Chennai Court August 2004 Judgments
Minor D. Ram and Minor D. Shyam, Rep. by Father and Natural Guardian, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ472
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the Prospectus issued by the Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry is being challenged with regard to Clause 3.1. Clause 3.1 of the Prospectus reads thus :-'3.1 Number of Seats : Seventy-five seats are available for admission during 2004 to the First Year M.B.B.S. Course. These seats are distributed as under : (a) Open General 14(b) Open Scheduled Caste 8(c) Open Scheduled Tribe 4(d) Pondicherry General 15(e) Pondicherry Scheduled Caste 5(f) Seats to be filled on the basisof Common All India Entrance Test by CBSE 11(g) Government of India nominationsubject to fulfillment of basicrequirements laid down, vide para 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 18Total 75'Clause 3.5.1 reads thus :- '3.5.1 Definition of Pondicherry Union Territory Residents : The 20 Seats reserved for Pondicherry General and Pondicherry Scheduled Castes are open to applicants who are Pondicherry Residents provided he/she is an I...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Seematti Vs. Secretary, Govt. of T.N., Home Deptt. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ738
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu by name Rahamathullah Nainar Sulthan. He was detained and kept in Central Prison, Chennai by order dated 29-1-2004 under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short COFEPOSA Act) (Central Act 52 of 1974). The said order came to be passed with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods in future.2. Heard Mr. Habibullah Basha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajaratinam, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent and Mrs. Vanathi Srinivasan for respondents 2 and 3.3. After taking us through the grounds of detention and other materials, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:'(i) Neither the petitioner nor the detenu was supplied relevant documents relied on by the detaining authority. According to the petitioner, among the documents, the contents of one side of a...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Anbu Mani Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director, the State Tradi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ168
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus for the purpose of quashing the order by the first respondent dated 20.10.2003 and for a direction to the respondents to reimburse the amount of Rs. 1,85,130/- representing the amounts which were spent for his treatment in Apollo Hospital, Madras.2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition and the counter affidavit are perused.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner joined the State Trading Corporation (STC), the respondent herein, on 11.10.1978 as the Finance Manager, after serving 16 years in Indian Railways and other public sector undertakings for 6 years, and thus, the petitioner had a total service of 35 years; that the respondent Corporation implemented the STC (Retired Employees) Medical Benefit Scheme with effect from 1.10.1981, which is a welfare scheme for the benefit of the retired employees and his/...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mani, Vs. the District Collector and the Special Tahsildar, (Adi-dr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC58; (2004)4MLJ323
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent relating to Notification No.Roc.65361/97/D8 dated 31.12.1997 and published at page 2 of Salem District Gazette Extra-ordinary No. II dated 17.01.1998, in so far as the petitioner is concerned in respect of S.Nos.68/4A1, 68/4A2A, 68/4A2B, and 68/4A2C of Chinnamanali Village, Edappadi Taluk, Salem District, and to quash the same. 2. The petitioners are challenging the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act. The writ petition challenging notification is mainly on the ground that the opportunity contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act 1978 has not been given to the petitioner. In order to satisfy whether opportunity was really given to the petitioner or not, this Court far back in October,2003, directed the Government Advocate to produce the record...
Tag this Judgment!Alamelu Ammal, Vs. Tamizh Chelvi,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ620
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition in O.S.No.75 of 1986 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Tiruvannamalai. The brief facts necessary for the consideration of the appeal are, one Krishna Reddiar (Senior) had a son, by name, Govindasamy Reddiar and a daughter, by name, Rangammal. His wife was Venkattammal and she died in the year 1953. Govindasamy Reddiar, son of Krishna Reddiar (Sr.), died on 19.4.1964. Govindasamy Reddiar had one son, by name, Krishna Reddiar (Junior) and two daughters, namely, Rangammal and Pappathi. The wife of Krishna Reddiar (Jr.) is one Alamelu ammal, who is the first defendant in the suit. Krishna Reddiar (Jr.)'s sister Rangammal had a daughter, by name, Alamelu ammal and she is the fifth defendant in the suit. Krishna Reddiar (Jr.)'s another sister Pappathi ammal had a son, Devan and he is the sixth defendant. Krishna Reddiar (Jr.) had a son, by name, Subramaniam and two daughters, namely, Rathinam (2nd defendant) a...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Rajah Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd.,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ296
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Ref.No.ED/St.Gen.Cor.5/89-90, dated 21.4.1989, passed by the Executive, Administration in pursuance of the forced resignation and its subsequent relieving order issued by the Manager, dated 12.7.1989 and quashing the same.2. The writ petition has been filed against the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Tamil Nadu; the Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai; and the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi. Merely because respondents 2 and 3 have been added as parties, the Court does not get jurisdiction to hear the writ petition. The main relief sought for in the writ petition is against the first respondent, which is a scheduled Bank. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in FEDERAL BANK LTD. v.. SAGAR THOMAS AIR 2003 SCW 4995, a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, ca...
Tag this Judgment!Kasthuri and Sons Ltd., Proprietor of the Hindu, Rep. by Its Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(172)ELT307(Mad)
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in proceedings F.No.S30/1210/94-GR.5A, dated 25.10.1998, quash the same and consequently forbear the second respondent from demanding or levying any duty in respect of the facsimile equipment imported by the petitioner under Bill of Entry No.D.813 dated 4.5.1984.2. The brief case of the petitioner is that the petitioner imported the Laser Press Facsimile equipment in May 1984 and the same was assessed by the Assistant Collector, customs as an item chargeable to duty under Customs Tariff heading 84.35 and the petitioner paid the duty of Rs.80,59,513.80. But according to the Assistant Collector, the above equipment is in the nature of transmission and the reception apparatus and wireless equipment and hence decided to assess the goods under item 85.15 CTA read with 68 CET since the equipment imported was capable of w...
Tag this Judgment!C. Narayana Reddy Vs. State Bank of India (Agricultural Development) a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: I(2006)BC128; [2005]125CompCas67(Mad); (2004)4MLJ53
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. In a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.82,613.85, with subsequent interest, filed by the plaintiff bank, the first defendant unable to resist the same successfully, suffered a decree and the result is this appeal.2. The first respondent in this appeal as plaintiff had filed a suit against the appellant and others, for recovery of a sum of Rs.82,613.85 with interest thereon at 14' percent per annum. According to the first respondent/ plaintiff, the first defendant on his behalf, and as the power of attorney for other defendants, borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 27.11.1973 as crop loan, that they have borrowed a further sum of Rs.50,000/-, for the purchase of a tractor and other farm implements, as per the agreement dated 18.2.1975. It is the further case of the plaintiff, that the defendants though agreed to repay the loan amount on installment basis, failed to pay the same, despite repeated request and demand. The first defendant as the power agent, had acknowledg...
Tag this Judgment!Chikkanan Vs. A.R. Perumal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC414; (2004)3MLJ662
T.V. Masilamani, J.1. The second plaintiff who failed before the first appellate Court is the appellant.2. The second plaintiff is the son-in-law and the plaintiffs 3 to 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff. Originally, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed the suit for specific performance of the suit agreement for sale dated 29.6.1977 executed by the defendants 1 to 3/respondents 1 to 3 herein in respect of the suit property for a sum of Rs. 8,000/-. The respondents/defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the said agreement is not true and valid and that the same had been forged to lay an unlawful claim by the plaintiffs. In the above circumstances, the trial Court having framed 7 issues, held on the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary adduced on either side that the suit agreement is true and valid and that therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as prayed for.3. As against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the firs...
Tag this Judgment!The Integral Coach Factory, Rep. by Its Works Manager/M/Fur (Disciplin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR12]; (2005)ILLJ422Mad; (2004)4MLJ161
ORDERR. Banumathi, J. 1. The Petitioners/Integral Coach Factory have filed this Writ Petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to O.A. No. 596 of 1999 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and the Order dated 30.11.2000 and to quash the same. By the Impugned Order, the Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the Order of termination of service of the First Respondent finding that proper procedure were not followed and further finding that the Charge Memo issued to the First Respondent was based on 'no evidence'. 2. This Writ Petition arises on the following facts:-The First Respondent was appointed as Skilled Artisan Grade III in Grade 'C' Service against Sports Quota for the year 1989. At the time of his appointment, the First Respondent has produced :- (i) S.S.L.C Mark Sheet - Marks as 281 out of 500.(ii)Transfer Certificate bearing No. 1301 and admission No. 1420.(iii) Additional qualification in the prescribed course ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »