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.
Marappan and Mariammal Vs. the Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ634
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner in W.P.No.13682 of 1997 is the owner of the land of an extent of 0.61 hectares in S.No.506/2 and 512 in Agasipalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District. 2. Admittedly, after an inspection of the said properties by the second respondent on 02.12.1996, a notice in Form I under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 1978( in brevity Act) was issued on 26.12.1996, proposing to acquire the land for the purpose of providing house plots to the Adi Dravidars in the village. In the said notice, the name of the petitioner in W.P.No.13682 of 1997 alone was shown as the owner of the land. Concededly, the petitioner in W.P.No.13682 of 1997 sold the land of an extent of 1 acre in S.Nos.506/2 and 512 in Agasipalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District to the petitioner in W.P.No.14096 of 1997 by a registered sale deed executed on 16.12.1996. The petitioner in W.P.No.13682 of 1997 therefore submit...
G. Anbalagan Vs. the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: II(2004)BC569; 2004(1)CTLJ579(Mad)
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J. 1. These writ petitions have been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent, in so far as it permits the third respondent to undertake movement work to Salem and Namakkal Regions, quash the same and consequently direct the first and second respondents not to interfere with the movement right granted to the petitioner for Salem and Namakkal Regions.2. By consent of Counsel for both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have invited tenders for transportation of rice, wheat etc., from FCI depots outside the region and to deliver at TNCSC storage points for the year 2003-2004.4. It is seen from Clause 3(b) of the tender conditions set out in pages 4and 5 of the typed set of papers that only one contractor would be appointed for the regions Salem-Namakkal, notwithstanding that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director reserves the right...
Solaimuthu Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police and Selvamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ31; 2004(1)CTC758
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur in Crl.M.P.No.1990 of 2002 in Crime No.30 of 2001, allowing the petition filed under Section 53 Cr.P.C by the respondent herein and directing the petitioner herein to appear for the appropriate Medical Officer for Test according to the convenience. 2. The circumstances under which the said order came to be passed is as follows:A complaint was given by the second respondent herein against the petitioner on 14.03.2001 stating that she was the resident of Badangi South Street. That about 10 years prior to the filing of the case, she was married to one Devaraj and they were residing at Badangi. It is further stated that at the time of their existence of marital bond, her brother by name Dharmadurai was also staying along with them. While that being so, there appears to have been quarrels between her and the said Devaraj, in view of the fact that she was impotent to conceive ...
The Director General, E.S.i. Corporation, Vs. Mohammed Asmathullah and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ693Mad; (2004)2MLJ168
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.984 of 1997 is under challenge in this writ petition.2. The first respondent herein joined as Lower Division Clerk in Employees State Insurance Corporation in the year 1959 and ultimately retired on 28.2.1994 as Manager Grade II. Before his retirement, that was on 4.10.1993, he was issued with a charge memo, which reads as under,'That Sri.Md.Azmatulla, while functioning as Insurance Inspector, Kodambakkam Inspection Division, Madras, went to conduct Regular Inspection of the records of Sri Swastikas Enterprises, 29/1, Easwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Madras -600 033 with code No: 51-36334-57 on 25-10-89. That Sri Md.Azmatulla then failed to report the existence and continuity in coverage of M/s Sri Swastic Enterprises and its change of name as S.V.M.Enterprises, after proper enquiry but merely reported that whereabouts of the partners could not be ascertained and no insp...
K.C. Palanisamy, United Builders Consultants Vs. the Registrar of Firm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad375
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J. 1. By consent of parties, the writ petition itself is taken for final hearing.2. The petitioner is the Managing Partner of a registered firm by name M/s.United Builders Consultants (hereinafter referred to as the firm). He has been carrying on the business of promoters of real estate properties for past 15 years. Initially, the partners of the firm intended to register the firm as a Company under the provisions of The Companies Act, 1956. It appears that an agreement has been entered into by the partners for such conversion. On 24.7.2002, the partners of the firm had applied to the Registrar of Companies, Coimbatore, for registering the firm as a Company under the name and style of United Hi-Tech Builders (Coimbatore) Private Limited. However, the partners were informed that they were entitled to get the existing name of the firm with just the words 'Private Limited' added to it. They were further informed that in the event of incorporation of the Company under a...
Kazhugumalai Raja (Died) and A.K. Rajagopalaraja Vs. Rajapalayam Palay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad267; (2004)2MLJ65
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.8.1991 rendered in A.S.No.27 of 1989 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 7.4.1989 rendered in O.S.No.43 of 1985 by the Court of Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputtur.2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that the respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.43 of 1985 before the Court of Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputtur as against the first appellant herein praying to order eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule premises, which is a terraced building situated in Mudangiar Road, Rajapalayam Town, and to deliver possession of it to the plaintiff.3. The averments of the plaint are that the appellant/defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff for the suit schedule premises; that the plaintiff owns number of buildings and propert...
Nallasivam Vs. Dakshinamurthy and Baskaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad387
ORDERT.V. Masilamani, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for both sides.2. The revision petitioner is the decree-holder/plaintiff in O.S.No.461 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamallee. He filed the execution petition in E.P.No.587 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamallee for delivery of the property as per the decree and since the second respondent obstructed the delivery sought for by the decree-holder in E.A.No.800 of 1985, he filed the petition in E.A.No.1390 of 1985 under Order 21 Rule 97 and Section 151 C.P.C. for removal of obstruction and delivery of possession of the property. Since the said application was not filed within 30 days under Article 129 of the Limitation Act, the executing Court dismissed the same. Hence the revision petitioner preferred the revision against the said order in C.R.P.No.816 of 1997. At the time of admission stage itself, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court rejected the same by an order dated 31....
Keen Engineers Rep. by Its Partner Mr. V. Venkateswaran and V. Venkate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR639(Madras); (2004)3MLJ321
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 3.12.2002 made in I.A.No.85 of 2002 in O.S.No.440 of 2001 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee thereby dismissing the application filed by the petitioners herein under Order XII Rule 6 of C.P.C. r/w Order XIV Rules 3(c),4,6 & 7 and Order XV Rule 1 of C.P.C praying to pass an order to dismiss the above suit as not maintainable pursuant to specific clause for Arbitration under the Indian Arbitration Act in terms of the Clause 23 of the suit document NO.1, dated 2.10.1987 and I.A.No.86 of 2002 praying for an order of interim stay, on grounds such as that the impugned order and the decretal order passed by the court below is erroneous and against the weights of evidence and probabilities of the case; that the lower Court ought to have seen that the suit document NO.1, is containing the Arbitration clause 23 and ought to have considered the same in its true sense of ...
Amalorpava Mary and A. Arputha Josephine Vs. Kulandai Ammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad291; 2004(2)CTC502; (2004)1MLJ634
P. Sathasivam, J.,1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned I Additional District Judge, Tiruchirapalli dated 22-9-95, made in O.P. No. 278 of 87, dismissing the said petition filed for grant of Letter of Administration with Will in respect of the Estate of Innasi Ammal, the appellants have filed the above appeal before this Court under Section 384 of Indian Succession Act, 1925.2. For convenience we may refer the parties as described in O.P. No. 278 of 87. In the matter of grant of Letter of Administration with Will annexed to the Estate of Innasi Ammal, Amalorpava Mary and Arputha Josephine/petitioners filed O.P. No. 278 of 87 before the District Court, Tiruchirapalli under Section 287 of the Indian Succession Act. In the petition it is stated that Innasi Ammal and Innasi Muthu are the parents of the first respondent and I.A. Pichai Asari and Madhalai Mary. Madhalai Mary is no more and her children are the respondents 2 to 4. I.A. Pichai Asari @ Arokiasamy died on 8-7-83. The first pe...
State by Cbi/Acb Vs. A.N. Dhyaneswaran,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2802
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J. 1. This revision has been filed by the petitioner against the common order passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai in Cr.M.P.Nos.96 and 549 of 2002 in C.C.No. 9 of 2001 dated 7-1-2003 in allowing the above petitions filed by the respondents herein.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The first respondent herein was the Managing Director and Chairman of Tamil Nadu Minerals (TAMIN) between 1991 and 1996 , the second respondent is his son and the third respondent is a close associate of the 1st respondent. The petitioner CBI filed a charge sheet on 14.3.2001 wherein it was alleged that A1 the first respondent herein has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.7,34,58,239/- for which he could not satisfactorily account for. A1 was charge sheeted for the offence under sections 420 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 109 IPC. A2 son of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »