Chennai Court December 2004 Judgments
Signals and Systems (i) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Director T.S. Mani Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-29-2004
Reported in: [2005]128CompCas587(Mad)
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 27.4.2004 made in C.C. No. 1393 of 2001 by the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.2. Heard the learned senior counsel for both and perused the materials placed on record.3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was working as whole time director in the petitioner company and she was the authorized signatory of the company and utilizing the said position, she has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 9,15,000/= by way of 9 cheques between 11.01.1999 and 11.3.1999, thereby cheating the complainant's company. Therefore, the petitioner, who is the defacto complainant, filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the court below against the respondent for offences under Section 406 IPC. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to register a case and to investigate...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation and anr. Vs. Aruna Stores, Propr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ629Mad; (2005)1MLJ354
MarKandey Katju, C.J.1. These two appeals have been preferred under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. We have perused the impugned order of the Employees' State Insurance Court, dated March 28, 1996 and we are of the opinion that the same cannot be sustained.4. The substantial question of law in these two appeals is whether Aruna Stores and Aruna Textiles are two independent entities or really one entity.5. Before deciding this question, we must understand that we are dealing with cases relating to Labour Laws, which are to be liberally construed. The principles of industrial laws are very different from the principles of other branches of law, e.g., Civil Law, Taxation Law, etc. Hence, we cannot import principles relating to other branches of law when deciding a case relating to Labour Laws.6. If both Aruna Textiles and Aruna Stores are treated to be really one unit, then the number of employees will exceed 20 and th...
Tag this Judgment!Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-28-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2847
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Erode as per his Judgment dated 19.02.2002 in S.C. No. 145 of 2001 thereby convicting the appellant-A1 for the commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 302 & 201 IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing him respectively, to undergo R.I. for three years, life imprisonment, R.I. for five years and R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo RI for two months further ordering these sentences to run concurrently.2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State, it comes to be known that the appellant is the first accused and he has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 & 201 IPC and under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The case of the prosec...
Tag this Judgment!K. Gopal Vs. the District Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC596; (2005)1MLJ317
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. Mr. P.S. Jayakumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents.2. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in No. Na.Ka.3795/2004/A1 dated 09-12-2004 and quash the same.3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner is an elected President of Pappireddypatti Village Panchayat; that a special audit of the said Panchayat was conducted by the second respondent for the year 2003-2004 and based on the audit report, the first respondent issued a notice under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter called as the Act) calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation by notice dated 01-09-2004 and copies of the audit report also served on the petitioner; that the petitioner has sent his explanation dated 14-09-2004 to the first respondent. Not satisfied with the expla...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Venkataraman Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/The Inspecto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC465
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. Learned Special Government Pleader took notice on behalf of all the respondents.2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.3. The above appeal is filed questioning the Order of the first respondent rejecting the appeal while exercising the power under Section 47-A(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1889. Though the first respondent exercised quasi-judicial power, he has not given any reason whatsoever while confirming the Order of the lower authority. As held by the Supreme Court in the decision in S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, : 1990CriLJ2148a , a quasi-judicial authority, while disposing an appeal, has to give reasons in support of his conclusion.4. In this case, no such reasoning is given. Hence, the impugned Order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to deal with it afresh and pass orders, in accordance with law, expeditiously giving reasons in support of his conclusion. The appeal is allowed, accordingly.5. Learned counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!E. Kader Batcha Vs. R.M. Veeramani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-27-2004
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC546
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This bunch of writ appeal and writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. It appears that a scheme has been framed under Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for granting 250 Mini Bus Permits for Madurai District. For grant of permits, the method adopted by the Regional Transport Authority was 'first come, first served' that is the earlier applications would be given preference to the subsequent applications and accordingly, 244 permits were granted. Out of these, 12 permits have been surrendered and hence there are still 18 vacancies, as on date, against which there are 54 applications.4. The question, therefore, arises is to which, out of these 54 applications, should be granted these 18 permits? In our opinion, since the Regional Transport Authority had adopted a fair and objective criterion of 'first come, firs served', it should continue the same principle in granting remaining permits.5. ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Ganesh and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ235
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. Prayer in the writ petitions are to issue a writ of certiorarifed mandamus calling for the records of the respondent made in Notice Nos. 0108, 0106, 0112, 0118, 0110, 0117 and 0115, respectively, dated 14.12.2004, issued under Section 378 of The Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act IV of 1919 and to quash the same and forbearing the respondent from taking any further proceedings of demolition consequent to the Impugned Notice Nos. 0108, 0106, 0112, 0118, 0110, 0117 and 0115, dated 14.12.2004.2. These are all the matters relating to demolition of superstructure at Door Number New No. 14, Old No. 15/11 Vembuliamman Koil Street, Virugambakkam. It is to be noted that this court by order dated 15.03.2004 in W.P. No. 6147 of 2004 directed the Member Secretary, CMDA; The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai; District Collector, Chennai; and Tahsildar, Mambalam Guindy Taluk; to take action on the unauthorised construction. Following the said order, the respondent ha...
Tag this Judgment!Trichy Prime Tannery, a Partnership Firm Rep. by Its Managing Partner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ342
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This common order shall dispose off all the above five writ petitions as the issue involved therein is identical.2. Petitioners in these writ petitions are engaged in the business of tannery and their tannery-units are located in Pudukottai Main Raod, Sembattu, Trichy. Petitioner by these writ petitions pray for quashing the order dated 16-11-2004 passed by the first respondent. By that order, the first respondent, exercising powers delegated to it by the Central Government under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has ordered the closure of the petitioners' units as well as stoppage of electricity service connection with immediate effect.3. Heard Shri G. Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Rita Chandrasekaran, learned standing counsel for the first respondent Board.4. Though a number of contentions have been urged by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, these wr...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council f ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC594; (2005)1MLJ355
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 18.11.2004.2. The petitioner had prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent to issue recognition for the D.T.Ed. Course offered by the petitioner's institution for the academic year 2004-2005.3. Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General invited our attention to the two recent judgments delivered by our Bench dated 13.12.2004 in W.A. Nos. 4109 and 4110 of 2004 (The Member Secretary, National Council for Teachers Education I.P. Stadium, New Delhi v. Pauls Teacher Training Institute, Pondicherry) and W.A. No. 4112 of 2004 (The Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Bangalore v. Sri Krishnasamy Reddiar Educational Trust rep. by its Secretary, Cuddalore). In those decisions we have noted that Regulation 7 of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations, 2002 framed under the National Council for Teach...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Dominic Britto Vs. Sampoorna Mary @ Philo
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC164
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J.1. The above Revision Petition is filed against the order of ordering interim maintenance as well as litigation expenses to the respondent/wife.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the wife/respondent has already filed an application before the Court at Mumbai under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the claim of maintenance to the wife/respondent was not granted but a direction was issued to pay maintenance to the minor son. It is also contended that considering the fact that the petitioner is getting a meagre amount by way of terminal amount, the interim maintenance passed by the Family Court is highly exorbitant.3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that all the way the respondent has to travel from Mumbai to Chennai to appear in the proceedings initiated by the husband/petitioner pending before the Family Court at Chennai and as such there is no illegality in ordering the litigation expenses. According to the learned cou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »