Chennai Court March 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.
Bagyalakshmi Vs. Appasamy Asari,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad424
M. Chockalingam, J.1. The third defendant in a suit for declaration and other consequential reliefs, is the appellant herein.2. The following facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties:The suit properties belonged to the plaintiff. In respect of those properties and other properties, the plaintiff executed a registered power of attorney on 23.8.1982 in favour of the first defendant. On coming to know that the first defendant was acting against the interest of the plaintiff, a notice was issued by the plaintiff on 6.2.1985 cancelling the said power. Accepting the same, the first defendant has also surrendered the power of attorney to the plaintiff. On 29.8.1983, the plaintiff conveyed the first item of property to one Nachiappan, under a sale deed, and the same was attested by the first defendant. The said power of attorney neither came into force nor was acted upon. The first defendant in collusion with the defendants 2 and 3 has executed two documents, one a registered mortgage...
Management of Kasturi Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Labour and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ827Mad
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The writ appeal and writ petitions arise out of the same issue, and therefore, they are dealt with together and disposed of by this common order.2. For appreciation of the case, we refer to the averments made in W.P. No. 15777 of 1989. The 2nd respondent was appointed as Statistical Quality Controller (in short SQC) in the petitioner Mills on October 12, 1981. He was initially put on probation for a period of one year. On completion of probation, he was confirmed with effect from December 1, 1983 by confirmation order dated December 8, 1983.3. On June 21, 1985 an advertisement was made by the petitioner calling for applications for the post of Labour Welfare Officer (in short LWO). Pursuant to the said advertisement, the 2nd respondent applied on June 27, 1985. He was selected and was appointed by order dated September 5, 1985. As the contents of the order requires consideration for disposal of these matters, the same is extracted as hereunder:'Mr. P. Subbarayan...
Vijayaraj Vs. Githeyon Raj and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2004
Reported in: [2004]122CompCas393(Mad)
R. Banumathi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal in S. T. C. No. 2445 of 1991 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pad-manabhapuram. By the judgment dated April 16, 1992, the first respondent/ accused was convicted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. Gist of the complaint : The accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 14,000 from the complainant on August 14, 1991, at Thakkalai, agreeing to repay the entire amount on September 2, 1991. When the complainant demanded the amount on September 2, 1991, the accused issued exhibit A.1-cheque, bearing No. 522748 of the State Bank of India, Kalkulam branch for Rs. 14,000. Exhibit A.1-cheque was presented for collection on the same day i.e., on September 2, 1991. The cheque was returned unpaid for want of money with the endorsement 'funds insufficient'. On September 9, 1991, the complainant issued exhibit A.3-notice to the accused. The same was received by the accused on September 24, 1991. But...
Ram Narayan Bhattad Vs. Krishna Bai Jhaver and Six ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC81
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The above Appeals are filed by the assignee-decree holder of the decree granted in C.S.No. 28/1975 having aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned single Judge in various Applications. Since the issue raised in these Appeals arc very narrow one, namely, whether the Execution Petitions filed in E.P.Nos. 58, 69, 70 and 71 of 1986 by the appellant in this Court without obtaining permission to have simultaneous execution of the decree are maintainable, we arc not proposed to elaborate the facts as they are not to be decided except a few facts which are necessary to decide the issue.2. The plaintiff/Andhra Bank Ltd., filed a suit in C.S.No. 28/1975 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,58,214.79 from the defendants, after obtaining a decree on 25.4.1979, directing defendants 3 and 4 and defendants 5 to 11, from out of the assets, if any, of the deceased R.S. Jhaver, who is the original defendant, in the hands of defendants 5 to 11. The appellant got assignment of t...
G. Akbar Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Director General Rai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC277; [2004(102)FLR391]
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Pursuant to the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner, who was working as a Head Constable in the third respondent/Factory, charging that:(i) he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty at Time Office Gate (Counter No.5) on 8.9.1994 when he failed to prevent stealthy removal of 7 Nos. of hand shut off valves (brass) with marks 'KIM', and allowed an employee of the Railway by name S.Ramalingam, without proper check to go out from the furnishing factory through counter No.5 of the Time Office Gate; and (ii) that he indulged in corrupt and improper practice by placing himself under pecuniary obligations to another person in a manner as to effect the proper discharge of his lawful and prime duties and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, violating Rule 146.7 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 and Rules 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, the petitioner was placed ...
R. Babu and anr. Vs. Ttk Lig Ltd., Formerly London Rubber Co. (India) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2004
Reported in: [2005]124CompCas109(Mad); 2004(2)CTC684; (2005)ILLJ474Mad
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J.1. The appellants are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from continuing employment in the second defendant and for other reliefs. The plaintiff has filed an application in Application No. 353 of 2002 for an injunction restraining the second defendant from in any manner using or utilising any information whatsoever obtained from the first defendant with respect to manufacture of rubber latex condoms pending disposal of the suit. The plaintiff has also filed another application in Application No. 354 of 2002 to pass an order of injunction restraining the first defendant from continuing his employment with the second defendant or in any manner violating the terms of negative covenants contained in the agreement dated 1.5.1990 entered into between the plaintiff/applicant and the first defendant pending disposal of the suit. The plaintiff has filed the aboves...
Chidambara Pathar Vs. K.R. Mani Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad343
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned II Additional District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, made in A. S. No. 79 of 1992, affirming the Judgment of the trial Court dismissing a suit on a promissory note.2. The appellant, as plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money, based on an assignment, made in his favour by the promisee of Ex.A1 promissory note. According to the plaintiff, the defendant executed Ex. A1 promissory note on 22-11-1986 in favour of the assignor, in consideration of Rs. 10,000/-, agreeing to pay the principal along with interest at 12% per annum, and the promisee under the promissory note one Shanmugam made an assignment on 27-7-1987 in favour of the plaintiff, and despite many a demand, no response was forthcoming, and hence, the suit for recovery of money.3. The suit was resisted by the respondent/defendant stating that there was no consideration for the promissory note; that there was no occasion for the defendant to b...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›