Chennai Court January 2005 Judgments
Selvamani and Vallimuthu Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ724
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above writ petition in W.P. No. 19822 of 2004 has been filed praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to return back the land in Old Survey No. S. No. 58/1A New S. No. 58/16 Koyambedu Village, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai in an extent of 4.13 acres acquired by the respondents belonging to the petitioner as per notification issued in Gazette dated 30.5.1990. Writ Petition No. 19823 of 2004 has been filed praying for a similar relief of writ of Mandamus in respect of Old S. No. 58/1A New S. No. 58/16, in the same village measuring an extent of 4.13 cents under the same Gazette publication.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition No. 19822/2004, the petitioner has averred that Old S. No. 58/1A, New Survey No. 58/16, Koyambedu Village, measuring an extent of 4.13 acres belonged to him and under Gazette Notification dated 30.5.1990, the respondents initiated acquisition proceedings and in accordance with the enquiry held un...
Tag this Judgment!Clara Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Prohibition ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC48
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The challenge in this habeas corpus petition is to the order of detention, dated 31.8.2004, passed by the second respondent against one Amali (hereinafter referred as 'the detenu'), branding him as a 'Goonda' and directing preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). The petitioner is the wife of the detenu.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on the following two grounds:(i) When the crime referred to in the adverse case is more grave in nature, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail, as opined by the detaining authority, and, theref...
Tag this Judgment!M. Seethalakshmi Vs. Suresh Bafna, Proprietor, Mansi Mercantile Co. Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: II(2007)BC30; [2006]131CompCas205(Mad)
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to call for the records in C.C.No. 4099 of 2001 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it comes to be seen that the petitioner/accused No. 2 was charged for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') on allegation that she stood as a guarantor, for the loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- obtained by her husband/main accused from the complainant and only with her connivance and consent, the cheque bearing No. 757486 dated 2-6-2001 for Rs. 10,00,000/- has been issued by the main accused for the discharge of the said liability; that the petitioner has come forward to file the above criminal original petition on ground that the main accused only issued the cheque in his individual c...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai Vs. Mrs. Lakshmi Bai (Died) a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ717
V. Kanagaraj, J. 1. Writ Appeal Nos. 2485 and 2487 of 1999 have been preferred by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and the W.A.Nos. 1696 and 1697 have been preferred by the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,Chennai against the common order of the single Judge of this Court dated 24.9.1999 respectively made in W.P.Nos. 6686, 6687 of 1997 and the W.A.No. 2504 of 2004 has been preferred by the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai against the order of the single Judge of this Court dated 19.5.2004 made in W.P.No. 14154 of 2004. For the sake of convenience hereinafter Writ Appeal Nos. 2485 and 2487 of 1999 and 1696 and 1697 of 2000 are referred to as the first four appeals and Writ Appeal No. 2504 of 2004 is referred to as the fifth appeal. 2. Tracing the history of the above Writ Appeals having come to be preferred before this Court, it comes to be known that the Special Collector for Land Acquisition, Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Uday Kotak, Vice-chairman and Managing Director, Kotak Mahindra Bank L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ92Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. These petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records pertaining to C.C.Nos. 4337 and 4338 of 2004 pending on the file of the Court of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and quash the same. 2. The petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner is working as Vice-Chairman and Managing Director at Mumbai and the 2nd petitioner is employed as Zonal Controller-South commercial Vehicles at Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited at Chennai; that the 2nd petitioner received a notice dated 31.10.2003 from the respondent alleging non-compliance of caertain provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') by the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited at Chennai; that upon due consideration, it was found that there is no violation of the legal provisions and consequently it was presumed that the issue was set at rest by the respondent; that the 2nd petitioner subsequently received summons from the...
Tag this Judgment!Velumurugan @ Velu, S/O. Radhakrishnan Vs. the Commissioner of Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC577
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The order of detention dated 4.9.2004, branding the detenu as a Goonda, is challenged in this habeas corpus petition filed by the detenu, only on the ground that the detaining authority has not applied his mind with reference to the imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail.2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.3. It is settled law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, and Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Govt. of Delhi ; that unless there is a clear expression by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention with reference to the imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail by filing bail application, the detaining authority would not choose to pass the detention order. In order to prevent the detenu from committing the acts, which would be disturbance to public order and public health, the detaining aut...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Its Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR273]; (2005)IILLJ307Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of all the parties writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. Aggrieved by the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench/first respondent herein dated September 24, 2003 made in O.A.No. 447 of 2003, allowing the said application by quashing the Memorandum dated October 8/10, 2002, and reinstating them from conducting departmental enquiry, Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII, Chennai-34 has filed the above writ petition praying to quash the same on various grounds.2. The brief facts which are required for the disposal of the writ petition are stated hereunder:The second respondent herein was working as Income Tax Officer in the Government of India. On January 29, 1985 there was a raid on the applicant and on the basis of subsequent proceedings, criminal action was initiated on April 25, 1988 and the same was taken on file of the 9th Additional Sessions Judge as C.C.No. 6 of 1988 and subsequently the proceedings were transferred to the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Veeraraghava Nayagar Vs. Alagiya Manavala Perumal Temple, by Its Trust ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC695
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The plaintiff, who succeeded before the trial Court, but lost his case before the first Appellate Court, is the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') in this Second Appeal.2. The plaintiff filed the suit against the respondent Temple (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') for permanent injunction that his possession as a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit property should not be disturbed till such time he is evicted by due process of law. The suit property is 3.78 Acres punja land in Survey No. 32, No. 92, Muthialpet Village, Wallajabad Union, Kancheepuram Taluk.3. As per the amended plaint, the case of the plaintiff is that he is a lessee of the suit property under the defendant Temple as per the Lease Deed entered into between him and one D.N. Subbarayalu Chettiar, the then Trustee of the Temple. The Lease Deed dated 05.4.1978 is for a period of ten years. The plaintiff is to pay cash of Rs. 50/- per year for the first fiv...
Tag this Judgment!V.K.K. Nair Vs. Mrs. Kanchan Kawar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad186; III(2005)BC192; 2005(1)CTC748; (2005)1MLJ444
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J. 1. The second defendant/revision petitioner herein has filed an application under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of CPC seeking leave to defend the suit, which was dismissed with costs by the court below, hence this revision. 2. The respondent herein has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 28,300/-, based on the promisory note dated 05-10-1998, together with interest on Rs. 15,000/- at Rs. 2.50% per month from the date of plaint till realisation. The petitioner herein has filed an application praying leave to defend the suit by stating that he never borrowed any money from the respondent herein; that he approached one Gulecha for financial help during April 1997 and borrowed Rs. 15,000/- by executing a blank promisory note; that he had discharged the same and requested the said Gulecha to return the Promisory note, who had assured him to return the same; during that period, the Petitioner went to Kottayam, Kerala to attend his ailing mother and stayed there for one year; th...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Nursing Home Rep. by Its Owner Dr. Neelambal and Dr. Neelambal Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ426
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. In this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are the respondents before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in O.P.No. 118 of 2002, seek to set aside the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, in M.P.No. 102 of 2004. 2. The impugned order relates to the refusal on the part of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to condone the delay of 355 days in filing the respondents' version. 3. To appreciate the contentions raised in this revision petition, it is necessary to extract the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of her petition. 4. The petitioner has contended that she had received the summons from the Commission without any annexures such as the copy of the complaint and the typed set filed by the complainant along with the complaint. She engaged her counsel and handed over the summons and vakalat to him. The counsel filed the vakalat on 6.6.2003 and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »