademan-C with effect from 30.10.1984 and worked as such in CVRDE till 14.12.1987. While he was working, on 28.19.1986, a small chip fel...
The Secretary, Sridevi Girls Hr. Sec. School Vs. S. Vijayalakshmi Amma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ542
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The fourth respondent in the writ petition, which is a school management, is the appellant before us. The challenge is to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.8.2003 in W.P. No. 37538 of 2003 holding that the first respondent herein, who reached the normal age of superannuation on 31.8.2002 was entitled to continue in service till the end of that academic year namely, 31.5.2003 in view of the benefit granted in G.O.Ms. No. 1712 dated 5.8.1976. By virtue of the declaration made by the learned Single Judge, the first respondent was also paid her salary for the period from 1.9.2002 to 31.5.2003. However, the appellant has preferred this writ appeal inasmuch as the appellant wants to rely upon a decision of His Lordship Mr.Justice E. Padmanabhan dated 31.10.2002 in W.P. No. 10791 of 1996 wherein the learned Judge took the view that extension of service cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The learned Judge was of the view that apart from the provis...
B. Kamsala Vs. Bommi,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad101
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Petitioner is the Paternal Grandmother of the minor Child Kaviya. Petitioner has filed this petition for issuance of a direction/Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents to produce the minor Child, namely, Kaviya. The First Respondent is the Maternal Grandmother of the minor Child.2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks for issuance of direction for the custody of the Child contending that the First Respondent being a Christian, is trying to convert the Child into Christianity, which would be highly prejudicial to the interest of the Child, since the Child was born to her son Vadivelu, who was a Hindu by birth.3. Father and Mother of infant Child Kaviya are no more. It remains to be seen, as to which of the Grandparents, the custody of the infant Child has to be given. The bona fide of the claim of the Petitioner and the First Respondent has to be seen. Further, the visitation right of either party is also to be determined. These are all the issues wh...
C. Ranganathan and ors. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2004
Reported in: I(2007)ACC888
A.K. Rajan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 or any other sum that may be fixed and determined by this Court by way of compensation to the petitioners consequent upon the death of Sumathi on 24.7.1996 caused by the negligence and carelessness of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.2. Petitioners are father and minor children of one Sumathi. Sumathi fell in love with one Chandrasekar and married him. She gave birth to a son. The said Chandrasekar ill-treated her and she was sent to her maternal residence. Thereafter she gave birth to another son. Village panchayat was also held; in that they were separated. Thereafter, the daughter was living with the father. While so, on 16.7.1996, a midwife employed in the Chengleput Medical College Hospital, Chengleput who is also a relative of Chandrasekar made Sumathi to undergo the family planning operation immediately after the second deliver...
Vairasundaram Vs. the District Collector and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad107
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in R.C.106/95.S& M dated 28.4.1995 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent in RC.4494/95/B9 dated 20.6.1997 and quash the same.2. The petitioner is alleged to have quarried silica from his land without proper licence and he has sold the same to the public. Therefore, the authorities conducted an enquiry and in the enquiry, the petitioner appeared and confessed that he has removed the sand. According to him, he removed the sand for making the land cultivable and the sand was sold for the purpose of construction. Ultimately, he wanted to compound the offence and the first respondent has passed an order on 28.4.1995 fixing the compounding fee at Rs.24,100/-. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 28.4.1995 is not legally sustainable ina...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »