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.
Perumal P.S.L. Vs. K. Baliah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3240; 2004(2)CTC94
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J.1. This petition relates to the maintainability of the review petition filed on behalf of the petitioner in the above revisions. Since the office felt that no review petition lies against the judgment rendered by the High Court in the High Court itself, the matter has been posted for maintainability.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A. Thiagarajan, argued in-extenso and submitted that this Court has power to set aside its own order, if the respective parties were able to show that the order is palpably wrong or that it should be amended in the interest of justice. To substantiate the above said argument the-learned counsel has referred to Section 362, Cr.P.C which reads as follows:'362. Court not to alter judgment - Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Cordial Company and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ1655
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. As against the order dated 12.12.1994 passed by the Commissioner for Labour-I, Madras awarding a compensation to the workman with a finding that workman was covered under the workmen's compensation insurance with United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurance company preferred this appeal.2. The workman, by name K. Anbalagan, was a mason with Cordial Company, respondent No. 1, involved in the construction work. He has joined the company, respondent No. 1, in the month of April 1993. The company, respondent No. 1, is also licensed for the work of construction of administrative buildings at telecom exchange building in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Telecom Civil Division, Department of Telecoms, Madras. The accident occurred on 6.5.1993 in which the workman sustained injuries and succumbed to the same on the next day. This had happened at the work spot, i.e., at Telecom Exchange Building, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Madras. As mentioned earlier, the...
P.K.M. Shahul Hammed Vs. A. Santhanalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ714
ORDERT.V. Masilamani, J. 1. This revision petition is filed challenging the fair and final orders passed by the Appellate Authority (VII Small Causes Court, Chennai) in R.C.A. No. 1285 of 1996 on 10.7.1997.2. The only question for consideration is whether the dismissal order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the ground of non-production of certified copy of the order passed by the Rent Controller is sustainable or not.3. It is not in controversy that the revision petitioner filed the said appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority with the leave to produce the certified copy later and thereafter failed to comply with such an order for production of the certified copy and therefore, the Rent Control Appeal was dismissed on that ground.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended vehemently that even though the petitioner is entitled to file a petition to restore the copy application for certified copy which was struck off by reason of non-furnishing of...
E. Mohamed Haneefa Vs. S.P. Adaikalavan and United India Insurance Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ987
ORDERT.V. Masilamazni, J.1. Claim petitioners in the claim Petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Dharmapuri are the Revision petitioners. 2. Heard the counsel for both sides.3. The only question that arise for consideration is : Whether the impugned order is legally sustainable or not?4. Learned Judge presiding over the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri has disposed of the petition with a direction to the petitioner to file the petition before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation on the ground that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the question with reference to the compensation by virtue of the Workmen Compensation Act 1923 and that therefore, the petitioner is directed to approach the concerned forum to decide the issue. 5. Having regard to the provision under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the ratio laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in 2000(3) Supreme 698, (Rula Devi & Anr VS New India Assuran...
Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Chief Secretary, Vs. Vasantha Carbide Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC683; (2004)1MLJ721
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The defendants, having aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.8.2003 in O.S. No. 59/2002, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Karaikal, have preferred the above Appeal.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit in O.S. No. 59/2002 for a declaration that the disconnection of electrical energy of the plaintiff premises in pursuance of alleged notice dated 9.10.2002 is illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently directing the defendants to give electric connection to the plaintiff-company by way of mandatory injunction. The plaintiff-company is running an industry and service connection was effected to the said industry pursuant to the agreement dated 4.8.1997. On 8.10.2002 at about 17.30 hours, the 4th appellant along with the Assistant Executive Engineer/HT, Pondicherry inspected the service connection of the respondent/plaintiff-industry and they noticed certain violations. On 9.10.2002, a notice asking the respondent/plaintiff...
Sri Meenakshi Saw Mill Rep. by Its Partner Vinod M. Patel Vs. Cauvery ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: II(2004)BC561; 2004CriLJ2199; 2004(2)CTC138
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J. 1. This revision has been filed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate V, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P. No. 3053 of 2002 in C.C. No. 843 of 2001, dismissing the petition filed for dropping proceedings against the accused/petitioner of offences under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in Short `the Act').2. The circumstances under which the said order came to be passed is as follows:a) The complainant/respondent herein namely M/s. Cauvery Timber Company Pvt. Ltd represented by C. Subramanian filed a complaint against the accused/petitioner for offences under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the averments that the accused company represented by its proprietor, namely Vinod M. Patel had purchased timber under Invoice No. 157 dated 17.05.2000 for Rs. 3,69,409, Invoice No. 170 dt.20.05.2000 for Rs. 10,90,149/- and Invoice No. 182 dated 27.05.2000 for Rs.3,59,096/- totalling in all for a sum of Rs. 18,18,654/-. In discha...
Shanthi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Governmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ628
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to call for the entire records pertaining to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity 'the Act') made in G.O.Ms.No.495, Housing and Urban Development L.A.3(2), dated 14.11.1996, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 18.12.196, and the declaration madein G.O.Ms.No.442, Housing and Urban Development Department L.A.3(2), dated 23.12.1997 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the land of an extent of one acre comprised in Survey No.5/2B in Vellakinar Village, which is sought to be acquired pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 14.11.1996, which was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 18.12.1996, in the local daily, on 3.1.1997 and in the locality on 6.1.1997....
D. Arumugam Vs. A.G. Aparaj,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ704
ORDERT.V. Masilamani, J.1. This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 24.3.1998 passed by the learned District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli in E.A.No.175 of 1998 in E.P.No.870 of 1996 in Trichy Sub Court's O.S.No.220 of 1993.2. The revision petitioner filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 105 and Section 151 C.P.C. to restore the petition in E.A.No.407 of 1997 which was dismissed for default on 6.2.1998. While that petition was pending enquiry after the respondent filed the counter affidavit on 20.3.1998, the learned District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli heard both sides and passed the impugned order on merits dismissing the said petition on 24.3.1998. The revision petitioner has come forward with this petition challenging the said order passed by the executing Court.3. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued at the outset that this petition is not maintainable in law for the simple reason that only an appeal will lie against the impugned order in view of the provisions ...
E. Mohamed Haneefa Vs. S.P. Adaikalavan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: I(2007)ACC685
T.V. Masilamani, J.1. Claim petitioners in the claim petitions before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub-Court) Dharmapuri, are the revision-petitioners.2. Heard the Counsel for both sides.3. The only question that arises for consideration is: Whether the impugned order is legally sustainable or not?4. Learned Judge presiding over Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri has disposed of the petition with a direction to petitioner to file the petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on the ground that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the question with reference to the compensation by virtue of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and that, therefore, the petitioner is directed to approach the concerned forum to decide the issue.5. Having regard to the provision under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : (2000)ILLJ1656SC . This Court is...
Mrs. Mamoola Begum Alias Shahanas Begum Vs. Shabbir Ahmed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ737
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J. 1. The earlier C.R.P. No. 3069 of 1998 has been filed by the landlady against the fair rent of Rs. 1,090/- fixed by the Rent Controller for the petition residential premises as confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 2. The latter C.R.P. No. 710 of 2003 has been filed by the landlady against the judgment and decree dated 5.12.1994 made in R.C.A. No. 284 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversing the eviction order dated 29.4.1992 made in R.C.O.P. No. 2244 of 1989.3. C.R.P. No. 3069 of 1998:- The revision petitioner/landlady filed R.C.O.P. No. 2929 of 1989 to fix fair rent to the ground floor residential premises bearing door No.23, Barracks Road, Periamet, Madras 600003. The respondent/tenant resisted the petition by filing counter.4. The learned Rent Controller, considering the evidence of P.W.1, husband of the landlady and the Engineer, P.W.2 Ragavendra Rao and Ex.P-1, the report of the Engineer and Ex.P-2 and a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »