Chennai Court April 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.
Khivraj Motors Limited, Represented by Its Director, Mr. Ajit Kumar Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC85; [2005]139STC233(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petition in W.P.No. 38111 of 2003 is filed for the relief of issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in No. Rc. 1850/2003/A1 dated 9.12.2003 relating to assessment year 1994-95 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner and examining the documents.2. The writ petition in W.P.No. 38112 of 2003 is filed for the relief of issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in No. Rc.1850/2003/A1 dated 9.12.2003 relating to assessment year 1995-96 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner and examining the documents.3. The writ petition in W.P.No. 38113 of 2003 is filed for the relief of issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in No. Rc.1850/2003/Al dated 9.12.2003 relating to assessment year 1996-97 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to pass an appropriate order after h...
Masilamani Vs. Murugesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC727
ORDERAR. Ramalingam, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed by one Masilamani in the capacity of cultivating tenant against the order passed by the Revenue Court, Thanjavur in P.No.175, of 1999/Kumbakonam whereby the Revenue Court has come to the conclusion that the said Masilamani is in arrears of lease amount to the tune of Rs.31,050 relating to faslis 1406 to 1408 and also given time till 10.7.2002 for payment of the said arrears of lease amount failing which eviction proceedings would follow.2. Aggrieved against such order, the cultivating tenant Masilamani has filed this civil revision petition on the ground that the Revenue Court has not at all conducted enquiry in proper manner by marking documents and examining witnesses and that the Revenue Court has committed error in passing a cyclostyled and stereotyped order by filling up the gaps relating to the period of arrears and the quantum of arrears without application of mind and that the Revenue Court has failed to note...
S. Ponnuthai Vs. P. Muthusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad450
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. Defendant in the suit is the appellant in the second appeal, having suffered concurrent judgments against her in the courts below.2.The relationship between the parties is determined by three agreements, all dated 7.5.1989. One is an agreement of sale in which the appellant is described as the vendor and one Standard Housing Construction and Finance Company, represented by Manonmani, the wife of the respondent herein and the General Power of Attorney Chief Executive, Muthusamy, the respondent are referred to as purchasers. The next agreement is a Joint Venture Agreement in which the appellant is shown as the party of the first part and the first vendor in the above agreement, viz., the Construction and Finance Company is shown as the party of the second part. Though the party of the second part is described as a company, it is obvious from the recitals in the deed that it is a proprietory concern, the proprietrix being the wife of the respondent. The third documen...
Bond Food Products Private Ltd. and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC882; AIR2004Mad538; 2004(4)CTC103; (2004)3MLJ306
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 29.11.1988 made in O.S. No. 4991 of 1995 passed by the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras dismissing the suit laid by the appellants herein to recover a sum of Rs.56,307.55p with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their rank in the suit.3.1. The second plaintiff is the Insurance Company. The first plaintiff entrusted a consignment containing 1080 tins and 77 cartons of biscuits with the defendant in the suit to transport the same from Bangalore to Calicut, under LR No.10843 dated 31.1.1983 and to deliver the consignment to M/s. Bond Food Products Private Limited, C/o. Spencer's & Co. Limited at NO.8/149, Beach Road, Calicut - 673 001, of course, after insuring the same with the second plaintiff for all risks, under Policy No.4120/3/548/M/49/B-OPL, date...
Management of Secales Limited, Rep. by General Manager (Operations) Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR482]; (2004)IIILLJ160Mad; (2004)2MLJ631
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The writ petitioner in W.P. No. 13341 of 1997 devised a training scheme whereby candidates were selected as apprentices and given training for three semesters. The training includes, on the job training and also attending theory classes and writing a written test. The apprentices so trained were given stipend and full-time wages. The training scheme required the apprentices to complete the course successfully, they would not be offered permanent employment. Even those, who have completed the training successfully were not automatically entitled to employment and appointment would depend upon availability of vacancies. Ten apprentices raised industrial disputes claiming that they were 'workmen' when the training period came to an end. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that out of the ten apprentices, three were made to work against regular vacancies and ordered reinstatement, but dismissed the claims made by the others. Therefore, W.P. No. 13341 of 1998 ...
Dr. S. Rajagopal Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3831
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This is a petition for bail.2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a Doctor and working as Divisional Medical Officer, Southern Railway Hospital, Madurai. He is charged for offences Under Sections 417, 376 and 506(i), IPC, for the alleged occurrence of rape by abusing his position as a Doctor and then continued cohabitation by promising to marry her and also received Rs. 3 lakhs from the complainant, by name Parimala. Originally, the FIR did not contain Section 506(i), IPC, but, at the time of arrest Section 506(i), IPC was added. The Supreme Court directed the petitioner to surrender before the Court concerned and seek for bail, and the order on the bail application shall be passed on the same day. With this direction, the anticipatory bail petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. But the petitioner did not appear before the Court concerned, because it was guarded and sealed. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested by the Police on 6-3-2004....
Joint Regional Director, Sub-regional Office E.S.i. Corporation Ltd. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ300Mad
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The above writ appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Judge in W.P. No. 7384 of 1998, dated March 12, 2003. 2. The respondent-management filed a writ petition seeking to issue a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the appellant (sic) from claiming interest of Rs. 1,89,564 on the payment of ESI Contribution for the period between January, 1997 and October 1997. The said writ petition was filed on the basis that the employees' union filed a writ petition in WP. No. 2250 of 1997 and obtained an order of injunction on February 19, 1997. Ultimately, the said writ petition was dismissed on October 27, 1997. 3. It is not in dispute that the contribution was paid and the amount which is subject-matter in the writ petition is only in dispute. After dismissal of the said writ petition and after paying the amount to the appellant-Corporation the respondent-management has filed the above writ petition as stated above as if they are not liable to pay the interest...
K. Kandasamy, Assistant Manager, Uco Bank, Korattur Branch Vs. the Cha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ538
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. By consent of counsel for both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned transfer order issued in T.O.No.IR/36/2003 dated 29-04-2003 passed by the Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank, Regional Office, 328, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai - 600 001, the third respondent herein and the Rejection Order issued in Ref.PER /TPC/2003/1509 dated 23-10-2003 passed by the Chairman and Managing Director, Head office, Personnel Department, No.12, Old Court House Street, Kolkatta, the first respondent herein and quash the same as arbitrary, unreasonable, improper, illegal, against the rules and regulations of the respondents and thereby direct the respondents to retain the petitioner as the Assistant Manager (Scale-JM-1) UCO Bank, Korattur Branch, Korattur, Chennai.3. The petitioner has stated that he was ...
M. Chokkappan Vs. C. Selvaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad79; (2004)2MLJ722
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the decree-holder against the dismissal of E.A. No. 72 of 2001 in E.P. No. 93 of 1994 in R.C.O.P. No. 43 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur.2. The revision petitioner on the strength of the eviction order obtained in R.C.O.P. No. 43 of 1992 filed E.P. No. 93 of 1994 for delivery and it appears that delivery was ordered. The senior bailiff concerned returned the delivery warrant for want of survey number in the delivery warrant. Therefore, the decree-holder filed E.A. No. 72 of 2001 in E.P. No. 92 of 1994 to incorporate the survey number as T.S. 66/2313. The petition was opposed. 3. The Executing Court considering such objections dismissed the E.A. No. 72 of 2001 as per order dated 14.2.2002 and it is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition by the decree-holder.4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.5. The learned counsel ...
Vellipalayam Co-operative Milk Supply Society, Rep., by Its Special Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR1112]; (2004)IILLJ885Mad; (2004)3MLJ315
K. Govindarajan,J.1. The petitioner before the Employees State Insurance Court, Nagapattinam, in E.S.I.O.P. No. 33/1998 filed the above appeal, having aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge in C.M.A. No. 273/1993, dated 8.6.2000, confirming the order passed in E.S.I.O.P. No. 33/1988.2. The appellant is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. The Society has been purchasing milk from the cattle owners and after selling the milk, if there was any excess, they used to store it in a cooler for storage and it will be sold to the customers later. The Employees State Insurance Corporation issued a show cause notice on 28.9.1988 to determine and recover damages under Sec. 85(B)(1) of the Employees State Insurance Act, hereinafter called 'the E.S.I. Act'. It is also stated that from December 1982, the Society has been paying the contribution to the Employees State Insurance Corporation regularly. An order was passed asking the app...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »