Chennai Court February 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.
Mrs. Fathima Beebi Vs. Mr. V. Anwar Basha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ75
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The defendant in the suit O.S. No. 194 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruppur is the revision petitioner. The revision petition is directed against the conditional Order dated 16.11.1999 and made in I.A. No. 1594 of 1997 which was filed under Order 9 Rule 9 and Section 151 C.P.C. for restoration of the above suit which was dismissed for default on 30.6.1997. 2. The respondent herein filed the suit O.S. No. 190 of 1990 in the Sub Court, Thiruppur for specific performance of contract of sale on 30.4.1990. As per written agreement dated 28.10.1989, the revision petitioner agreed to convey the suit property for Rs. 26,400/- and that she also received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- at the time of the agreement. The balance sale consideration amount was agreed to be paid on completion of sale before 30.1.1990 and since the revision petitioner failed to perform her part of contract, after causing lawyer notice on 4.4.1990, the suit was filed. Th...
Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Salat Mary,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ675; (2004)2MLJ335
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) Kuzhithurai dated 23.04.1996 made in MACT.O.P.No.32 of 1993, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Nagercoil has filed the above appeal.2. The first respondent herein - claimant has filed Cross Objection No.21 of 2000, praying for enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs.89,744/-. Since the appeal and cross objection arise from the very same accident, they are being disposed of by the following common Judgment.3. Heard all the parties.4. Inasmuch as the appeal of the Insurance Company relates to their liability to pay compensation, it is unnecessary for this Court to go in to the factual matrix relating to negligence and quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in the light of their stand taken in the counter statement before the Tribunal, namely, that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having...
R. Sekar Vs. S. Rajendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: II(2004)BC456; 2004(1)CTC689
A.K. Rajan, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2.It is seen from the order passed by the lower court that the lower court has acquitted the accused on the ground that when the matter was called, the complainant as also the accused were not present. Therefore the trial court by exercising the discretion under Section 256 Cr.P.C. acquitted the accused . Aggrieved against the same, the present appeal has been filed.3.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on the date of hearing, the case was not posted for examination of witnesses and even the accused was also not present. The presence of the complainant was not absolutely necessary on the date when the case was posted. It would be proper to adjourn the case to some other date. But the Magistrate has exercised his discretion and dismissed the case by acquitting the accused on that ground.4.The Supreme Court in t...
Arjunan Vs. the Managing Director, Calac Private Limited and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad231a; [2004(101)FLR804]; (2004)IILLJ634Mad; (2004)1MLJ711
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. The applicant in W.C.No.308 of 1993 on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madras against the dismissal of his application for compensation has filed the present appeal.2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as described before the Deputy Commissioner.3. According to the applicant, he was employed by the first opposite party and on 26.05.1993, when he was engaged with his work near the Hot Boiler, he sustained injuries all over the body due to bursting of the Hot Boiler. Immediately, he was sent to Government Hospital, Cuddalore and thereafter, to Government General Hospital, Pondicherry. At the time of accident, he was 40 years old. The first opposite party, filed a counter statement, wherein it is stated that the applicant was engaged as a casual on a consolidated monthly wage of Rs.780/-. Due to bursting of Hot H2 O generator, the applicant sustained minor injuries and he was provided with initial treatment with Government General Hospital, Pondic...
The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Chief Secretary and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC641
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. In Writ Petition No. 1238 of 2004, the constitutionality of Sub-Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Section 60 of Prevention of Terrorism (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Central Act 4 of 2004) is questioned. The above Act is hereinafter referred to as 'POTA-2004'. The same was preceded by the Prevention of Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 2003, promulgated on 27.10.2003. The said Ordinance was replaced by POTA - 2004. In the Ordinance, Sub-section (7) was not there, but, was added when the Bill was presented, which transformed into Act on the assent of the President on 2.1.2004. POTA-2004 is given retrospective effect from 27.10.2003 i.e. the date of issuance of the Ordinance.2. POTA was first enacted in the year 2002, which was also preceded by an Ordinance. POTA was enacted to contain terrorism and the incidental acts thereto and, in fact, has been modelled on the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, hereinafter referred to as 'TADA'. As the tenur...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Indian Warehousing Industries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Mad)283; [2004]269ITR203(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. The common question of law in these cases is as follows:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee engaged in construction and leasing of warehouses was not liable to wealth-tax in respect of the value of the warehouses as they were exempt under the provisions of Section 40(3) of the Finance Act, 1983?2. In order to appreciate the question of law, it is necessary to notice the facts in brief.Assessee is a company. One of the objects stated in the memorandum of association relates to letting out of godowns. The assessee-company had let out godowns to Food Corporation of India. In response to the notice issued under Section 17(1)(a) of the WT Act, the assessee had filed a return indicating 'nil' wealth. It was the contention of the assessee that, as the business of the assessee was letting out of godowns and as such godowns were let out to Food Corporation of India, such properties did not attrac...
Damodaran S. Vs. Presiding Officer, Ii-additional Labour Court and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR752]; (2004)IILLJ140Mad; (2004)1MLJ642
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the award, dated September 22, 1995, made in I.D. No. 458 of 1993, by the first respondent Labour Court and to direct the second respondent management to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.2. According to the petitioner, he joined the services of the second respondent as Machine Operator in the year 1983 and the second respondent issued a charge memo, containing two charges dated September 9, 1992, to him alleging that on September 8, 1992 at 9.50 p. m., the petitioner while on duty came to the Shift Supervisor and abused him in a filthy language and caught hold of his shirt collar and pushed him on a nearby wall and his behaviour was misconduct under Clause 17(k) of the Standing Orders. The petitioner denied the charges in his reply dated September 16, 1992 and not satisfied with the same an enquiry was ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R. Loganathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: 2005ACJ1393; (2004)2MLJ202
P. Sathasivam , J.1. Aggrieved by the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Karur dated 23.12.1996, made in M.C.O.P. No. 84 of 1993, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Karur has filed the above appeal. Respondent No. 1 herein/ claimant has filed Cross-objection No. 81 of 1997 praying for the disallowed claim of Rs. 1,00,000. Since both the appeal and cross-objection arise out of the very same claim petition, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment.2. In respect of grievous injuries sustained in a motor accident that took place on 5.11.1992, the claimant/respondent No. 1 herein prayed for a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant got himself examined as PW 1 and Dr. Angamuthu as PW 2, besides marking Exhs. P-1 to P-19. On side of the owner and insurer, no evidence was let in and no document was produced before it. The Tribunal on appreciation of the materials placed before it, after holding that the accident as caused due to ...
theatre Mathi, Represented by Its Partner, A. Rajendran and ors. Vs. I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: III(2004)BC406; [2004]120CompCas272(Mad); [2004]52SCL362(Mad)
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J. 1. By consent of both parties, Civil Revision Petition itself has been taken up.2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed to strike out O.A. No. 236 of 2002 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore.3. The first respondent Indian Bank filed the suit O.S. No. 123 of 1990 in the Second Additional Sub Court, Madurai to recover Rs. 59,41,091.26 with subsequent interest at 19.5% per annum against the revision petitioners 1 and 2 and the second respondent and also others since deceased. In that suit a preliminary decree for sale was passed on 10.7.1996 for Rs. 63,45,653.05 together with future interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 26,89,001/- from the date of decree. The first respondent filed appeal in A.S. No. 404 of 1998 in respect of the interest, which was disallowed, and the appeal is pending in this Court. The first respondent bank filed the application in O.A. No. 236 of 2002 in the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Coimbatore f...
M.S. Vasudev Bhat Alias M.S.V. Bhat Vs. Boniface and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ742
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J. 1.The unsuccessful tenant before the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner. 2. The deceased Lourdumary as landlady filed the Rent Control Original Petition No.19 of 1995 on the file of the Rent Control (District Munsif) Court, Uthagamandalam under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 to evict the tenant, viz., the revision petitioner from the petition premises on the ground that the premises is bona fide required for own use and occupation of her married daughter Lumina Stephen, who is the 9th respondent herein. As per the petition, the monthly rent is Rs.450/-. The landlady was residing with her son, Santhosh Kumar, the 8th respondent herein, at Bangalore and due to misunderstanding with her son, the revision petitioner settled in Uthagamandalam in door No.70, Ottley Road, Vannarpet, which was just vacated by the previous tenant one K. Raju 15 days before filing of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »