Chennai Court February 2005 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.
Chairman and Managing Director, now represented by Liquidator, Tamil N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC396; (2005)IILLJ280Mad; (2005)1MLJ729
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 25.6.2004. We have carefully perused the impugned order and have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The writ petitioner was the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Oil Seeds Growers' Federation Employees Union (first respondent in this appeal). The petitioner filed a writ petition for quashing the order dated 30.11.2001 issued by the State Government and for quashing the G.O. dated 27.2.2002. Under the first G.O., the Tamil Nadu Government in the Department of Agriculture in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Section 182(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Act has directed the Commissioner of Agriculture and Registrar of Oil Seeds Growers Co-operative Societies to take appropriate proceedings under Section 137 of the said Act. By the subsequent G.O. dated 27.2.2002 the State Government in the Labour and Employment Department has granted permission under Section 25N of th...
Devanbu Vs. Sundara Raj,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC563; (2005)2MLJ41
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 439 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 30.12.2003 made in I.A. No. 810 of 2003 in O.S. No. 439 of 1999.2. The plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties, which are six items in Senji Village, Tiruvallur Taluk, claiming that though 32/45 share in item No. 1 with the well therein, item No. 2 and northern portion of item No. 6 were allotted to the share of the first defendant, who is the brother of the plaintiff, in the partition suit in O.S. No. 318 of 1963 and pursuant to the final decree in I.A. No. 700 of 1964 dated 18.9.1965, the delivery of the said items were also recorded on 9.8.1966, the plaintiff continued to be in possession in respect of all the items of the suit properties. The suit was filed in the year 1999. The suit was resisted by ...
M.S. Sivakumar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Dep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad202; (2005)2MLJ71
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. 'The end of forest brigand and serial killer Veerappan comes as a great relief to the Governments of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, whose police resources were put to a tough challenge, on and off, during a 20 year manhunt. Starting his infamous career as an elephant poacher and graduating into a sandalwood smuggler, Veerappan rose to become a challenge to the rule of law and constitutional authority, when he extended his sphere of influence from within an extensive forest area to the doors of important personalities and celebrities. In the last few years, he demonstrated that he could strike deep and kidnap significant persons for big time ransom, or sometimes for the thrill of flaunting his power. In 2000, during the 108-day drama when he held the Kannada film star Rajkumar captive, he marked out the forest as his exclusive domain. The two Governments were reduced not only to negotiating the release of the film star but also looking the other way when ransom...
The Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation Vs. A. Thangavelu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC481; [2005(105)FLR139]; (2005)IILLJ126Mad; (2005)1MLJ622
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 18.11.2004. We have heard Mr. G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel for the first respondent in W.A. No. 61 of 2005 and Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel for the first respondent in W.A. No. 62 of 2005.2. The first respondent was a Town Planning Inspector in the services of the appellant Municipal Corporation. He was charge sheeted on 13.12.1997. The charge against the first respondent (writ petitioner) was that the Town Planning Inspector and Assistant Town Planning Officer (incharge) demanded Rs.50,000/- from the agent of Thiru Radhakrishnan and Soundarajothi for approval of layout in Vilankruchi village. It appears that on that charge an enquiry officer was appointed, who submitted a report dated 19.2.1998. The writ petitioner filed an application to the Commissioner of Coimbatore Corporation ...
Pentafour Products Limited, Rep. by Its Director, Mr. V. Ramakrishnan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC339; [2006]131CompCas187(Mad); 2005(1)CTC486
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This Writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 23.11.2004. We have carefully perused the impugned order and heard the learned counsel for the appellant and find no merit in the appeal.2. It appears that the appellant had prayed that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act be not initiated against it or its Directors or officers. It is well-settled principle vide State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy and Anr., , Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill, , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, etc., that High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere in criminal proceedings unless on a perusal of the First Information Report or the complaint, even treating the allegations therein to be correct, no offence has been made out. If an offence is prima facie made out on a perusal of the First Information Report or the complaint, treating the allegations therein to be true, then the High Court ca...
The Madurai Maanagar Old Motor Spare Parts Dealers' Association, Regn. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC249; (2005)2MLJ642
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J,1. The petitioner is the Old Motor Spare Parts Dealers' Association, represented by its President. The Members of the Petitioner-Association are having their shops in Krishnarayar Teppakkulam East and South Streets of Madurai Town. On an earlier occasion, when the Petitioner-Association moved a Writ Petition in W. P. No. 2363 of 2004, specifically alleging that the Maduri City Municipal Corporation proposes to lease out the roadside open space to the individual vendors, recording the undertaking given before this Court by the learned standing counsel for the Madurai Corporation that the Corporation is not proposing or having any plan to lease out or to give license for the open space area of the two streets, the said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 14.10.2004, with an observation that if anybody has applied for lease or license for the open space area of the said two streets, the Members of the Petitioner-Association should be given a chance to opp...
Krishnaveni and ors. Vs. Jeyaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC472; (2006)3MLJ735
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. These revisions have been filed by defendants against the Order allowing the applications to amend the plaint.2. Petitioners are the legal representatives of one Purushothaman. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount due on three promissory notes dated 15.7.2000, 27.7.2000 and 3.8.2000 respectively. The petitioners are defendants 1 to 3. In the plaint that was originally filed, the respondent had pleaded that the first promissory note was executed by the late Purushothaman and the first petitioner, the second promissory note was executed by late Purushothaman and the second petitioner and the third promissory note was executed by late Purushothaman and the third petitioner. In the list of documents also these promissory notes were similarly described. A proof affidavit was also filed by the respondent. Subsequently, he filed amendment applications seeking to amend the plaint averments by deleting the names of the second and third peti...
C. Suresh, Vs. the State Represented by Its Food Inspector, In-charge ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC645
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J. 1. This O.P. has been brought forth, seeking to quash the proceedings pending in C.C. No. 266 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Erode, taken cognizance by the said Court on the complaint lodged by the respondent-the Food Inspector, in charge (Panchayat Union, Erode), Government Primary Health Centre, Chitode, Erode District. 2. The gist case of the respondent-complainant was that the toned milk food samples were lifted on 22.7.2003 and despatched to the Government Analyst, Guindy on 23.7.2003. The Government Analyst, by his letter dated 24.7.2003 informed the Local Health Authority that the toned milk food sample was broken in transit and requested to send the second portion of the sample, and the letter was received by the Local Health Authority on 30.7.2003. The second portion of the food sample was despatched to the Government Analyst's Office on 4.8.2003 and the same was received by the Government on 7.8.2003. The Government Analyst's ...
The Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its General Manager V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2005
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ620Mad; (2005)1LLN964
Markandey Katju, C.J. 1. These four writ appeals are filed against the common order of the learned single Judge passed in four connected writ petitions on 11.12.2002. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the records. 3. The writ petitioners prayed for quashing of paragraph-8 of the impugned circular in R.C.No. 11677/B.L.4/89 of the respondent (appellant herein) dated 24.08.1993 discontinuing payment of subsidy interest to the Housing Development Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as HDFC), and for a consequential order directing the respondent in the writ petitions (the appellant) to continue to give subsidy interest towards house building advance and to refund the amount deducted from their salary towards subsidy to HDFC. 4. The petitioner in W.P. No. 7660 of 1994 Mr.N.Pandurangan joined the service of the Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. as typist in the year 1972 at their Alangulam works. The respondent is a Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking and is a...
The President, Kandipedu Panchayat Katpadi Panchayat Union Vs. M. Koth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2005
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ520
D. Murugesan, J. 1. The above writ appeals raise a common question as to whether, if the President or the Vice President of a Panchayat refuses to sign a cheque, should it be treated as 'absence' within the meaning of the word employed in Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. 3. The scope of Section 188(3) of the Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench in W.A.No. 1799 of 2004. By an order dated 28.1.2005, the Division Bench has held as follows:- 'In our opinion, we can give a wider meaning to the word 'absence' than mere 'physical absence'. One word can have several meanings, just as several words can have one meaning (synonyms). It all depends on the context in which it has been used. For example, the word 'desertion' appearing in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act implies not only factum of separation, but also 'animus deserendi', vide L...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »