Court : Chennai
..... contains 3 parts viz., part a, part b and part c. part a contains 4 paragraphs, part b contains 25 paragraphs and part c merely relates to offences of cross border implications that may be covered by parts a and b.39. part a of the schedule to the act, covers offences under various enactments. they can be presented in a ..... 173 cr.p.c., ought to have been forwarded to a magistrate, if the offence falls within paragraph 1 of part a and part b of the schedule. alternatively, a police report or a complaint should have been filed under section 36 of the ndps act, before a special court, if the offence relates to paragraph 2 of part a of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)2MLJ348
..... person who has acquired such a right under the french law from the portals of the indian courts and from the remedy to which, under the civil procedure code and under the indo-anglian system of jurisprudence he would undoubtedly be entitled to. a holder of a mortgage, although it has been granted under the french law and procedure, is certainly entitled under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1985]57CompCas126(Mad); (1984)IILLJ34Mad
Mohan, J.1. An important question arising in this batch of cases is whether the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Shops Act), is applicable to the Nationalised Banks and to the State Bank of India. 2. We would first note the facts leading to Writ Appeals Nos. 561 and 562 of 1983. They arise out of Writ Petitions Nos. 2013 and 2014 of 1979. Writ Petition No. 2013 of 1979 is for a mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispense of the preliminary objection raised by the Management of the Bank of India, Regional Office, Southern Region, represented by the Assistant General Manger, Madras, in regard to the maintainability of T.S.E. Case No. 49 of 1875, of the file of the Second Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in the appeal preferred by the employee, C. V. Raman, under section 41 of the Act. 3. Writ Petition No. 2014 of 1979 is for prohibition to prohibit the Additional Commissioner from proceeding to take up for pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2000Mad92
..... , fairly and openly, as they are bound by public accountability. placing reliance on the decision in mohinder singh gill v. chief election commissioner, reported in : [1978]2scr272 and commissioner of police v. gordhandas, reported in : [1952]1scr135 , contends that in the absence of reasons transparent on the notification the institute or c and ag are not entitled to supplement fresh reasons ..... find any force in the argument of mr. arvind p. datar, relying on the decisions in mohinder singh gill v. chief election commissioner reported in : [1978]2scr272 and commissioner of police v. gordhandas reported in : [1952]1scr135 , that the respondents are trying to supplement fresh reasons by filing counter to substantiate their action.37. the ratio laid down by the apex .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : II(1992)DMC180
..... the meantime, one t. paul durai, brother of the deceased selvi resorted to the present action before this court, impleading the commissioner of police, madras; inspector of police, j-7 velachery police station, madras and c.b., c.i.d., madras respectively as respondents 1 to 3 praying for a direction to the first respondent ..... of a crime and the appellant who was the additional district magistrate (judicial) was named therein as principal accused. the offences mentioned were cognizable and the police after registering the case, started investigation. the appellant applied to the judicial magistrate for invocation of the provisions ofsection 159 cr.p.c. and for ..... sphere of activity in the field of crime detention and crime punishment. investigation of an offence is the filed exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department, the superintendence over which vests in the state government. the executive which is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : LC2007(1)107
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The writ appeal, 2 writ petitions and 4 civil revision petitions arise out of a cobweb of litigation, in which, the word 'Maharaja' and his caricature are caught in a triangular contest. 2. The parties involved in this contest, carry on business in the sale of rice and grains, under the brand name 'MAHARAJA' with or without a caricature/device of a Maharaja. Since they are arrayed in different positions in the writ appeal, writ petitions and civil revision petitions, their description as petitioners or respondents would defy uniformity and would only create confusion. Therefore, they are referred to herein, as the 'Delhi Party', 'Tindivanam Party' and 'Kangayam Party', for the sake of convenience, since they have their head offices at Delhi, Tindivanam (Villupuram District, Tamilnadu) and Kangayam (Erode District, Tamilnadu) respectively. 3. Since the parties hereto have wielded against one another, almost all the weapons available under the Trade Marks Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(1)CTC247
ORDER1. The plaintiff who succeeded before the trial court and lost before the lower appellate court is the appellant in the second appeal. The suit properties are two in number. They are 1.60 acres of wet lands in R.S.No.41/6 and 0.52 acre of wet lands in R.S.No. 42/3, totally of an extent of 2.12. acres in Pavattakkudy Village, Nannilam Taluk, Nagapattinam District.2. The suit was filed on 10.5.1995 by the appellant against the respondents for a permanent injunction restraining them, their men, servants, agents, etc. from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties or trespassing upon the same till the appellant was evicted by the competent court under due process of law.3. The material averments in the plaint are as follows:The second respondent was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for the past several years under some sale agreement with the five sons of one Varadarajan. Under Ex.A-1 dated, 15.5.1991 there was a lease agreement en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2007(3)ARBLR545(Madras)
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. This is an application taken out by the first defendant in the suit, under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to refer the parties to the present suit CS No. 924 of 2006, to arbitration, in accordance with the provisions contained in the joint venture agreement dated 06.12.1995.2. I have heard Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant/first defendant, Mr. Y.P. Narula, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff and Mr. N. Ramakrishnan appearing for the second respondent/second defendant.3. The dispute between the parties, has arisen under the following circumstances:(a) The plaintiff, Enmas Engineering Private Limited, has an associate company by name Enmas Process Technology Limited (referred to in the abbreviated form as 'ETPL'), which is engaged in engineering, sales and distribution of recovery boilers and evaporators. The said company Enmas Process Technology Limited entered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer in S.A.No.1751 of 2004: This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.06.2002 made in A.S.No.117 of 2001 on the file of the Learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 20.06.2001 made in O.S.No.103 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Madurantakam.Prayer in S.A.No.1752 of 2004: This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.06.2002 made in A.S.No.18 of 2002 on the file of the Learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 20.06.2001 made in O.S.No.103 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Madurantakam.C O M M O N J U D G M E N T1. The Appellants/Defendants 2 and 3 have projected these Second Appeals as against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.06.2002 in A.S.No.117 of 2001 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu and also, as against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.06.2002 in A.S.No.18 of 2002 passed by the Learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer: Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Under Clause 15 of C.P.C., against the Common Judgment dated 26.04.2005 made in C.S.No.980 of 1999 and T.O.S.No.32 of 2000 passed by this Court.COMMON JUDGMENTM.VENUGOPAL,J.O.S.A.No.125 of 2008:The Appellants/Plaintiffs have focussed the present Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.04.2005 in C.S.No.980 of 1999 passed by the Learned Single Judge.O.S.A.No.163 of 2008:The Appellants/Defendants have preferred the present Appeal in weighing the Order dated 26.04.2005 in T.O.S.No.32 of 2000 passed by the Learned Single Judge.2.The Learned Single Judge, while passing the Common Judgment in C.S.No.980 of 1999 and T.O.S.No.32 of 2000, on 26.04.2005, has, among other things, observed that 'the Ex.P.1-Will dated 03.11.1986 executed by Ramalakshmi Ammal is a true, genuine and valid one and has come to the conclusion that Defendants 5 to 7 have purchased the property when probate was in force for valuable consider...
Tag this Judgment!