Chennai Court November 2004 Judgments
Rajendra Finance, Represented by Power of Attorney, Mr. A.R.G. Laxmi N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)5; III(2005)BC108; 2005(1)CTC416
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment of Acquittal (dated 14.2.1997) by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, acquitting the Respondent/Accused for the offence under Section 138, N.I. Act in C.C. No. 2803 of 1995.2. The Complainant is M/s. Rajendra Finance, said to be represented by its Power of Attorney Nandagopal. Case of Complainant is that the Accused had taken loan of Rs. 15,000 on 8.1.1990 by way of a Cheque bearing No. 784871, for the discharge of the same, the Accused, his Brothers and Sister had executed a Joint Promissory Note in favour of the Complainant and promised to repay the same with interest. Despite repeated requests and demands, no amount was discharged. After five years, the Accused issued Cheque No. 509019 dated 20.2.1995 for an amount of Rs. 24,926 drawn on 'Punjab National Bank Ltd.', Rajaji Road, Madras in favour of the Complainant and that the Accused had also made oral promise to the Complainant that necessary arrangements w...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyakannu Gounder Vs. Virudhambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC409; (2005)1MLJ14
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The defendant in O.S.Nos. 117 of 1988 and 130 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirukoilur, who was unsuccessful before the first Appellate Court, has filed both these appeals.2. The parties are described as per their rankings in the suits.3. The respondent/plaintiff filed both the suits to recover the amount due on the suit promissory notes.4. As per plaint in O.S. No. 117 of 1988, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant on borrowing a sum of Rs. 8,500/- from Rammohan Mudaliar's wife Mallika Ammal of Madavilakam village, Thirukoilur Taluk, who is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff, executed a promissory note in that suit on 9.2.1985 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum. The said Mallika Ammal assigned the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 7.1.1988 after receiving the principal and interest due on the said promissory note. Despite several demands and in spite of the lawyer notice dated 2...
Tag this Judgment!V. Kuppusamy Reddiar Vs. the Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC241; (2005)1MLJ339
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 25.10.2002.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the impugned judgment and other papers on record.3. The writ petitioner had prayed for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent and to quash the impugned notice under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (in short 'the Act'). Under the said Act, the respondents initiated proceedings in respect of the land in question, as the same was required for a Harijan Welfare Scheme. Notice under Section 4(2) of the Act was served in Form-I by the second respondent on the petitioner, and the petitioner submitted his objections. The second respondent over-ruled the objections and submitted a report to the first respondent, who in turn observed that the objections were without merits and ordered acquisition of the pet...
Tag this Judgment!theatre Mathi, Represented by Its Partner, A. Rajendran and ors. Vs. I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ101
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. This Review Application is filed to review the order of this Court dated 3.2.2004 and made in C.R.P. No. 2214 of 2002.2. The revision petition has been filed to strike out O.A. No. 236 of 2002 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore filed by the first respondent bank under Section 31A(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to issue a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 78,84,755.11 arrived at as per the preliminary decree dated 31.12.1996 passed by the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai in O.S. No. 123 of 1990 with future interest from 1.2.2002 and also for issuance of certificate to Recovery Officer for the realisation of the amount specified in the certificate by sale of the movable and immovable properties described in the Schedules therein.3. The review applicants filed the revision petition in C.R.P. No. 2214 of 2002 that the application in O....
Tag this Judgment!R. Srinivasan Vs. R. Natarajan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR376(Madras); (2005)1MLJ111
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. This revision is filed against the order in I.A. No. 46 of 2001 in A.O.P. No. 10 of 2001 dated 29.10.2001 on the file of the Sub-Court, Uthagamandalam.2. The petitioner filed A.O.P. No. 10 of 2001 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as follows: The petitioner and the respondents were the partners of Niton Tea Company as per the Partnership Deed entered into in the year 1972 and the partnership was constituted to carry on business in manufacture of tea in the name and style of Niton Tea Company at Kothagiri. In pursuance of the partnership deed, each contributed a sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- and the business was carried on for about five years and the second respondent was the managing partner. Since he could not manage the affairs of partnership properly, the entire business of the firm came to a grinding halt and the Company became defunct for a period of more than 10 years. The electricity suppl...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishnan Vs. K. Shankar and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC421
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 175 of 1995 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Villupuram is the appellant. In respect of grievous injuries sustained in the road accident that took place on 21.5.1990, the Claimant prayed for a compensation of Rs. 4,72,000/-.2. Before the Tribunal, the injured Claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and four more witnesses have been examined as Pws.2 to 5, besides marking voluminous documents Exs.P-1 to P-129. On the side of the owner of the vehicle and Insurance Company, no oral and documentary evidence was let in. The Tribunal, after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the car, passed the award for Rs. 2,01,600/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Regarding the disallowed claim, the Claimant has preferred this appeal and restricted his claim to the extent of Rs. 87,000/-.3. The respondents viz., owner and the Insurer, though duly served notic...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaravalli and anr. Vs. N. Narayanasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad303
K. Govindarajan, J.1. Though Mr. A.S. Narasimhan, Advocate, filed Vakalath on behalf of the respondent, he appeared and submitted that he has no instructions from the parties, in spite of his letter.2. The plaintiffs who failed in their attempt to get a decree for declaration and possession, preferred this second appeal.3. According to the plaintiffs one Gnanaprakasam purchased the suit property in 1964. Under Ex. A2, the said Gnanaprakasam sold the suit property to one Sundara Udayar. The said Sundara Udayar, in turn, sold the same under Ex. A1 to one Lakshmi Ammal, the mother-in-law of the plaintiffs. The said Lakshmi Ammal executed a settlements deed, dated 5-2-1973 and settled the said property in favour of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant was put in possession of the suit property as tenant and he has not vacated the property in spite of request. Hence the plaintiffs have come to the Court seeking the relief for declaration and for possession in respect o...
Tag this Judgment!Nazir Maricar Vs. Marshalls Sons and Co. (India) Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC478; 2005(2)CTLJ32(Mad); (2005)1MLJ659
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Nazir Maricar, the defendant in the suit has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in favour of M/s. Marshall Sons and Company (India) Limited, Calcutta, the plaintiff, the respondent herein, directing the defendant/appellant to pay damages of Rs. 30,000/- to the plaintiff/respondent.2. The plaintiff, the respondent herein filed a suit seeking for the relief of damages to the tune of Rs. 30,000 with interest and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner directly or indirectly employing himself with any other person and not to divulge or disclose or in any way making use any of the technical details, designs of the plaintiff to any other person.3. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows:'The plaintiff Company was engaged in the manufacture of sophisticated construction and road making machinery. The defendant was employed in the year 1978 as Production Engineer. Since the Company was manufacturi...
Tag this Judgment!Wilfred Prakash Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2045; 2005(3)CTC540
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Wilfred Prakash, the petitioner herein, who claims to be a Christian, a practising advocate, has tapped the doors of this Court through Habeas Corpus Petition, posing himself as a practitioner of the philosophy propounded by the great pontiff Sankara who established the renowned mutt at Kanchi in 9th century and as an ardent disciple of His Holiness Sankaracharya Shri Jayendra Swamy, seeking for a direction to the respondents herein for the production of the said Swamigal before this Court and to set him at liberty from the illegal judicial custody caused to be effected by the respondent-police since 11.11.2004.2. According to the petitioner, the incarceration of Shri Jayendra Swamy since 11.11.2004 is violative to the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of this country and in his capacity as the 'next friend' (in law) to the Swamigal, he has locus to file the petition seeking for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for production and release of the Swamy....
Tag this Judgment!Vasantha Mills Limited Rep. by Its Director C.K. Palanisamy Vs. the Bo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas292(Mad); [2007]80SCL19(Mad)
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. Writ Petition No. 10202 of 2001 has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to order dated 20.3.2001 and the consequential order dated 23.3.2001 made in Appeal No. 53 of 1990, quash the same and direct the second respondent to reconsider the Appeal on merits.2. C. P.No:38 of 1984 has been filed by Sree Rangammal Educational Trust represented by its President and four others against Vasantha Mills Limited for winding up of the company for non payment of liability to the extent of Rs. 6,81,092/-.3. C.P. No:96 of 1989 has been filed by M/s. Lakshmi Trading Company, represented by its Partner against the same Vasantha Mills Limited for winding up of the company for non payment of the liability to the extent of Rs. 3,42,800.88.4. C.P. No: 339 of 2003 has been filed by (1) Gomatha Enterprises and (2) Jawarilal Shantilal and Company, represented by their respective Power of Attorney Hol...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »