Chennai Court February 2004 Judgments
Sam Daniel Vs. John
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
Reported in: II(2007)BC102; [2005]128CompCas17(Mad)
R. Banumathi J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal made in S. T. C. No. 2171 of 1992 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabapuram by judgment dated June 17, 1996. Aggrieved over the order of acquittal, the complainant has preferred this appeal.2. The case of the complainant is that he is working as work superintendent in Agricultural Department. The accused is working as a peon in Nesamani Memorial Christian College, Marthandam. Towards his timber business, the accused had transactions with the complainant during 1992. The case of the complainant is that on April 14, 1992, the accused requested to advance Rs. 75,000 from the complainant for his timber business. The complainant had given the amount for which the accused had issued exhibit A.1-cheque (dated June 8, 1992) drawn on Canara Bank, Kuzhithurai Branch. On July 17, 1992, the complainant has presented exhibit A.1-cheque through his Bankers-State Bank of India, Kuzhithurai Branch. Exhibit A....
Tag this Judgment!Arulmighu Kabaleeswarar Temple, Rep. by Its Executive Officer Vs. Subb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ149
ORDERT.V. Masilamani, J. 1. The revision petition is filed challenging the judgment and decree in C.M.A. No. 19 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam dated 7.9.1995 confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.4.1993 in O.P.No.1 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvarur.2. The revision petitioner is the landlord/appellant in appeal before the Subordinate Judge. The respondent is the tenant/respondent in the said proceedings and filed the petition under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act in the District Munsif Court, Tiruvarur for a direction to the landlord to sell the site wherein he has constructed the building. On the contrary, the revision petitioner/landlord resisted the petition by filing the counter. After analysing the evidence both oral and documentary adduced by both sides and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the counsel, the learned District Munsif allowed the petition directing respondent herein to deposit a sum of ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kothandapani Vs. Dhanammal and Jayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ145
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J. 1. The tenant, who suffered an eviction order before the courts below, is the revision petitioner.2. The respondents herein as petitioners, claiming as the landlords, under a Will said to have been executed by one Pushpa Ammal, in respect of the petition mentioned property, have filed a petition for eviction of the revision petitioner, on the ground that he had committed willful default, in payment of rent from January 1993. 3. The revision petitioner, as respondent in R.C.O.P. opposed the application, questioning the genuineness of the Will, as well as denying the status of the landlords, disputing their title to the property. It is the further case of the tenant that the property originally belonged to a trust, under whom he took the property for lease and was paying the rent regularly. In this view, the tenant contended that the respondents herein are not entitled to file a petition for eviction, thereby prayed for the dismissal.4. The Rent Controller as we...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ganesan Prop. Sonamuthu Roadways Vs. the Regional Director, E.S.i. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR850]; (2004)IILLJ650Mad; (2004)2MLJ44
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli dated 07.03.1995 made in ESIOP. No. 15 of 1992. 2. The appellant, S. Ganesan, Proprietor of Sonamuthu Roadways, Palayamkottai, aggrieved by the order of the Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Tallakulam, Madurai dated 04.08.1992, has filed ESIOP.No.15 of 1992 before the District Court, Tirunelveli under Section 75(1) and 77 of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the E.S.I. Act'). 3. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the Court below.4. In the order dated 04.08.1992, the respondent directed the petitioner to pay contribution of Rs. 7,739/- with 6% interest per annum for the period from 01.04.1990 to 29.02.1992 within 15 days from the date of the order, failing which it would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. According to the petitioner, the respondent while fixing the said amount of Rs.7,739/- payable as ...
Tag this Judgment!National General Employees' Union Central Cattle Breeding Farm Branch, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ375
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner union, representing 30 employees, who are working as casual labourers in the first respondent-Management, raised an industrial dispute before the second respondent Tribunal in I.D.No.57 of 2001, pursuant to a reference by the third respondent Union of India to adjudicate on the following issue:'Whether the demand of National General Employees Union, Central Cattle Breeding Farm Branch for regularisation of 30 casual workmen listed in the annexure is justified If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?'1.2. The core contention made on behalf of the petitioner-Union is that the right of these casual labourers for regularisation already got confirmed and concluded by an order dated 5.6.1989 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench (for brevity 'the CAT'), in Original Application No.184 of 1988 wherein, admittedly, the first respondent-Management is a party. In the said O.A.No.184 of 1988, the petitioner-Union herein sought for reg...
Tag this Judgment!Manoharamma Hotels and Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aruna Hotels Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad344; 2004(2)ARBLR583(Madras)
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above original application has been tiled by the applicant herein, praying to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their men, servants, agents, officers or any one claiming under them or through them from in any way interfering with the applicant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule 'C' property including the enjoyment of access, parking, lift, remodelling, power, additional bar license and public resort license till the suit claim is discharged.2. The properties concerned with the application are the first and second floor along with all fixtures and equipments at No. 145, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034, viz., 'Aruna Centre'.3. The application would be filed by the applicant on grounds such as that the applicant is one of the group companies managed by the representative of the applicant and another having diversified activities in the film field : that way back in 1992, the second respondent herei...
Tag this Judgment!Jones Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2755
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J. 1. The petitioner is the same in both the petitions.2. Criminal O.P. No. 3608 of 2004 is with respect to Crime No. 77 of 2003, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station. According to the prosecution, the petitioner poured acid on Jeenakumari and her friend Lawra on 31-3-2003 at about 8.30 a.m. when they entered into Raja Pharmacy College at Tirunelveli. Since Jeenakumari belongs to Scheduled Caste community, complaint has been registered under Sections 328, 352, 506(1), IPC and 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xii) SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act.3. Crl. O.P. Nos. 3623 of 2004 is with respect to Crime No. 43 of 2003 on the file of Thuckalay Police Station. According to the prosecution, the petitioner threw bleaching powder on the face of Jeenakumari on 14-1-2003. Therefore, a complaint has been registered under Sections 328, 352 and 506(1), IPC and 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.4. The petitioner surrendered in both ...
Tag this Judgment!Tvl. Kwality Granites and Marbles Vs. the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC25(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and quash the order dated 21.1.2004 made in O.P.No.101/2004 passed by the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary and direct the second respondent to furnish the D7 records seized from the petitioner premises on 14.9.2001 and also to furnish the annexures to the pre-assessment notice before passing any orders.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) on notice. With the consent of the counsel for both parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing.3. The case of the petitioner is that there was an inspection by the Enforcement Wing Authority at the business premises of the petitioner on 14.9.2001 and at the time of inspection, certain documents were seized by the said authority which are found in D7 records. A pre-assessment notice dated 4.7.2003 was issued by the second respondent, assessing officer to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ammani Vs. the Tiruchengode Municipality Rep. by Its Commissioner Tiru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad333; 2004(3)CTC251
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The Plaintiff, who has lost before both the courts below is the appellant. The appellant filed the suit O.S. No. 550 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode for permanent injunction against the respondent herein, which was dismissed on 23-08-2002. The appellant has filed first appeal A.S. No. 361 of 2002 which was also dismissed on 18-02-2003, hence this second appeal.2. It is the case of the appellant that she purchased the suit property namely house site under Ex.A2, sale deed dated 17-01-1994 and obtained Patta in her name from the revenue authorities. The sale deed was executed by power of attorney of one Paramasivam. Later, she has mortgaged the suit property with District Centre, Namakkal. The respondent/Municipality attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellant under the pretext that the said Paramasivam executed a settlement deed under Ex.A4 dated 05-10-1994 settling the suit property in favour of the ...
Tag this Judgment!i. Jairaj Vs. B. Champalal JaIn and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2004
Reported in: II(2004)BC373; [2004]122CompCas79(Mad); (2004)2MLJ235; [2004]54SCL432(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Since the petitioner is one and the same and issue raised is also similar, they are being disposed of by the following common Order. C.R.P.No. 3388 of 2001 is directed against the order dated 24-9-2001 passed by the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in I.A. No. 17651 of 2000 in O.S. No. 2267 of 99 in and by which, the learned judge dismissed the said petition filed to stay the proceedings of the suit. Against the similar orders, the very same petitioner has filed the other three Revisions.2. The first respondent herein B. Champalal Jain filed O.S. Nos. 2267/99, 2262/99, 2261/99, and 2265/99 on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras for recovery of money based on promissory notes. In all the suits, the first defendant is M/s. Firenze Shoes P.Ltd., Chennai-117, second defendant is M/s. Lords Shoe Makers P. Ltd., Chennai-117, third defendant is SBP Madan Mohan, Chennai-41 and fourth defendant is Radhika Mohan and fifth defendant i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »