Chennai Court April 2007 Judgments
G.V. Lakshminarayanan Vs. G.V. Nagammal (a Mentally Retarded Person in ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad231; 2007(3)CTC1; (2007)3MLJ473
D. Murugesan, J.1. The plaintiff in C.S. No. 121 of 2006 is the appellant in O.S.A. No. 5 of 2007. The suit has been laid for a declaration to declare that the first defendant, who is the first respondent in the appeal, is mentally retarded and incapable of taking care of her personal and proprietary interest and consequently to appoint the plaintiff as the lawful and legal guardian of the person and properties of the first defendant and also for other reliefs. Pending suit, O.A. No. 147 of 2006 was filed by the appellant to grant an order of interim direction directing a panel of doctors from the Government Mental Hospital, Kilpauk or any other panel of doctors as deemed fit by this Court to examine the first defendant/first respondent and submit a report before this Court about the state of her mental health. The learned single Judge dismissed the interlocutory application on the ground that the appellant has to prove the case on his own on the basis of documents and materials in the...
Tag this Judgment!Panchura Estate Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director V.K. Mehta Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ481
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are identical, they are being disposed of by the following common order.2. In the light of the order to be passed hereunder, we are of the view that there is no need to refer all the factual matrix as stated by both parties.3. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the Original Authority, viz., the Assistant Settlement Officer.4. The appellants/claimants in all the above appeals applied for grant of ryotwari patta to the Assistant Settlement Officer (in short, 'A.S.O.'), Dharapuram under the provisions of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXIV of 1969). The claimants before the A.S.O. produced and placed several documents, such as, lease deeds, rent receipts/pattam receipts, bills for sale of agricultural produces in support of their claim regarding possession and occupation of lands in question. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the A.S.O....
Tag this Judgment!Bala Krishnan R Vs. M.D., Tasmac Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR530]; (2008)ILLJ82Mad
K. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner is an employee under the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation. The petitioner's service was terminated without any notice or enquiry. When similar writ petitions came up before this Court, this Court has allowed the writ petitions on the short ground that there is no specific charges framed and also enquiry was not conducted. After following the decision of the Supreme Court, this Court set aside the impugned Order and directed the Corporation to conduct enquiry strictly in terms of the order of appointment and pass final orders. Paragraphs 6,7 and 8 of the judgment of, this Court reported in V.L. Lakshmanakumar v. District Manager, 'TASMAC', Ltd. Madurai District, and Anr. are extracted below at p. 686:6. By the above reasoning the first respondent has found that the petitioner has committed certain misconduct and the impugned order is not an order of termination simpliciter. Whether an order is an order of simple termination or would amount to stigma...
Tag this Judgment!Capt. D. Karunakar, Director, Manito Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC117; [2007]138CompCas22(Mad); 2007(4)CTC318
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. In Crl.O.P. No. 1222 of 2007, the fifth accused is the petitioner and in Crl.O.P. No. 4098 of 2007, the petitioners are the fourth, sixth and seventh accused. The petitioners in both the petitions were facing trial for the alleged offence under Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act' in short) before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The respondent filed the case for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act implicating 10 accused in this case and the case is pending on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in C.C. No. 3022 of 2000.2. Mr. N. Sudharshan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the fifth accused, the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 1222 of 2007 has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and other accused for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. It is submitted by the learned Coun...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajaram Vs. S. Seenivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC656
ORDERP. Murgesen, J.1. The revision is directed against the order dated 5.12.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kovilapatti in Crl. M.P. No. 7350 of 2005.2. The petitioner/complainant's case is briefly as follows:The petitioner herein is the complainant. The respondent/accused borrowed a sum of Rs. one lakh from the complainant and issued a post-dated cheque for the said sum. Since he had not repaid the amount borrowed, the complainant sent the cheque for collection, the same was dishonoured. Therefore, on 3.6.2004, the complainant sent a legal notice to the accused and the said notice was received by the accused on 4.6.2004. Even after receipt of the legal notice, the accused had not repaid the amount within fifteen days. Therefore, the complainant preferred the complaint under Section 142 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. The complainant ought to have filed the petition within the stipulated lime. But he preferred the...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras High Court Staff Association, Represented by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)4MLJ152
ORDERDharma Rao Elipe, J.1. The case of the petitioners is that in G.O. Ms. No. 162 Finance (PC) Department dated 13.4.1998, orders were issued revising the pay and allowances of the State Government employees with effect from 1.1.1996. However, because the revision was notified only on 13.4.1998, the arrears for the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.3.1998 were not paid in cash, but ordered to be paid in instalments. It was ordered that employees would be paid net arrears (after adjustment of adhoc amounts paid earlier) of 20% in 1998-1999, the next 20% shall be drawn and paid in the next financial year (1999-2000) and the balance of 60% shall be paid in the year 2003-2004. In fact, in Letter No. 33724/PC-I/98-1, dated 22.5.1998, it was ordered that 60% of the arrears of pay would be credited to the respective GPF account of the employees. It was also mentioned that in respect of those who would retire prior to 1.4.2003, the amount credited to GPF account together with interest thereon will ...
Tag this Judgment!KamaruddIn Saheb Vs. K.T. Palaniappa Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ226
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The first and second defendants in O.S. No. 373 of 1989 have filed the Second Appeal No. 1570 of 1995 and 542 of 1995 respectively. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed the suit in O.S. No. 373 of 1989 against the appellant District Collector in Second Appeal No. 1570 of 1995 and 542 of 1995 arraying them as defendants 1 and 2 respectively praying for a declaration of title in respect of the suit properties and delivery of possession. The suit property consisting of six items of punja lands stating that they belonged to one Periyasamy Nadar and his two sons, namely, Balamuruga Nadar who is the father of the second plaintiff and Palaniyappa Nadar. The first plaintiff is also the son of Periyasamy Nadar. The said Periyasamy Nadar as well as Balagurusamy Nadar have died and his son is the second plaintiff.2. According to the plaintiffs, the said Periyasamy Nadar and his sons Palaniyappa Nadar and Balagurusamy Nadar have executed a settlement deed on 24.06.1953 marked as Ex. A...
Tag this Judgment!T. Gnanavel Vs. T.S. Kanagaraj and Suganthi Prem Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC650; (2007)6MLJ597
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. C.R.P.(PD)No. 1453/2005 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 14.9.2005 in M.P. No. 186/2005 in E.P. No. 180/1999 in RCOP No. 177/1991 on the file of the X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2. C.R.P.(PD)No.1454/2005 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.8.2005 in M.P. No. 518/2005 in M.P. No. 186/2005 in E.P. No. 180/1999 in RCOP No. 177/1991 on the file of the X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.3. C.R.P. (NPD) No. 62/2006 filed under Section 115 of the C.P.C., against the order dated 15.11.2005 passed in E.A. No. 4022/2005 in E.P. No. 1291/2005 by the IX Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai.4. As the parties in all the three Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, common order is being passed to dispose of all the Civil Revision Petitions.5. The petitioners in C.R.P. No. 62/2006 are the Legal Representatives of their deceased mother Pushpamani Ammal. The said Pushpamani...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rangarajan, Vs. Nathan's Foundations Pvt. Ltd., rep. by Its Managin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC662; (2007)5MLJ298
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The challenge in this Revision Petition is the correctness of the order of status dated 27.10.2006, passed in I.A. No. 14908 of 2005 in O.S. No. 5558 of 2001, based on the memo filed by the respondents herein.2. The suit has been filed by the petitioner herein and 5 others against the respondents 1 and 4 and others herein for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men and agents from entering the lands of the plaintiffs or putting up any compound wall or so called development works in respect of the plots belonging to the plaintiffs.3. According to the revision petitioners, all the plot owners formed a Welfare Society and the second respondent was elected as the President. But the second respondent was functioning in an autocratic manner and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 15.7.1999 with the first respondent, Promoter, which was not backed by consent of all the plot owners. Consequently, the second respondent hims...
Tag this Judgment!R. Nagamani and Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu by Secretary School E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ9
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The case of the Petitioner is that the 1st Petitioner is the son and the Respondent Petitioner is the widow of the deceased V. Rajamanickam and that the said V. Rajamanickam died in harness on 3.1.1994, while he was working as an Assistant Teacher in the Government Elementary School at Manalur, Dharmapuri. The Petitioners made a representation to the 3rd Respondent dated 24.7.1996 for appointment on compassionate ground to the 1st Petitioner and along with the said representation, the Petitioners also enclosed death certificate of the deceased V. Rajamanickam, legal heir certificate, No Objection letter from the eldest son of the said deceased to give appointment to the 1st Petitioner and other certificates as required by the Respondents. The 4th Respondent by his communication dated 13.3.1998, called for certain particulars from the Petitioners, which was also submitted by them. The 3rd Respondent in his communication dated 9.3.1999 recommended the name of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »