Chennai Court August 2005 Judgments
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Vs. Er. R. Manoharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ185Mad; (2005)4MLJ441
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 30.10.2002 passed in W.P. No. 21374 of 2001, by which the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition.2. The writ petition was filed for quashing the order dated 24.04.2000 passed by the Chief Engineer (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Erode Division (3rd respondent in the writ petition) directing that the next annual increment of the petitioner shall be withheld for two years without cumulative effect. The petitioner further prayed for a direction to promote him as per the original seniority list w.e.f. 01.10.2000 the date on when his juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits.3. The petitioner appealed against the order dated 24.04.2000, but the same was rejected, and hence he filed the writ petition.4. It appears that the performance of the writ petitioner was reviewed by the Chief Engineer (Distribution), Erode Region in the second fortnight of Febr...
Tag this Judgment!Banu Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director Sri B. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Reported in: I(2007)BC465; [2006]131CompCas224(Mad)
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Mr. B. Venkateswara Rao, the Managing Director of M/s. Banu Construction Company Private Limited, on his behalf and on behalf of the Company, has filed this contempt petition seeking to punish the respondents 1 to 6 for having committed contempt of the orders of this Court dated 3.2.2003 in W.P.M.P. No. 4241 of 2003 in W.P. No. 3386 of 2003.2. The short facts leading to the filing of the contempt petition are as follows:'(a) Andhra Bank, Balanagar Branch, Hyderabad, the first respondent herein and another filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A. No. 460 of 1999 for recovery of money from M/s.Banu Construction Company Private Limited, the first petitioner herein. Though the examination of the witnesses on the side of the applicant, viz., Bank was over, the petitioners, the respondents 1 and 2 before the D.R.T., have not chosen to adduce any evidence. Therefore, ex parte decree was passed on 31.10.2000 by the Debts Recover...
Tag this Judgment!Uthandi Vs. the District Magistrate and District Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC188
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The brother-in-law of the detenu seeks the release of K. Subramaniam, the detenu, who has been detained as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.2. A contention was raised on behalf of the petitioner Mr. T.S.R. Venkat Ramana, that non-mentioning of the period of detention in the order of detention would vitiate the order of detention and would be violative of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.3. The said contention is mainly based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police v. Gurbux Anandram Biryani . In that case, the Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981. While interpreting Section 3 of the Act, the Supreme Court held that the requirement of the detaining authority to detain the detenu for an initial period of detention can extend upto three months at a time and it was open to the detaining authority t...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Limited, Rep. by Its Branch Manager Vs. Ned ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC267; 2006ACJ1675
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The Insurance Company is the appellant before this Court as against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurai, in M.C.O.P. No. 2384 of 2002 dated 19.11.2004.2. The deceased, a child aged about 5 years, was walking along with his parents in the Madurai-Dindigul Road from north to south direction. According to them, they were walking on the extreme left side. At that time, a van bearing Registration No. TN 58 F 3925 was coming along in the same direction. However, the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and without observing the rules of the road, and in the process, dashed against the deceased. The deceased sustained multiple and severe injuries all over the body and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The accident had taken place only as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle.3. According to the claimants, the first claimant being the father of the deceased and the second claimant, t...
Tag this Judgment!icici Venture Funds Management Limited Vs. Neptune Inflatables Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: [2005]127CompCas1(Mad); (2005)6CompLJ420(Mad)
D. Murugesan, J.1. An important question, as to whether the disposition of the property of a company made during the interregnum between the presentation of the petition for winding up and passing of an order for winding up, would be ab initio null and void, has arisen in this application.2. The company in liquidation approached the applicant vide its letter dated November 10, 1995, for a loan of Rs. 1 crore for expansion activities as well for the purpose of acquisition of assets. In response to the said letter, the applicant informed the company in liquidation, vide its letter dated November 24, 1995, agreeing for advancement of loan up to a maximum of Rs. 70 lakhs. Pursuant to the said correspondence, a loan agreement dated December 1, 1995, was entered into between the applicant and the company in liquidation, in and by which it was agreed as follows :'1. That the lender will disburse the said amount of loan periodically to the borrower.2. That the lender will while disbursing the ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Appadurai Vs. the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ207
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 7.3.2002. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. The petitioner/appellant raised an industrial dispute alleging that he was appointed in 1965 as a temporary worker in the service of the Electricity Board at Cheyyar and he was transferred to Pallikonda construction work, where he continued to work till 1973. Since he was not made permanent he continued to work as a casual worker till the year 1974 and thereafter he was transferred to Cheyyar Construction division where he worked as a casual labourer till the year 1984 and from 1984 to 1989 he worked as a watchman in Vandavasi section. On 6.1.1989 when he went to work he was not given work and his service was terminated. The claim of the petitioner was disputed by the respondent Electricity Board on the ground that the petitioner was appointed only for a short period namely from 15.9.19...
Tag this Judgment!Chennimalai Yarns Pvt. Limited and anr. Vs. S. Chandrasekar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2005
Reported in: [2007]138CompCas99(Mad); (2005)4MLJ22; [2006]66SCL320(Mad)
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. These revisions are directed against the orders of Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore made in I.A. Nos. 452, 453/1998 in O.S. No. 541/1998, allowing the petition filed by the Plaintiff to implead D-6 individually and in his Representative Capacity for all other shareholders and regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Coimbatore. The Defendants 1 and 2 are the Revision Petitioners.2. Necessary facts for the disposal of this revision could briefly be stated thus:O.S. No. 541/1998.-- The first Defendant-M/s. Chennimalai Yarns Private Limited has been carrying on business at Chennimalai and having its registered office at Coimbatore. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the Directors of the D-1 company; D-5 is the former Director of the company and a share holder. D-6 is also a share holder in D-1 company. Case of the Plaintiff is that he is the Managing Director of D-1 company and has been so appointed for a period of five years. The company has made borro...
Tag this Judgment!Dharman Vs. Chinnathambi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC194; (2006)3MLJ777
ORDERAR. Ramalingam, J.1. The petitioner viz., Dharman being unsuccessful defendant/judgment debtor in C.M.A.No.9 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai filed against the order in R.E.P.No.215 of 2001 in O.S.No.35 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Tiruvannamalai has filed this revision. 2. The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:-The respondent in this revision petition viz., Chinnathambi filed a suit in O.S.No.35 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.4431/= against Dharman and obtained decree. He filed R.E.P.No.215 of 2001 with the prayer for attaching the house belonging to the said Dharman covered by natham Survey No.56/12C with the extent of 137 sq.metres and for sale of the same through court. The said R.E.P. was contested by the said Dharman by filing counter to the effect that he is 75 years old and he is an agricultural coolie in the village and the house...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division I) Ltd., R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC652; 2005(5)CTC184
AR. Ramalingam, J.1. Aggrieved against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Chidambaram in M.C.O.P.No.374 of 1995 for Rs. 3000/= with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Villupuram Division I) Limited has filed this revision. 2. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, in the light of the available materials records, I am able to see from the judgment passed by the Sub Court, Chidambaram to the effect that the claimant viz., one minor Nagarajan through his father Rajagopal seems to have claimed compensation of Rs. 10,000/= for the injuries said to have been sustained by him due to the accident occurred on 28.3.1995 (Cuddalore-Chidambaram road near Mullipallam) because of a dash between two transport buses bearing registration numbers TN 31 N 183 and TN 32 N 535 and that further FIR appears to to have been registered agains...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. Mary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC394; 2005(5)CTC515
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Sivagangai, in M.C.O.P. No. 179 of 2000 by the State Transport Corporation.2. The claimants/respondents in the appeal contended before the Tribunal that the deceased Innasi died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 21.3.2000 at about 7.30 hours at Melur-Madurai Main Road. The deceased was walking along the extreme left side of the road carrying wooden logs and was proceeding towards west from east at Vellaripatty in front of Prabu's workshop on Madurai-Melur Main Road. At that time, the vehicle belonging to the appellant Corporation bearing Registration No. TN 59-N-1096 came from behind in a reckless speed and dashed against the deceased. The driver had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased sustained injuries all over the body and he was admitted at Melur Government Hospital. Subsequently, he was referred to Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »