Chennai Court February 2005 Judgments
Kns Saw Mill, Proprietor, K. Naveenatha Kannan Vs. the Authorised Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC236; [2005]126CompCas159(Mad); 2005(2)CTC245
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the interim order of this Court dated 21.4.2004 in W.P. No.10828 of 2004.2. The appellant had taken a loan in connection with which the impugned recovery proceedings was issued. By the impugned interim order the learned single Judge stayed the recovery on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.5,00,000/- within four weeks from the date of the order of the learned single Judge.3. In our opinion, unless some violation of law or error of law apparent on the face of the record is shown the High Court cannot interfere with such recovery, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in S. Selvarani v. The Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality and another 2005 W.L.R. 30.4. It must be understood that there are certain settled principles for exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely because the petitioner claims that he is suffering great hardship or deserves some pity. Unless some violation of law is...
Tag this Judgment!Rosi Vs. Shri Pillaiyar Mariamman Temple, Represented by Its Executive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ238
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The appellant in both the appeals are the defendant in O.S.Nos.2261 and 2269 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. The defendant are the tenants and lost their cases in both the Courts below.2. The parties are described as per their rankings in the suits.3. The plaintiff filed both the suits seeking relief of possession, arrears of rent and for future damages. The suit properties in both the suits are wooden bunks bearing Door Nos.75 and 76 respectively with all the fittings and appurtenances situated in Anupparpalayam Pillaiyar and Mariamman Temple compound in front of the Pillaiyar Temple. 4. The case of the plaintiff as set out in both the plaints are as follows:- The plaintiff is the owner of the suit properties. The defendant in both the suits were given licence to run petty shops by placing wooden boxes in the suit properties in the year 1980 and the licence fee for the suit properties are Rs.35/- each per month. Since the d...
Tag this Judgment!K. Subramaniam Vs. S. Balashanmugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC112; (2005)2MLJ147
ORDERSardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 8 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore. The revision is filed against the dismissal of the petition in I.A. No. 295 of 2003 filed under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. in I.A. No. 1516 of 1999 in the above suit. 2. The petition I.A. No. 295 of 2003 was filed to recall the defendant examined as R.W.1 in I.A. No. 1516 of 1999 for further examination.3. One Swami Subramania Chetty filed the suit O.S. No. 8 of 1998 in forma pauperies for declaration and possession in respect of 'B' schedule property described in the schedule to the plaint; for past damages of Rs.7,500/- and for future damages. The suit was filed on 11.10.1993. In the plaint it is stated that the plaintiff Swami Subramania Chetty by doing business in Bombay earned and on his return to Coimbatore, he purchased his ancestral property at Rangai Gounder Street sold to third party and he also purchased a vacant site in Mettup...
Tag this Judgment!S. Subramanian @ Senthil, Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2811
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. The petitioners have filed the above Criminal Original petition praying to call for the records in C.C. No. 206 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Walajapet and quash the order of taking cognizance dated 5.8.2004 and consequent issuance of summons to the petitioners and to allow this Criminal Original Petition.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.3. This criminal Original petition has been brought forth by the petitioners four in number, who are facing the proceedings before the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Walajapet in C.C. No. 206 of 2004 which was taken cognizance by the said Court on 5.8.2004, on a charge sheet filed by the respondent police under Sections 498A, 294B, 342, 506(I) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as against the first petitioner and under Sections 498A,342 read with 34,114 read with 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as against the other petitioners/accused 2 to ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sachithanantham Vs. the General Manager (Operation) the Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC244
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 20-2-2004. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. It appears that writ petition, W.P. No.3967 of 2003 filed by the appellant had been dismissed by the learned single Judge on 7-11-2003. No writ appeal was filed against that order in this Court nor was any Special Leave Petition filed against it in the Supreme Court. Instead, the writ-petitioner filed a review petition, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 20-2-2004. Against the dismissal of the review application, the present appeal has been filed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We do not find any merit in this appeal. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant challenges the order dated 7-11-2003 passed in the writ petition. He could have filed a writ appeal against that order. He did not do so and instead filed a review petition before the learned single Judge, which was also dism...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalambal and A. Jayapal Vs. Arulmigu Renuka Devi Amman Temple, Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC118
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. Second Appeal was directed against the judgment dated 30.06.1993 in A.S.8 of 1991 of the Sub Court, Nagapattinam, which reversed the judgment dated 27.02.1990 in dismissing the suit in O.S.133 of 1988 by the District Munsif, Thiruvarur.2. During the course of admission, the following substantial question of law was framed: Whether the plaintiff can succeed on the basis of the case of the defendant without proving his own case and abandoning the same ?3. The suit was originally filed for permanent injunction and subsequently amended as one for mandatory injunction to demolish the construction made by the defendant in the suit site, which belongs to the respondent/ plaintiff temple. The suit land is measuring 4912 sq.ft.in T.S.No.979/1 in Block No.22, Ward No.3 in Vijayapuram of Thiruvarur; that consists of two non-residential buildings, bearing door No.22C and 22D and one residential building bearing door No.23.4. Originally the land was an inam land to which Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Dn.iii), Rep. by Its Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC580; (2005)IIILLJ423Mad; (2005)3MLJ11
Markandey Katju, C.J. 1. The writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of the Labour Court dated 30.4.2002.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.3. The second respondent was working as a conductor in the services of the petitioner Corporation. He was charge sheeted. An enquiry was held against him in which he was found guilty. All the charges were proved. The charges are mentioned in paragraph 6 of the award of the Labour Court dated 30.4.2002. On the basis of the charges he was dismissed from service.4. The workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, which by its award dated 30.4.2002 has considered the evidence and disagreed with the findings of the enqiry officer and has held that the charges are not proved.5. It may be mentioned that prior to 1971 the Labour Court could not disagree with the finding of fact of the domestic enquiry officer in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in I...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn. (Kumbakonam Division-i) Limited Form ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC246; [2005(105)FLR870]
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 22.9.2004. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.2. The respondent is a widow. Her late husband was a driver in the service of the appellant Corporation, who had been appointed in 1979. He had some heart ailment due to which he was compulsorily retired on medical grounds by order dated 6.12.1995. Thereafter, on a representation made by him to the Corporation a settlement under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was reached under which he was re-employed as a mazdoor trainee by order dated 6.2.1996. However, four days thereafter i.e. on 10.2.1996 at the age of 44 he passed away. He was the only bread-winner of the family and he left behind him his widow (respondent) and two daughters.3. The Corporation refused to give compassionate appointment to the widow (respondent) taking a technical view of the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant Corporation ...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Developme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ106
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 10.04.2003. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. The short question in this writ appeal is whether there has been violation of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.3. Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows:- '4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon. - (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the...
Tag this Judgment!G. Lavanya Vs. Bindu @ R. Sakthivel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC456
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. H.M.O.P.No. 17 or 2004 initiated by the husband/respondent is now pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruppathur, Vellore District. The said petition was filed for divorce. Wife is before this Court in this transfer petition to have that case withdrawn from the Sub-Court, Tiruppathur to the file of Principal Family Court at Chennai for disposal.2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the application for transfer. Two or three grounds are put forth in this application for transfer and they are as here under:(a) it is very difficult for the wife to travel from Chennai to Tiruppethur to attend every hearing;(b) since the petitioner is a resident of Chennai and she having no relatives in Tiruppathur, she is not able to spend money in meeting the litigation expenses, especially when her father is a retired person; andc) the defence, which is going to be brought before the Sub-Court, Tiruppathur in resisting the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »