Chennai Court February 2004 Judgments
Dhavamani Vs. Radhkrishnan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ705
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The unsuccessful landlord before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority who got an order of eviction before the learned Rent Controller on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent from May 1995 till the date of filing of the Rent Control Original Petition, that the petition premises has been used for a purpose other than for which it was leased and that the requirement of the petition premises for additional accommodation is bona fide.2. The landlord filed Rent Control Original Petition under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') that the respondent is the tenant of the petition non-residential premises bearing door No.20, Ramamada Street, Kaspa Thiruthuraipoondi Town from the year 1970 on a monthly rent of Rs.30/- and the rent was enhanced subsequently and the rent payable at the time of filing of the said petition is Rs.300/- p...
Tag this Judgment!Sir M. Venkata Subba Rao, Matriculation Higher Secondary School Staff ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ653
ORDER/AGREEMENTMrs. Beryl Concesso is appointed as a temporary teacher in Sir M. Venkata Subba Rao Matriculation Higher Secondary School, T. Nagar, Madras-600 017 for the academic year 1993-94 on a monthly basic salary of Rs.1200/- in the scale of pay of Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040, D.A.-Rs.852/-, C.C.A.-Rs.70/-, H.R.A.-Rs.125/- with effect from 9th June, 1993. The appointment is terminable by one month's notice or in lieu of one month's salary on either side without assigning any reason.He/She will contribute to the Employees' Provident Fund as per the act of 1952, 8.33% of his/her basic salary and D.A. Combined. His/Her contribution will be deducted from his/her salary every month. The Management will also contribute an equal amount to the said fund provided he/she is in service and continues to do so after 60 days from the date of joining.He/She will discharge his/her duties in strict accordance with the rules and regulations of the School. He/She will further be required to perform his...
Tag this Judgment!Kalaiselvan Vs. the State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2801; 2004(2)CTC180
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J. 1. This revision has been filed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate I, Namakkal in Crl.M.P. No. 2623 of 2002 in C.C. No. 209 of 2002, dismissing the petition to discharge the accused/petitioner of offence under Section 9-B(1)(b) of Indian Explosives Act, 1883, on the ground that the points raised by the petitioner herein could not be considered at this stage and it is only the during the course of trial, they could be gone into. 2. For the purpose of disposing of this revision, the short facts of the prosecution case, may be briefly stated as follows:The complainant, who apparently appears to be the Investigating officer, namely Vijayaragavan, while he was on his duty on 26.12.1999 at about 06.00 a.m. at Mettupatti Check Post, within the jurisdiction of Erumaipatti Police Station, intercepted the Ambasaddor Car bearing Registration Number TCE 6699, plying in the said route, on suspicion. On inspecting the same he found 700 Gilletines in three Polyt...
Tag this Judgment!Renil Holiday Resorts (India) Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: [2005]126CompCas272(Mad); [2004]51SCL268(Mad)
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent dated 24-6-1996 rejecting their appeal against the rejection of stock exchanges of their application, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the following sentences in the impugned order, which, according to him, vitiates the entire proceedings :'An opportunity of hearing was given to the stock exchanges and the company on May 24, 1996. Representatives of the company attended the hearing and made submissions. However, the stock exchanges did not avail this opportunity of hearing. Their written submissions were received subsequently.'3. According to the learned counsel, had an opportunity been given to them to read the written submissions, they would have been able to substantiate their case better. By the authority receiving the written submissions, after the date of hearing, this valuable opportunity was lost and therefore the impugned order must be q...
Tag this Judgment!Mahboob Basha Vs. Nannima @ Hajara Bibi and Minor Dilshad Begam Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: I(2006)DMC106
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J. 1. Petitioner is the husband against whom the first respondent and her child, the second respondent herein, got an order of maintenance in a petition filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. in M.C. No. 6/99 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sankagiri directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 500/- per month to each respondent. The revision petitioner failed to pay any money. Therefore, the respondents filed three applications under section 128 Cr. P.C. to enforce the order of maintenance. In Crl. M.P. Nos. 794/2003 and 796/2003 the learned Magistrate ordered detention of the revision petitioner for 12 months. In Crl.M.P. No. 795/2003 the learned Magistrate ordered detention of the petitioner for 10 months and thus 34 months imprisonment has been ordered by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner was detained from 29.10.2003 when he appeared in Court and the order came to be passed only on 20.1.2004 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram.2. Mr. S. Manikumar, lear...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. T.T.V. Dinakaran, Member of Parliament,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ238
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C. J. 1. This writ petition has been originally filed seeking a writ of quo warranto to declare that the 1st respondent i.e, Mr.T.T.V.Dinakaran as being disqualified to be a member of the Lok Sabha representing 75 Periyakulam Constituency in Theni District of State of Tamil Nadu, and consequently, for a direction to the Election Commission of India to declare that the above Lok Sabha seat as vacant. During the course of argument when it was pointed out that the writ of quo warranto does not lie and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground, Dr.Subramanian Swamy has sought to amend the prayer in the writ petition seeking a mandamus to declare the election of the 1st respondent as null and void, and on allowing the said plea of amendment, again arguments were heard. 2. The first respondent is Mr. T.T.V. Dinakaran, who has been elected as a Member of Parliament from Periyakulam Constituency in the Lok Sabha elections during the year 1999. The seco...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Rehmatullah Vs. Sankaran and Veeraputhiran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ690
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The unsuccessful tenant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the eviction order dated 28.8.1998 and made in R.C.A.No.7 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Court), Tenkasi and which was negatived by the Rent Controller.2. The respondents herein filed R.C.O.P.No.10 of 1987 before the Rent Control(District Munsif) Court, Sankarankoil for eviction under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent from 1.10.1984 to 28.10.1986 at the rate of Rs.55/- per month and stating that the rent from 1.8.1983 to September 1984 was deposited in the Court. Further, it is stated that to the lawyer notice dated 29.10.1986, the tenant replied on 3.12.1986 and on the date of filing of the petition, the rent for 35 months i.e. from 1.10.1984 to 28.8...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sundara Naicker Vs. S. Chinnamal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC781
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The impugned orders, against which, the plaintiff preferred these appeals are dated 12.1.1995 passed by the Seventh Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.Nos. 956 of 1992, 4088 and 4087 of 1991 in O.S.No. 10158 of 1990. By the said orders, it was found that the defendants were requiring a minimum of 264 sq.ft of land and that they are entitled to purchase the same on availing the benefit of Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff landlord preferred these appeals.2. The suit was initially filed against the respondents herein for declaration of title and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit property. Although the copy of the plaint available on record does not show the plaint description of property, we are able to find from the applications under Section 9 of the said Act that it measures 264 sq.ft with superstructure and with thatched hut in R.S.No. 1458/1 (old S.F.No. 2001) in Thousand L...
Tag this Judgment!N. Mylsamy and P. Selvaraj Vs. Cheran Transport Corp. Ltd. and the Pre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR963]; (2004)IILLJ962Mad; (2004)2MLJ198
D. Murugesan, J.1. The appellant in W.A. No: 1476 of 2001 was a conductor in the respondent Corporation since 20.06.1975. He was on duty on 14.09.1991 in the bus belonging to the respondent Corporation plying between Manjur to Coimbatore. When the bus was checked at 7.30 p.m. at Athikadavu by the officials of the respondent Corporation, it was found that the appellant had collected Rs.2.40 towards ticket fare for the distance between Kethai and Athikadavu from 22 passengers; for 3 passengers he had issued appropriate tickets, however, for the remaining 19 passengers he had issued tickets of Rs.1.40 instead of Rs.2.40. According to the officials of the respondent Corporation, the appellant had collected Rs.2.40 from the rest of the 19 passengers also. It was also found that the appellant has not filled the invoice regarding the collection of fares before the next stage. Hence, a charge memo dated 16.09.1991 was issued to the appellant calling upon his explanation. Appellant, though subm...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalam Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Govt., T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ99
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of one S. Ramaswamy, who was originally appointed as a Conductor on daily wages in the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department with effect from 21.8.1963 and thereafter, the service of the said Ramaswamy was regularised as a Conductor with effect from 1.9.1964.1.2. After formation of the Kattabomman Transport Corporation Limited in Kanyakumari and Tirunelveli Districts with effect from 1.1.1974, the service of the said Ramaswamy was permanently transferred and absorbed as an employee of the said Kattabomman Transport Corporation Limited with effect from 1.5.1975 and thereafter, on his willingness, he was absorbed in the service of the Nesamony Transport Corporation Limited at Nagercoil, with effect from 1.4.1983, where the said Ramaswamy retired on 31.10.1991. The said Ramaswamy received pension till his death and thereafter, the first respondent- Government, by letter dated 28.3.2003, refused to grant family pension to the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »