Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-05-1999
Reported in : II(1999)DMC176
ORDER1. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.590 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur against the petitioner/first defendant and second respondent/second defendant for maintenance and for possession of the first item in the suit properties. The Court below in the judgment dated 8.2.1988 directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.250/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till the life time of the first respondent towards maintenance, besides creating a charge over the half share of the second item of the suit property, towards payment of the said maintenance, and for declaration that the first respondent/plaintiff is entitled to the first item of the suit properties, and to get possession of the same from the defendants. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the Execution Petition in E.P.No.68 of 1991 to recover the first item of the suit properties and possession was taken on 2.5.1991, Since the said maintenance was not paid as direc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-05-1999
Reported in : 1999(2)CTC226; (1999)IMLJ685
ORDER1. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.590 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur against the petitioner/first defendant and second respondent/second defendant for maintenance and for possession of the first item in the suit properties. The court below in the judgment dated 8.2.1998 directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.250/-per month from the date of filing of the suit till the life time of the first respondent towards maintenance, besides creating a charge over the half share of the second item of the suit property, towards payment of the said maintenance, and for declaration that the first respondent/plaintiff is entitled to the first item of the suit properties, and to get possession of the same from the defendants. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the execution petition in E.P.No.68 of 1991 to recover the first item of the suit properties and possession was taken on 2.5.1991. Since the said maintenance was not paid as direct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-05-1999
Reported in : 1999CriLJ2934
K. Natarajan, J.1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board by its Member, Secretary Dr. M. Mariappan represented by Thiru, K. Renganathan, District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chengalpattu (South) against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate Tambaram dated 2-9-1991 in C.C. No. 781 of 1989. By the said judgment the respondents/ accused were convicted for violation of Section 25(5) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 punishable under Section 44 of the Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate had sentenced the first respondent company to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and the second respondent/second accused proprietor to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. This appeal has been preferred by the Pollusion Control Board with the prayer that the learned Magistrate having found the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-13-1999
Reported in : 1999(2)ALD(Cri)743; 1999(3)CTC25
ORDER1. This revision is to quash the orders passed in the petition filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to discharge the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. 2. This revision has arisen in this way: The petitioner is the fourth accused in C.C.No. 13 of 1997 pending on the file of the XIII Additional Special Judge, Madras. The petitioner herein was the Minister for Rural Industries of the Government of Tamil Nadu from 24.6.1991 to 14.2.1992, during which period, the alleged offence are said to have been committed. Later, the petitioner was appointed as Member of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board on 24.3.1993 and on 30.3.1993, he was elected as the Chairman of the Wakf Board which post he relinquished on 9.6.1997. The respondent instituted criminal proceedings against the petitioner and others for alleged commission of offence under sections 120-B, 409, 467 and 477-A I.P.C. and also under Section 13(1) (c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption. Accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-15-1999
Reported in : AIR2000Mad228
1. Petitioner in W. P. 1277of 1998 is the appellant before us.2. The relief sought for in the writ petition is for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to take action against respondents 5 and 6 and restore possession of the petition portion in the groundfloor of premises No. 567, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Madras-18 to the petitioner and direct respondents 1 to 6 to pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to petitioner and pass such other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. Material facts may be summarised thus : 5th respondent, is the owner of the premises in question and it is the case of appellant that he has taken on monthly rent three rooms and a toilet in Door No. 567, Anna Salai, Madras located in the middle portion having an area of 580 sq. ft. for non-residential purposes. It is further case of appellant that two tenants adjoiing the said premises vacated and landlord also agreed to lease out the said premi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-22-1999
Reported in : 1999(2)ALT(Cri)53; I(2000)DMC252
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Samidurai, the petitioner herein, challenging the award of maintenance of Rs. 400 / - per month in favour of h is wife, the respondent herein, by the order in M.C. No. 26 of 1994 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Trichy dated 29.3.1996, confirmed in his revision in Crl. R.C. No. 63 of 1996 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy dated 15.4.1998, has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C.2. The wife, the respondent herein, filed an application for maintenance claiming maintenance from the petitioner. She examined three witnesses on her side and marked 7 exhibits. The petitioner examined five witnesses on his side and exhibited 10 documents. After the conclusion of the enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Trichy awarded the maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to the respondent. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner preferred Crl. R.C. No. 63 of 1996 in the Sessions Court, Trichy. The learned Sessions Judge rejected...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-25-1999
Reported in : 1999(2)CTC298
Acts/Rules/Orders:Negiotable Instrument Act, 1881 -- Section 138;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Section 91Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for certain documents from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime General, Egmore, registered in No. 1873/ACC(G) Camp/ 2.8.1995. 2. The complainant, the respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 1995. Before the trial commenced, the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1996 stating that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the complainant, that one Indira took away the cheque from the accused and the said Indira misused the same without the knowledge of the accused and that therefore, she filed a complaint to the police on 2.8.1995 and that during the said enquiry by the police, some of the persons w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-25-1999
Reported in : (2001)IIILLJ169Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the common award in Industrial dispute No. 96 of 1986, etc., dated September 10, 1990, on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, petitioners numbering 14 have filed the above writ petition for quashing the same and also for direction directing the second respondent to reinstate all the 14 persons with back wages and with attended benefits.2. The case of the petitioners is briefly stated hereunder:Petitioners are employees of the second respondent herein. While they are ventilating their grievance through their union, the second respondent filed a complaint before the police. Ultimately at the instance of the management the prosecution launched against the petitioners ended in acquittal. In respect of the same incident the second respondent initiated domestic enquiry and on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer dismissed all the petitioners from service. Thereafter the petitioners raised a separate industrial dispute before the third responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-25-1999
Reported in : 1999CriLJ1591
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. There are three special Calendar Cases namely C.C. Nos. 11 of 1997, on the file of the 13th Additional Special Judge, Chennai; C.C. No. 17 of 1997, on the file of the 12th Additional Special Judge, Chennai and C.C. No. 1 of 1998 on the file of the 11th Additional Special Judge, Chennai. In C.C. No. 11 of 1997, there are two accused, first one being a former Minister in the State of Tamil Nadu and the second one being his wife. The second accused in that case is the sole petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 190 of 1998. In C.C. No. 17 of 1997, there are seven accused and the first accused is a former Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and former Minister and the other accused are his family members. The first and second accused in this case are the petitioners in Crl. R.C. No. 446 of 1998; the fifth accused in this case is the petitioner in Crl. R.C. No: 447 of 1998; the third and fourth accused are the petitioners in Crl. R.C. No. 448 of 1998; the sevent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-27-1999
Reported in : 1999(1)CTC594
1. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.298 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur have come to this court complaining about the illegality of procedure adopted by the Lower Court.2. Petitioners have filed the suit for declaration that they are hereditary Poojaries and for consequential reliefs. Respondents had filed a suit against some third parties for the relief relating to settlement of accounts, etc.; and thesame is pending before this Court in S.A.1548 of 1995. In view of the pendency of second appeal before this Court, an application was filed by respondents to have the entire suit stayed under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. The Court also passed an order under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure staying all the proceedings.3. Thereafter, the same petitioners moved an application for injunction in the suit seeking for some urgent reliefs. I am not going into the question as to the relief sought for in that injunction application since the court refused to enterta...
Tag this Judgment!