Chennai Court January 2008 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.
S.R. Mahesh Kumar Vs. K.R. Krishnamoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: IV(2008)BC467
S. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioner is the accused in S.T.C. No.236 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Madurai. The respondent is the complainant which he has laid on the strength of a cheque dated 7.11.2002 issued by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-.2. When the cheque was presented for collection through his Bankers it was returned with an endorsement 'funds insufficient' hence the respondent issued statutory notice to the petitioner calling upon him to pay the cheque amount within 15 days time from the date of receipt of the notice. Since he had not repaid the amount, the respondent filed a complaint before the above said Court through his power agent one K.R. Krishnamoorthy.3. At the time of filing the complaint, it did not accompany the original power of attorney deed, however Xerox copy of the same was enclosed. Hence the said Court returned the complaint with an endorsement to the effect that the original power of attorney deed should be produced. On 19....
The Secretary, Kamaraj College Vs. D.S. Arulmani, Reader and Head of D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ593
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clauses (e) and (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 26 read with Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the University Grants Commission framed Regulations known as, 'University Grants Commission (minimum qualifications required for the appointment and career advancement of teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000'. These Regulations (hereinafter referred to as U.G.C. Regulations) prescribed (i) the qualifications for direct recruitment to the posts of Principal (Professors Grade and Readers Grade), Professor, Reader and Lecturer, (ii) career advancement to the Lecturers and (iii) the constitution of Selection Committees for selection to these posts.2. The U.G.C. Regulations were forwarded to the Vice Chancellors of all the Universities and to the Education Secretaries of all State Governments in April, 2000. Since it came to the notice of the Commission that some Unive...
Evva Memorial Teacher Training Institute Rep. by Its Correspondent S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)CTC681; (2008)2MLJ123
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. W.A. Nos. 82, 83 and 234 of 2007 arise from the common order made in W.P. Nos. 27148, 46406 and 27148 of 2006 respectively. W.A. Nos. 82 and 83 of 2007 are filed by one S. Jayaparvathi, claiming herself as correspondent of Evaa Memorial Teacher Training Institute. W.A. No. 234 of 2007 is preferred by one K. Ravi, who is the Agreement Holder of Evaa Memorial Teachers Training Institute.2. W.P. No. 624 of 2007 is filed by the S. Jayaparvathi, claiming herself as Correspondent of Evva Memorial Teacher Training Institute, wherein the order of the Regional Director Southern Regional committee, NCTE, dated 4.12.2006 in which the request for shifting the location of Teachers Training Institute was rejected with a consequential direction to approve the shifting of the Teacher Training Institute from Thippampatti, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District to Annai Sathya Nagar, Madathukulam, Udumalapet Taluk, Coimbatore District.3. W.P. No. 14729 of 2007 is also filed by t...
N. Rajendran Vs. the State of Transport Appellate Tribunal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Mad156; (2008)2MLJ783
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner has sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent dated 06.10.2004 in Appeal No. 1088/03/A4 and for further orders.2. Brief facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows:The petitioner, is a stage carnage operator, operating his vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 23 B 5819 on the route, Latteri to Kill Arasambut. The third respondent was granted a Mini Bus Permit to ply on the route 'Vellore ARR Police Quarters to Avarampalayam' by the Regional Transport Authority, Vellore, the second respondent, in proceedings dated 11.09.2000. The third respondent has made an application for grant of Spare Mini Bus Permit to the second respondent. By order dated 30.06.2003, the second respondent has rejected the said application. Thereafter, the third respondent filed an appeal No. 1088 of 2003 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and by order dated 06.10.2004, the Tribunal set aside the order of the second respondent and d...
The Management of M.R.F. Ltd., Rep. by Its Chairman and Managing Direc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CTC359; [2008(117)FLR751]; (2008)IILLJ162Mad; (2008)2MLJ161
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. Admit. Learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent waives service. By consent the appeal is taken up for hearing.2. Whether the appellate authority/second respondent has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal preferred by the first respondent/employee under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter for brevity's sake referred to as 'the Act') is the short question that falls for consideration in this appeal filed by the Management of M.R.F Limited against the order passed by the learned single Judge in a writ petition filed by the first respondent.3. The facts leading to the appeal are few and may be shortly stated. The first respondent joined the service of the appellant company at its Registered Office at Chennai on 02.06.1980 as Clerk-cum-Typist, and was confirmed in service in January, 1981. He was subsequently promoted as junior Assistant in the year 1983, and was transferred to Belgaum. Thereafter, he was promoted as Se...
K. Parthasarathy Spinning Mills Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: (2009)19VST511(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of cotton yarn and an assessee on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Udumalpet (North), Udumalpet, the second respondent, both under the TNGST and CST Acts. The petitioner was assessed to tax under the best of judgment assessment and challenging the same, they have filed separate applications before the Special Committee under Section 16D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short, 'TNGST Act'). The first respondent has rejected the said applications and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petitions.2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.3. Brief facts leading to W. P. No. 33852 of 2007 are as follows:During the assessment year 2001-02, the petitioner reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 3,13,82,697 and Rs. 2,49,283, respectively by way of monthly returns in form Al under ...
K.V. Narasimhan (Died) and ors. Vs. S. Salammal W/O. P.M. Subramania M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ1395
C. Nagappan, J.1. The first defendant has preferred the appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 1.3.1993 passed in O.S. No. 388 of 1990 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram and pending appeal, first defendant died and his legal representatives have been added as appellants 2 to 5.2. The first respondent herein filed the suit seeking for a judgment and decree against the defendants directing the first defendant to specifically perform the suit sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff by executing and registering a sale deed in respect of the entire suit property or such portion as determined by the Court by receiving the balance of sale consideration or such portion as determined by the Court and after discharging all the dues over the suit property and on failure to do so, the same may be performed through the process of the Court and also for directing the delivery of possession of the suit property and in the event of the Court refusing the specific performance of...
Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Bapuji Press Rep. by Its Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR200]; (2008)IILLJ271Mad
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order of the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (The Employees' State Insurance Judge, Chennai) dated 8.7.1996 made in E.S.I.O.P. No. 32/88. This appeal came up for hearing and this Court admitted the appeal on 09.06.2000 and formulated the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether the finding of the Lower Court that the respondent establishment was coverable only from 1.1.1984 can be sustained in law?(ii) Whether the finding of the Lower Court that the amount determined by the respondent for the period subsequent to 1.1.1984 can be sustained in law?2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The first respondent has been engaged in the business of printing. In the year 1978, it was divided as Bapuji Press and Bapuji Printers. The late G. Aramudham continued as Proprietor of Bapuji Press and his son Paul became the Proprietor of Bapuji Printers. Both Bapuji Press and Bapuji Pr...
Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Madhavi Enterprises Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)IILLJ349Mad
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order of the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (The Employees' State Insurance Judge, Chennai) dated 19.3.1997 made in E.S.I.O.P. No. 55/89. This appeal came up for hearing and this Court admitted the appeal on 09.06.2000 and formulated the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether the order of the lower court is not liable to be set aside on the short ground that issues as framed are not legally correct?(2) Whether the finding of the lower court that there was cause of action for C.18 to question the same in ESI Court can be sustained in law?(3) Whether the finding of the lower court as regards the contribution payable in respect of stitching charges, ironing charges and conveyance charges can be sustained in law?2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The respondent-factory has been engaged in the business of manufacturing garments for export. The respondent-factory is ...
S. Gopal Vs. D. Balachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: II(2008)BC614; 2008(1)CTC491
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The revision is directed against the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in C.M.P. No. 2915 of 2007 filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed cheque for handwriting expert's opinion.2. The petitioner is an accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Erode. He filed a petition under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the disputed cheque for comparison by an expert to determine the age of the ink of the signature found in the disputed cheque marked as Ex.P1 before the Trial Court. It is his contention that the signature found in Ex.P1 has been put in a different ink from that of the other particulars filled in the cheque. It is his further contention that he issued blank cheques and pronotes with his signature therein. But, the same has been filled and misused by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for sending the disput...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »