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.
Kasayi @ Saminathan Vs. State, by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2282
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.6.2000 rendered in S.C.No.40 of 1999 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore thereby convicting the appellant for the commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/= in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months.2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Selvam and P.W.2 Kannan are brothers and they belong to the same village of Vadavirinchipuram where from, the appellant/accused also hails; that on 14.8.1998, which was a Adi Friday, many people took 'kavadi' and there was a kavadi procession in the village in which the deceased Selvam performed 'Silambattam'; that at about 7.30 p.m., when the procession was going on, a stranger came in his scooter and P.W.6 Arumugam intercepted him and chid him for having come in that way and the decea...
Kuppuswami Naidu Vs. Krishnasami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC344; (2004)4MLJ677
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Having lost in both the Courts below, the plaintiff has filed the above second appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The plaintiffs father Alagiriswami Naidu and his brother Ayyaswami Naidu partitioned the properties on 10.10.1934. Under the said partition, the share of 5 acres 62 cents of garden lands in S. No. 217/1 of Valukkuparai Village devolved upon the plaintiff's father. Out of the said land, the plaintiffs father sold 2 acres to Nanjama Naidu on 15.3.1940. After the death of the said Nanjama Naidu, his sons sold the said property to the defendant on 17.6.1982. A further partition was held among the brothers. By virtue of the same, the plaintiff got the share of the land measuring 1.81 cents in the garden land at the northern side to the property of 2 acres belonging to the defendant. Since then, the land measuring 1.81 cents has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and 2 acres has been in possession of the defendant. Aft...
V. Subramanian Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Its Secretary to Mini ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ380
ORDER, 2004. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section (2) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), the President, after consultation with the Governor of Tamil Nadu and the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, is pleased to make the following Order, namely :- 1. Short title and commencement : (1) This Order may be called the Madras High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Madurai) Order, 2004 (2) It shall come into force on 24.7.2004. 2. Establishment of a permanent bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai :- There shall be established a permanent bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai and such Judges of the Madras High Court, being not less than five in number, as the Chief Justice of that High Court may, from time to time nominate, shall sit at Madurai in order to exercise the jurisdiction and powers for the time being vested in that High Court in respect of cases arising in the districts of Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli, Tuticorin, Ma...
Rajalakshmi and Selvarani Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR1203]; (2005)IILLJ907Mad; (2004)4MLJ626
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the common award of the first respondent Labour Court dated 25.7.1996 made in I.D.Nos.314 and 315 of 1993 and quash the same to the extent it treats the petitioners as temporary workers and denies them backwages and attendant benefits and direct the second respondent to continue the petitioners as permanent tea pluckers in Sivasakthi Estate, Gudalur, Nilgiris and pay them backwages from the date of their non-employment on 6.6.1992 till the date of their re-instatement as Tea Pluckers.2. On 21.9.2004, when the above matter has been taken up for consideration in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioners, there was no representation offered on the part of the respondents particularly on the part of the contesting second respondent. Therefore, this Court is left with no option but...
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. by Its Executive Engineer and Administr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad99; 2004(5)CTC591
Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the appellant herein, is the defendant in the suit.2. Sivagaminathan, the respondent herein, filed a suit praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making any alteration in the suit property. The suit was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The said decree was confirmed by the appellate Court in the appeal filed by the appellant. Having lost in both the Courts below, the appellant has resorted to file this second appeal before this Court.3. The case of the plaintiff, the respondent herein, is as follows:The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff from the vendor under a registered sale deed dated 28.11.1971. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendants 1 and 2, who are the respondents 2 and 3 in this appeal, acquired an undivided 7 cents of land in the total extent of 20 cents mentioned in the schedule for Tamil N...
Ppn Power Generating Company Limited, Rep. by Its Managing Director Mr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: [2005]59SCL27(Mad)
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The appellant having aggrieved by the order dated 5.7.2004, passed by the Company Law Board, (hereinafter called 'CLB'), rejecting their application filed in C.A.No.62/2004 in C.P.No.8/2004, preferred the above appeal.2. The appellant-company established a gas and naphtha fired combined cycle power generation plant at Pillaiperumalnallur in Government of Tamil Nadu. Respondents 1 and 2 are having 46% paid up capital of the Company (26% and 20% respectively). The 3rd respondent-company and the 4th respondent are holding 28% and 26% paid up capital respectively. The 5th respondent is the Managing Director of the appellant Company. Respondents 6 to 8 are Directors of the appellant-company nominated by the 3rd respondent herein. Respondents 9 and 10 are the Directors nominated by the 4th respondent herein. The financing companies, namely, I.D.B.I., and L.I.C., have nominated one Director each. They are not parties to the proceedings. Since the dispute is only between ...
Ppn Power Generating Company Limited Rep. by Its Managing Director Mr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR354(Madras); [2006]129CompCas849(Mad); 2004(5)CTC1; (2004)4MLJ434
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The appellant having aggrieved by the order dated 5.7.2004, passed by the Company Law Board, (hereinafter called 'CLB'), rejecting their application filed in C.A.No. 62/2004 in C.P.No. 8/2004, preferred the above appeal. 2.The appellant-company established a gas and naphtha fired combined cycle power generation plant at Pillaiperumalnallur in Government of Tamil Nadu. Respondents 1 and 2 are having 46% paid up capital of the Company (26% and 20% respectively). The 3rd respondent-company and the 4th respondent are holding 28% and 26% paid up capital respectively. The 5th respondent is the Managing Director of the appellant Company. Respondents 6 to 8 are Directors of the appellant-company nominated by the 3rd respondent herein. Respondents 9 and 10 are the Directors nominated by the 4th respondent herein. The financing companies, namely, I.D.B.I., and L.I.C., have nominated one Director each. They are not parties to the proceedings. Since the dispute is only betwee...
S. Maniam and Co. Chit Funds Rep. by Its Managing Director S. Paramasi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC161; 2004(5)CTC738; (2005)1MLJ120
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent relating to Ra.Mu. No. 531 on their file and to quash the order dated 16.11.1995 made therein and to direct the third respondent to take on file the Arbitration Case No. 17/93 filed by the petitioner and to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, the petitioner would submit that they are carrying on business in conducting chits at Tuticorin, subject to the provisions of the Chit Funds Act and Rules; that in respect of a chit group bearing No. DC/E1 (Chit Agreement No. 41/87), one of the prized subscribers committed default in payment of the instalments; that the said prized subscriber had executed a promissory note and also created an equitable mortgage in respect of certain immovable properties as s...
In Re: Devan, Formerly the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC612
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. V.Devan, formerly Inspector of Police, Needamangalam Police Station is facing suo motu contempt proceedings before this Court for having filed a false affidavit.2. Relating to the detention of one Tamilarvan, a habeas corpus petition had been filed in H.C.P.No.656 of 2003 for the production of the said Tamilarvan. V. Devan, the Inspector of Police, the contemner herein filed a counter affidavit dated 23.6.2003 stating that the said Tamilarvan was arrested on 26.2.2003 at 4.30 p.m. in pursuance of the detention order dated 24.2.2003 issued by the District Collector and after service of the detention order, he was taken to the Police Jeep. However, the said Tamilarvan escaped from the custody of the Police at 5.00 p.m. and a case was registered in Crime No. 37/2003 under Section 224, I.P.C.3. On perusal of this counter affidavit, the Division Bench wondered as to how the detenu was allowed to be escaped even though the said Tamilarvan was standing in front ...
Murugampakkam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank, Rep. by Its Presi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR341]; (2005)ILLJ820Mad; (2005)1MLJ32
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 7.1.1997 made by the first respondent in T.S.E. No. 23 of 1995 and quash the same.2. On 21.9.2004, when the above matter has been taken up for consideration, no representation has been offered on the part of the petitioner and the contesting second respondent and hence this Court is left with no option but to hear those who are present and reserve the judgment for proper consideration of the materials placed on record and to decide the same.3. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 3, it comes to be known that the second respondent was the Secretary of the petitioner Cooperative Bank and on charges that he committed irregularities and that he had not maintained the ledger books properly and had misappropriat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »