Chennai Court April 2007 Judgments

K. Deenadayalan Vs. A.K. Sumathi

Court: Chennai

Reported in: IV(2007)BC276

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. These revisions have been preferred against the judgments in C.A. No. 119 & 120 of 2002 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The accused in C.C. No. 4270 & 3061 of 1997 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, was tried for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the private complaint preferred by the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.2. The learned trial judge had found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted and sentenced to undergo two months RI and a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default sentence in C.C. No. 4270/1997 and has also convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo two months RI and a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default sentence in C.C. No. 3061 of 1997. The learned trial judge has further directed under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C., that out of the fine amount a s...

Chellamuthu and Vs. Krishnan,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2007(4)CTC383; (2007)5MLJ1219

P. Jyothimani, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants 3 and 4 in the Courts below are the appellants. The first respondent has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, in respect of the suit property measuring 0.24.0 Hect. (0.60 cents) comprised in New Survey No. 287/B in Ramananaicken Palayam Village, Attur Taluk, Salem. The defendants 3 and 4 are the alienees from first and second defendants. The case of the plaintiff was that the property originally belonged to his maternal grandfather Pachamuthu Padayachi. One of his daughter Bagyam, namely, the first defendant has married Ponnusamy Padayachi and the second defendant was one of the sons born to her through Ponnusamy Padayachi. That apart the said Bagyam had other sons, namely, Singaravelu, Perumal and Jayaraman. The said Ponnusamy Padayachi who is the father of the second defendant has also married the sister of the first defendant Sampoornam and through her was born the plaintiff as his son. Therefore, the plaintiff is t...

Muthumari Vs. Nagaraja and Raja and

Court: Chennai

Reported in: II(2007)DMC574

ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment in S.C. No. 16 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, dated 30.10.2001. The accused has been charged under Section 304(B), 306 & 498(A) IPC.2. The short facts of the prosecution case relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision are as follows:The deceased Kokila was given in marriage on 19.3.1999 to the accused. At the time of marriage the parents of the deceased had presented 12 sovereigns of gold ornaments besides a gold chain weighing 6 grams and other utencils. On 24.1.2000 under the influence of liquor the accused had bet Kokila insisting her to bring Rs. 2,00,000/- from her parents' house. On 24.1.2000 the accused had compelled his wife Kokila to consume a cowdung solution. Afraid of his torture Kokila has consumed the said solution which resulted in her death on 25.1.2000 at about 1.10 am at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. Hence, the accused...

V. Veeramani and Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Gov ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)3MLJ676

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. In W.P. No. 9558 of 2006, the petitioner challenges the order dated 23.01.2006 passed by the first respondent Director General of Police wherein and by which he was denied appointment for the post of Police Constable Grade II in the selection made for the year 2003-04. Though the petitioner was selected for the written test, as per the Rules in existence, his antecedents and character were verified and it was found that a case under Sections 323, 324, and 506(ii) IPC was registered against the petitioner on 28.10.2003 by the Kivalur Police Station in Crime No. 794 of 2003 and the petitioner was shown as third accused. The case was tried by the Judicial Magistrate I, Nagapattinam and in view of the fact that the witnesses turned hostile and again, the complainant and the injured filed a compromise memo, which was also rejected, the petitioner was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. vide judgment dated 16.11.2005. Therefore, he had chal...

Govindaraja Naidu and Vs. Meenatchi Sundaram,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2007(5)CTC859; 2008(1)MhLj810

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. Under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code, the scope of interference is very limited. However, when both the Courts below have declared the title in favour of a person on the basis inter alia of a sale deed executed by a person, who had no authority to do so; and a Will which is not proved by examining the attesting witnesses; then the matter will have to be examined with great care and caution.2. The first respondent herein filed the suit for declaration of his title and for possession of the property. The first respondent claims his title from the legal heirs of one Balaguru Chettiar. Balaguru chettiar is the son of one Govindasamy Chettiar. The father of the second appellant viz., Kaliaperumal is the brother of Govindasamy Chettiar. The property originally belonged to one Sowriraja Chettiar, who died in 1941. His wife Krishnammal died in 1977 issueless. Sowriraja Chettiar executed a Will dated 22.07.1934, Ex. A 11, bequeathing his properties including the suit pro...

S. Sampoornam and Vs. P.V. Kuppuswamy and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2007(3)CTC529; (2007)6MLJ116

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The respondents are still waiting to realise the fruits of a decree for specific performance obtained in the year 1988.2. O.S. No. 3393 of 1985 was filed by the first respondent herein for specific performance of the sale deed dated 1.12.1982 against one Suseela. On 8.12.1988, the suit was decreed in favour of the first respondent. The first respondent filed E.P. No. 2950 of 1989 for execution of the sale deed. In the year 1990, the Court executed the sale deed in favour of the first respondent. On 14.12.1992, the judgment debtors in O.S. No. 3393 of 1985, namely Suseela and others, executed a sale deed in respect of the same property in favour of one Rajapandian. The said Rajapandian filed O.S. No. 1560 of 1993 for permanent injunction against the first respondent. The suit was decreed on 26.9.1995. Against that, the first respondent filed A.S. No.233 of 1995. The appeal was allowed on 22.1.1996, wherein it was held that the first respondent had validly obtained ...

Brigadier Chaitanya Prakash and Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co ... Overruled

Court: Chennai

The learned senior counsel submitted that Rule 3 of the HPF Service Rules contemplates termination of service on the ground of unsatisfactory performance during the period of probation. Per contra, according to the learned senior counsel for the respondent, the termination was not a simpliciter termination, but highly stigmatic. Though the decision to terminate the respondent from service was taken by the Board of Directors, the Board of Directors had relied upon and have been fully guided by the Performance Assessment Report prepared by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director to arrive at the said decision. Response by the respondent dated 13.11.1999;The first is the letter of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director dated 4.11.1999 which is a confidential letter to the respondent containing the review of his performance during the probation period. Further, the respondent should have been subjected to an enquiry before terminating his services, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge.Dh...

State Bank of India, Rep. by the Assistant General Manager (Pers. and ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)2LLJ968Mad

P. Sathasivam, J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 04.12.2003 made in W.P. No. 15285 of 1997, in and by which the learned Judge, after accepting the conclusion arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal on the preliminary issue, viz., that the enquiry finding being ex-parte has to be held as vitiated, confirmed the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 07.02.1997 made in I.D. No. 77 of 1992, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the Management, i.e., State Bank of India.2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties, as arrayed before the learned single Judge.3. The case of the petitioner/Bank is as follows:(a) The Guindy Branch of the petitioner Bank, opened an Extension Counter in the Defence Officers Training School (OTS) at St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. The said Extension Counter used to work on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays between 12.00 noon and 2.00 p.m. The staff of the Guindy Branch will be deployed to the Extension Counter for at...

Sivananda Steels Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)23VST449(Mad)

ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking for the issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records in respect of the impugned order dated December 10, 2001 in connection with CST No. 46449 of 2001-02 passed by the respondent and quash the same.2. The petitioner is a company manufacturing steel casting foundry and a registered dealer under the respondent. According to the petitioner due to globalisation, the petitioner-company was not able to compete with the multinational companies. Further there was restraint in respect of the steel casting market. Hence, the petitioner sustained heavy loss and the liability exceeded the assets of the company. Hence, the company was forced to move the BIFR for rehabilitation. BIFR after reviewing the company, ultimately framed a scheme by its proceedings dated September 28, 2000.3. While the petitioner was before the BIFR, the respondent has issued a show-cause notice on December 10, 2001 by intimating the petitioner tha...

Pandyan Grama Bank Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008(116)FLR892]

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This writ petition is filed to call for the records from tike first respondent Industrial Tribunal and quash the award of the first respondent in I.D. No. 109 of 1993 and issue consequential directions and award costs.2. The brief facts arising out of this writ petition are as under:The petitioner is a bank established by the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The main object of the bank is to grant loans and advances to farmers, agricultural labourers who cannot approach the commercial banks in urban areas. The second respondent is the employee or the petitioner. The second respondent was initially working in Paramakudi Branch from November 22, 1983 to January 21, 1984 serving as sweeper-cum-messenger. He served as sweeper-cum-messenger in other branches, as follows:KamankottaiJanuary 22, 1984 to February 15, 1987T. MamiyurFebruary 16, 1987 to July 16, 1988VayaliJuly 18, 1988 to August 30, 1989Totally he worked for 5 years and 9 months. While he was working i...