Chennai Court March 2006 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.
The Management, Cmc and Hospital, Rep. by General Superintendent Vs. t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ652Mad
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. At the threshold, it must be said that the learned counsel appearing for the management of CMC & Hospital/petitioner fairly submitted that irrespective of the decision in the present writ petitions, that is to say, whether the impugned order is interfered with or modified or confirmed, the petitioner is willing to pay the amount payable on the basis of the order of the appellate authority as Ex-gratia payment to the concerned workmen, but the management is interested to pursue the present writ petitions as a matter of principle on the question of law involved.3. The present writ petitions are sequel to the award passed by Justice Natarajan, who was appointed as an Arbitrator by the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute, which had arisen between the management and the union relating to non-engagement/termination of certain workmen working in the hospital. It is not necessary to notice in detail the various facts...
The Tamil Nadu Retrenched Census Employees Association Rep., by Its Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC75; 2006(3)KLT782
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The petitions are filed seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings in C.C.Nos.4293 and 4294 of 1999 on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.2. As both the matters are connected with each other and the parties also are one and the same, both the cases were taken up together for a common disposal.3. The respondent, who is an Advocate by profession, has filed C.C.Nos.4293 and 4294 of 1999 for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the cheque bearing No. 243363 for Rs. 40,000/- and cheque bearing No. 243366 for Rs. 1,00,000/-, issued respectively by the petitioners herein towards Advocate fees and other expenditure due to the respondent, were returned dishonoured with an endorsement 'Stop Payment'. Having issued statutory notice, the respondent has laid two complaints for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as there was no positive response from the accused to clear th...
S. Parthasarathy Vs. Durai @ Govindasamy,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad228; 2006(2)CTC545; (2006)2MLJ453
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The plaintiff, who has lost his case before both the Courts below, is the appellant herein. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.2891 of 1990 on the file of VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai against the defendants, who are none other than his brothers and sister, for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.3. The facts which are relevant for the disposal of the second appeal are as follows:- The plaintiff has purchased the suit land on 14.06.1969 under Ex.A.1 - Sale Deed. Admittedly, at the time of the said purchase, the plaintiff was unemployed. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff got employment only in the year 1980 and he was appointed as Kalasi in the Southern Railway. On 17.12.1967, the father of the parties died and later on, their mother also died on 18.10.1999. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants had forcibly obtained the signature of the p...
Raptakos Brett and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modi Business Centre (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad236; (2006)2MLJ411
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Pending the suit for specific performance, the defendant has taken out this application for rejection of the plaint.2. The affidavit in support of the application and the counter-affidavit are perused. The Court heard the learned Senior Counsel on either side.3. Before going into the question whether the plaint is liable to be rejected on the grounds urged by the applicant/defendant, it would be fit and proper to narrate the circumstances which led the plaintiff to file the instant suit for specific performance, as follows:The defendant in the suit, is the owner of 21.71 acres of land with garden, thope, factory and sheds situated at Velacherry Road, Madras. In the year 1995, both the parties entered into an agreement, an oral one. As per the agreement, the plaintiff should be-come entitled to 68% of the land for a consideration of the value of the construction to be put up in the remaining 32% of the land retained by the defendant. Though it was agreed orall...
E. Sundarrajan Vs. B. Kanchanamala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC743; (2006)2MLJ83
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Judgment and degree of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai on 1 7.09.2005 in R.C.A. No. 951 of 2002 which was preferred against the Judgment and decree passed by the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes Court, Chennai on 01.11.2002 in RCOP. No. 596 of 1991. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent.3. The case of the petitioner is that he is running a business at No. 63, R.K.Mutt Road, Chennai, for more than 12 years and he has been paying a monthly rent of Rs. 80/- to the respondent without obtaining any receipt for the said payment . It is his case that he and one Mr. V.Devaraj were tenants of the erstwhile owner of the property in question. He states that due to the illness of Mr. V.Devaraj, the petitioner has been running the shop in the premises which is the subject matter of the dispute. He also states that the respondent, who is the subsequent pur...
The Management of Asia Tobacco Company Limited Vs. the Presiding Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC470; (2006)IIILLJ69Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 4.7.2000 made in W.P.No.14486 of 1993, in and by which, the learned single Judge confirmed the award of the Labour Court, Vellore.2. The case of the management is briefly stated hereunder. The second respondent, who is employed in the petitioner factory at Hosur as Machineman, on 13.12.1988, was found in possession of 7 cigarettes concealed in his front shirt pocket at the security gate, when he was proceeding after finishing his shift. By memo dated 13.12.1988, the second respondent was charge sheeted and was asked to submit his explanation within three days . He has submitted his explanation on 17.12.1988, wherein he admitted that on the said date, he had placed the cigarettes in his shirt pocket with intention to smoke the same and had absent-mindedly walked through the Security Gate and pleaded guilty to the charges. However, an enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry, the wor...
Kanagamma and Sowmya (Minor) represented by petitioner's mother and ne ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC792; 2007ACJ578; (2006)2MLJ658
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), made in MACT.O.P. No. 2 of 1996, dated 16.10.1997. 2. The claimants are the wife and minor daughter. The claim petition was filed under Sections 166 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), read with Rule 3 of the M.A.C.T. Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), claiming a compensation of Rs. 3,29,500/- for the loss of life of the first claimant's husband, who died due to the motor accident. 3. It is the case of the claim that the deceased Sukumaran was aged about 46 years working as a Serang Grade II under the Works Manager, Mechanical Department, Furnishing Division, Integral Coach Factory, Madras-38 and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 3,725/- at the time of death. It is contended in the claim that on 25.04.1995, at about 8.30 a.m., when the deceased was riding the motor cycle bea...
S. Sundaravadivelu Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ23
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Petitioner challenges the charge memo dated 7.4.2003 issued by the respondent in this writ petition.2. While admitting the writ petition, this Court, taking note of the rule position, granted interim stay of all the proceedings in WPMP No. 21092 of 2004 on 28.6.2004. Respondent filed WVMP No. 1330 of 2005 to vacate the interim stay and when the said petition came up for hearing, learned counsel on both sides agreed that the main writ petition itself can be taken up for final disposal.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows,(a) Petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police by direct recruitment after selection by the Police Recruitment Board on 27.9.198 7 and he was promoted as Inspector of Police on 18.8.1998. According to the petitioner, he received 48 rewards and he is having unblemished record of service.(b) Petitioner, while working as Inspector of Police in Ambattur Prohibition Wing, a raid was conducted by th...
M. Rangasamy Vs. R.C. Ramasamy and S.A. Jaganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC308; (2006)2MLJ72
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the Order and decretal order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, in C.M.A. No. 16 of 2005 dated 14.09.2005, confirming the Order and Decretal Order of the learned District Munsif, Rasipuram, in R.E.A. No. 178 of 2004 in R.E.P. No. 243 of 1995 in O.S. No. 176 of 1983 dated 23.06.2005.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.3. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent herein filed O.S. No. 176 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif, Rasipuram, to recover Rs. 27,180/-. The suit was decreed and the first respondent had filed an execution petition in R.E.P. No. 243 of 1995 and brought the properties of the petitioner, namely, the mill and the house, to court auction. The properties were taken in auction by the second respondent for a sum of Rs. 75,400/- and the sale was also confirmed. The Auction purchaser filed an applic...
Vellakoil Vattara Vari Seluthuvor Nalvalvu Sangam, Rep. by Its Preside ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC705; (2006)3MLJ31
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Vellakoil Vattara Vari Seluthuvor Nalvalvu Sangam, Erode, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, dated 11.08.1999, made in Writ Petition No. 13657 of 1999, filed the above Writ Appeal. The said Sangam, aggrieved by the Notification of the 3rd respondent/Vellakoil (Special Grade) Town Panchayat, dated 11.11.1998, cancelling the earlier Resolution dated 07.10.1998, filed W.P. No. 13657 of 1999 for quashing the same. Learned single Judge, by the impugned order, after finding that it is a matter for the individual to pursue and not for the Association, dismissed the Writ Petition as not maintainable, hence, the present Writ Appeal.2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Government Advocate for respondents-1 and 2. In spite of affording adequate opportunity, no one appeared for the third respondent.3. The case of the writ petitioner/appellant is that their Sangam is registered under the Societies Registration Act and its Registra...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »