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.
T.R. Dasappan, Proprietor, Yesares and Sudha R. Rao Vs. Union Bank of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC413; (2004)2MLJ459
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The respondents 1 and 2 in O.A.No.1558 of 1998 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai are the revision petitioners. This revision is filed against the dismissal of I.A.No.2015 of 2000 dated 17.9.2001 by the said Debt Recovery Tribunal.2. The respondent Bank filed O.A.No.1558 of 1998 to recover a sum of Rs.58,76,781/-. When it was posted for filing a reply statement to 25.5.1999, the revision petitioners remained ex parte and so they were set ex parte. The application I.A.No.1428 of 1999 was filed on 3.9.1999 to set aside the ex parte order dated 25.5.1999. The Debt Recovery Tribunal passed a conditional order for allowing the said application on payment of 1/5th of the claim amount to the Bank and further directing to file the reply statement. The revision petitioners filed I.A.No.2015 of 2000 to modify the conditional order dated 7.3.2000 made in I.A.No.1428 of 1999. The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the petition as per order dated 17...
K. Krishnan and S.M.K.K. and Co. Through Its Partner Vs. Idol of Sree ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad398
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. The defendants, who suffered with a decree in the hands of both the courts below in a suit for declaration, recovery of possession and for rental balance, have brought forth this second appeal.2. The short facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows:The suit property, a thatched shed, which is resting on the eastern wall of the plaintiff's temple in Door No.1, Rengasamy Chettiar Street, Trichy belonged to the plaintiff's temple. The second plaintiff is the trustee of the first plaintiff temple. The first and the second defendants have been in possession as tenant from 1969 agreeing to pay the monthly rental. The present agreed rent is Rs.135/- per month. There was a wilful default on the part of the defendant in making the payment from 1.3.1982. The arrears amount due for the said period till the filing of the suit was Rs.4,837.50 deducting the advance of Rs.300/-. The first and the second defendants have sublet the premises to the third defendant ...
The Management Arul Anandar College Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR777]; (2004)IIILLJ134Mad; (2004)2MLJ612
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. This is an unfortunate case where the second respondent workman was driven from pillar to post after his dismissal by the appellant Management as early as on 25.6.1982, which order itself was to take retrospective effect from 3.4.1982. Initially when the second respondent raised an industrial dispute, that was not referred for adjudication and he had to knock at the doors of this Court for getting a reference. Thereafter, with much strain he was able to secure a reference by virtue of an order of this Court dated 8.8.1989 in W.P.No.9959 of 1985. 2. Ultimately, the dispute came to be referred for adjudication to the file of the first respondent herein, which came to be numbered as I.D.No.579 of 1989, wherein the issue was relating to the justification of the non-employment of the second respondent. The second respondent filed his claim statement as early as on 12.3.1990. The appellant came forward with the counter statement initially on 01.09.1990, in which ...
Shanmugaiah and Ganesan Vs. Thirumalayandi Alias Thirumalai Pandaram,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC92; (2004)2MLJ457
M. Chockalingam, J.1.The plaintiffs 4 and 5 in a suit for declaration and other consequential reliefs, who lost their case before both the Courts below, are the appellants herein.2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:The suit property originally belonged to one Muthu Pandaram. He had three sons, who are the defendants 1 and 2 and one Eswara Pandaram. The third defendant is the wife of the second defendant. On the demand for making an arrangement, at the time of the marriage of the third defendant with the second defendant, the second defendant executed a registered settlement deed on 6.1.1950 under Ex.A1 in respect of his undivided 1/3rd share in the property, wherein the third defendant has been given a life estate, and thereafter, the property should go to the heirs of the second and third defendants. The first defendant and the other brother Eswara Pandaram also gave their consent. The said settlement deed came into force. The second and third defen...
Radhakrishnan R. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ631Mad
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The petitioner was working as a driver in the second respondent-Corporation when he was dismissed from service without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had been employed as driver with the second respondent on and from May 24, 1986 and he had completed 323 days' continuous service till April 15, 1987. He had undergone training at the driver training school for a period of nine months. His services were terminated without complying with Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, he raised an industrial dispute. It is the case of the second respondent that when the petitioner's name was sponsored through the Employment Exchange for the post of a driver, it was found during the interview that the petitioner did not satisfy the height requirement of 160 cms. since he was only 159 cms. tall. According to the second respondent, the rule relating to the height requirement had ...
M. Anandan and G. Babu Vs. the Tamilnadu Electricity Board Rep. by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad290
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1.1. According to the petitioners, they purchased lands of an extent of 4 acres and 3 acres respectively, along with the agricultural electricity service connections bearing Nos. 35 and 25 respectively in Melakondiayur Village, Thiruvallur District. However, due to cyclone in the year 1994, the electric posts running in the petitioners lands were removed, of course, at the request of the petitioners and consequently, their service connections were also disconnected with an assurance of restoration of electricity supply as and when new electric posts were erected.1.2. Alleging that, even though the respondents erected new electric posts, till date they have not restored the electricity supply to the petitioners, and on the other hand, by proceedings dated 28.12.2002, the first respondent rejected the request of the petitioners for restoration of electricity on the following grounds (i) that there are arrears of electricity charges payable by the petitioners; and ...
Tmt. T. Indra and G. Panneerselvam Vs. the Member Secretary, Chennai M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC125; (2004)4MLJ242
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. By a resolution dated 6.7.1999, the respondent authority prescribed the age, qualification and method of recruitment for the post of Law Officer Grade II, which reads as follows,Name of the Method of Qualifications/ AgeCategory Recruitment Experience (for direct recruitment only)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Law Officer i) By direct For DirectGrade-II recruitment Recruitment Must be a Law ii) By transfer Graduate and of service must have 3 from the years bar category of experience. Superintendent or Assistant. For Promotion 35 years Must be a Law Graduate and must have served as Superintendent/ Assistant for not less than 10 years in CMDA and must have bar experience of 2 years.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. Concededly, there is no provision under the above regulation to relax either of the above qualifications, prescribed for the post of Law Officer Grad...
Sri-la-sri Shanmugha Desika Gnanasambanda Paramacharya, Swamygal Avarg ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ592
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. Aggrieved over the dismissal of a suit for recovery of possession by both the courts below, the plaintiff has brought forth this second appeal.2. The following averments are noticed in the pleadings of the parties:The immovable property described in the schedule to the plaint belonged to Dharmapuram Adheenam Mutt, wherein 'Othuvar' is permitted to do 'Parayanam' and it was all along used to divine and religious purpose and was also giving training to Othuvars. In order to maintain the same, caretakers were appointed. In that way, one Subbathal and Narayanasamy Naidu were appointed as caretakers. They were carrying on duties properly at the beginning and they continued to be in possession of the property. Subsequently, they did not do their duties, for which they were appointed. On the death of the said Narayanasamy Naidu, the defendant, his son continued to occupy the said property. He was raising objections then and there for carrying on day today activities of ...
Apple Finance Ltd. Vs. Gayathri Sugar Complex Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: [2005]123CompCas117(Mad); 2004(2)CTC412
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. This is an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to seize; take possession of the machinery mentioned in the schedule and available in the custody of the respondent; to bring them to sale and to deposit the amounts so realised into the accounts of this application. On 22.12.2003, a learned Judge of this Court appointed a retired District Judge as the Advocate Commissioner to inventories the articles available in the custody of the respondent; take photographs of those articles and file a report. The Advocate Commissioner had thus taken symbolical possession of the properties.2. Mr. G. Desappan, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that though it is a settled position in law that the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act can be moved before or during or after the arbitral proceedings, yet the applicant should not keep quiet indefinitely after obtaining the interim order bef...
V.S. Manickasundaram Vs. V.S. Ramalinga Gounder and Co. by Partner and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC624; (2004)2MLJ380
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The plaintiff who failed in his attempt to get a decree to realise the amount on promissory notes under Exs.A1 to A4 and A13 to A16, filed the above Appeal.2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No. 312/1982 on the file of the Sub-Court, Erode against defendants/respondents to recover a sum of Rs. 81,280 with interest on the basis that the defendants have executed Exs.A1 to A4 and A13 to A16, the promissory notes. The plaintiff is the assignee of the said promissory notes.3. The defendants contested the suit contending inter alia that the suit promissory notes were not executed, that the same were discharged, that they are barred by limitation and that the plaintiff is not the holder in due course of the said promissory notes,4. The trial Court found that the said promissory notes were executed and enforceable against the defendants, that they had been discharged, that the suit is barred by limitation and that the plaintiff as the assignee cannot be treated as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »