Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-20-1998
Reported in : 98CompCas370(Mad); 1998(2)CTC290
order1. respondent in both these revisions, viz., united commercial bank, filed two suits, namely, o.s. nos.84 of 1995 and 66 of 1996, on the file of district munsif's court, rasipuram, against the petitioner herein. 2. petitioner herein filed his written statement and the suits came for trial. the manager of the bank (plaintiff) was present. but he was not in a position to proceed with the trial. in both the suits, the trial court delivered judgment after stating thus:- 'this case is posted today for trial as nfa. at the time of calling, the plaintiff viz., uco bank represented by its manager mr. v. krishnan was present but he refused to give evidence. it seems that he is not willing to conduct his case. hence it is unnecessary to keep the case bundle for a long time as a pending case. accordingly, this suit is dismissed for non-prosecution of the case. cost rs.1,000'.3. against that judgment, two appeals were filed as appeal nos.124 and 125 of 1996, on the file of sub court, namakkal. 4. before the lower appellate court, the question of maintainability of the appeals was argued by the petitioner herein. it was contended before the lower appellate court that since the suits were dismissed for default, no appeal will lie and the remedy of the plaintiff (respondent) was only to file an application under order 9, rule 9, cpc. the lower appellate court rejected the contention, and the appeals were allowed, and the suits were remanded. 5. the jurisdiction of the lower appellate .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-24-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD(Cri)117; 1998CriLJ3683
orderm. karpagavinayagam, j.1. mr. r. lakshmipathi and mr. r. raghavan, the petitioners herein, the publisher and printer of 'dinamalar' tamil daily, arc, the accused in c.c. no. 192 of 1994 on the file of judicial magistrate-ii,coimbatore, which was taken on file under section 228-a, i.p.c. for having printed and published in their newspaper dated 4-7-1994, disclosing the identity of the victim in the rape case which occurred on 27-6-1994.2. mr. ramalingam, the complainant, the respondent herein, filed the above said private complaint against the petitioners being publisher and printer and two others, the editor and manager of 'dinamalar' tamil daily. after recording sworn statement, the learned judicial magistrate took cognizance for the offence under section 228-a, i.p.c. in respect of the petitioners, namely, a-1 and a-3 alone. on the process being issued, the petitioners received the same and approached this court challenging the issue of process, in this revision.3. mr. panchapagesan, the counsel appearing for the petitioners, while challenging the order issuing the process on the petitioners, would mainly press into service the following contentions :--(i) the institution of the present proceedings against the petitioners is absolutely illegal, in as much us the petitioners arc completely protected from the prosecution under section 228-a(2)(c), i.p.c, since they were authorised for such publication disclosing the identity of the victim in die rape case by the social .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-05-1998
Reported in : (1999)1MLJ276
orders.s. subramani, j.1. landlord in r.c.o.p. no. 1530 of 1986, on the file of 14th judge, court of small cause, madras, is the revision petitioner.2. the revision is filed under article 227 of the constitution of india, complaining to this court the injustice done to the petitioner, and how the lower court passed the impugned order in a callous manner.3. eviction petition was filed by petitioner herein as r.c.o.p. no. 1530 of 1986 on various grounds. it was hotly contested, and finally an order of eviction was passed by this court in c.r.p. no. 2759 of 1993 dated 28.10.1995. this court, while passing the order of eviction, directed the respondent therein to file an affidavit of undertaking within four weeks from that date, agreeing to vacate the premises in question, and in case they filed such an undertaking within the stipulated time, they will be given three months time to vacate and handover possession. respondents therein did not file such an undertaking. naturally, the decree-holder had to file execution petition for getting possession of the building. the executing court ordered delivery of the building. it is said that on 5.1.1996, bailiff visited the premises along with the son of landlord, and at that time the respondents in the eviction petition were also present. bailiff informed them the purpose of his visit, and wanted to execute the order. tenants refused to vacate, and they even pushed out the bailiff and landlord's son out of the building. they also used .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-25-1998
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)402; 1999(1)CTC259
orderjudgement pronounced by t. jayarama chouta, j.1. the appellants, who are four in number and were accused in s.c.no. 191 of 1987 on the file of the sessions judge, south arcot, have filed this criminal appeal, challenging the judgment of conviction dated 220.127.116.11. accused no.1 was tried for the offences under section 302 of indian penal code for committing murder of ali and under section 302 read with 34 of indian penal code on two counts for sharing the common intention to commit the murder of ali. he was also tried for an offence under section 201 of indian penal code on three counts for causing the evidence to disappear so as to screen himself from the legal punishment of the murder of ali, sekar and nehru. he has been convicted under sections 302, 302 read with 34 (2 counts) of indian penal code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also under section 201 (3 counts) indian penal code and sentenced to under go r.i for 3 years on each account.3. accused no. 2 was tried for offence punishable under section 302 of indian penal code on two counts for committing the murder of sekar and ali, under section 302 read with 34 of indian penal code on two counts for sharing common intention to commit the murder of ali and under section 201 of indian penal code on three counts for causing the evidence to disappear so as to screen himself from the legal punishment of murder of ali, sekar and nehru. he has been convicted under section 302 of indian penal code on two .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-08-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC42
order1. the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the cbi or cbcid to investigate into the crime no.30 of 1997 on the file of the second respondent and proceed as per law.2. this court on 27.11.1997 called upon the public prosecutor to take notice and to get instructions. the public prosecutor also had entered appearance on behalf of respondents and a counter affidavit has also been filed by the second respondent on 5.12.1997. the writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal with the consent of counsel appearing for either side.3. the petitioner states that cr.no.30 of 1997 on the file of mettur police station was registered for offence under section 302 of indian penal code with respect to the murder of one papathi of massilapalayam village, mettur taluk, salem district, that the deceased is the wife of perumal, who is the petitioner's uncle and that the petitioner was brought up by the deceased papathi since he was two years old.4. the petitioner further states that he is an iti certificate holder and is working at mettur, that the enmity arose, when the petitioner had declined to marry the daughter of perumal and the petitioner left their house and set up a separate family in the same village, that perumal had been frequently quarrelling with the deceased, that papathi the deceased had not been treated properly, it led to several suicide attempts by the deceased, that perumal had broken the right hand of the deceased prior to the incident .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-23-1998
Reported in : (1998)3MLJ196
m. karpagavinayagam, j.1. although c.m.p. nos. 19061 and 19062 of 1997 were posted for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, and having regard to the nature of the appeals, the appeals and cross objections were heard for final hearing itself. since these appeals and cross objections arise out of a common order passed in the applications filed in a single suit, these could be disposed of by- rendering a common judgment.2. the appellant in o.s.a. nos. 378 and 379 of 1997 is the defendant. the cross objector is the plaintiff in the suit. for the sake of convenience, the parties in this judgment will be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.3. the relevant facts required for the disposal of these appeals and cross-objections could be stated as follows:the plaintiff m/s. new kashmir stores is a concern carrying on its business at a shop situate in hotel chola sheraton. the defendant is the owner of the said hotel. in the year 1982 the defendant rented out a portion in the ground floor of the said hotel to the plaintiff being a shop with a floor space of 177.23 sq.ft. for the purpose of exhibiting and selling carpets, furs, kashmir handicrafts, leather goods, etc.4. the plaintiff has agreed to pay a monthly rent of rs. 7,000. it has been occupying the place for about 15 years. it is a registered holder of tngst certificate. the customers of the shop of the plaintiff are not only persons who are staying in the hotel of the defendant, but also .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-30-1998
Reported in : (1999)1MLJ587
orderp. sathasivam, j.1. aggrieved by the surcharge order passed by the second respondent dated 10.9.1987, as confirmed by the common judgment dated 28.2.1990 made in s.t.c.a.nos.66 to 71 of 1988 on the file of the first respondent, the petitioners numbering 6 have approached this court by way of the present writ petition.2. the case of the petitioners is briefly stated hereunder: first petitioner herein is the president, second petitioner is ex. vice-president and petitioners 3 to 6 are ex-directors of the third respondent-society. it is stated that when the first petitioner was the president, the erstwhile secretary, now dead, was in sole charge of the entire business of the society as per the bye-law and resolution, and thus making use of that opportunity, he had defalcated the funds of the said society and caused loss to the assets of the same. neither the first petitioner nor the other petitioners was negligent or careless in supervising, checking the accounts and deducting the misappropriated amount from the delinquent. an enquiry under section 65 of the tamil nadu co-operative societies act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') was ordered by the 2nd respondent and it was found that that the erstwhile secretary had misappropriated a total sum of rs. 21,668.78 including interest. that being so, the second respondent sent a notice in and by his proceedings no. na.ka. 14435/84 g(3), dated 2.4.1985 directing the petitioners to make good the loss namely rs.21,668.78 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-05-1998
Reported in : 1998(2)CTC327; (1998)IIIMLJ382
orderjudgement pronounced by e. padmanabhan, j.1. the present writ appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 29.12.1997 passed in w.p. no.12846 of 1997 on the file of this court.2. this court ordered notice of motion on 23.2.1998. the respondents have been served and they have entered appearance through their respective counsel.3. heard mr.r. krishnamurthi, senior counsel appearing for the appellant and mr.patty b. jaganathan for the first respondent and mr.k.p.h. thulasiraman, special government pleader for the second respondent. the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the writ petition, for convenience.4. the writ petitioner filed w.p. no. 12846 of 1997 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent, executive officer, vailankanni town panchayat culminating in his office r.c. no.356/97/a2 dated 10.8.1997, quash the same and forbear the first respondent from conducting the auction proposed to be held on 26.8.1997 or any other future date to which it may be adjourned and from collecting any amount from the vehicles entering into vailankanni in the form of toll-gate kist or entry fees.5. the petitioner being the procurator of shrine basilica of our lady of health, vailankanni raised objections with respect to the first respondent's auction notification dated 10.8.1997, where the first respondent panchayat notified an auction of the right to collect entry fees from the motor .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-20-1998
Reported in : 1998(2)CTC474
order1. this revision is filed under article 227 of the constitution of india against the interim order of the lower court granting interim injunction restraining the petitioner herein from continuing in the service of the respondent.2. the facts necessary for proper disposal of the revision could be summarised thus: respondent herein joined the petitioner-company limited on 24.1.1981/which is a government of tamil nadu undertaking, as deputy personnel manager stating his date of birth as 3.2.1940 and he was promoted thereafter. as per rules governing the company, he has to retire on 28-02-1998, i.e. at the month end of the year when he attains the age of 58 years. a fare-well party was conducted and the respondent also participated and received gifts and mementos. even before his retirement, he filed a suit on 29.4.1997 as o.s.no.289 of 1997 on the file of district munsif court, udhagamandalam, seeking a declaration that his date of birth is 1.9.1940. in that suit, he did not file any application for injunction. thereafter, he filed a petition in tr.o.p.no.6 of 1998 before the district court, udhagamandalam, to transfer the suit pending on the file of the district munsif court, udhagamandalam to the file of sub-court, udhagamandalam. the transfer petition was dismissed on 26.2.1998. without disclosing the dismissal of the transfer petition, another suit was filed on 26.2.1998 seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from superannuating him, till the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-06-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC170
orderjudgement pronounced by c. shivappa, j.1. the petitioner herein, namely, the indian oil corporation limited, has challenged the order passed in o.p. no. 274 of 1991 dated 18.9.1991. the grievance of the petitioner is that the learned judge has no jurisdiction to interfere with the case of the consent award modifying the interest portion from 19% to 12% and that he has erred in not granting interest for the pre- reference period and restricting the interest claim only from the date of the award.2. along with the memorandum of appeal, the petitioner herein has filed an application under section 5 of the limitation act to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal.3. it is a general principle in the relevant rules/statutes that an action against a judgment must be brought promptly when once the aggrieved party becomes aware of the existence of the judgment against him. where the party is not under disability when he was aware of the judgment, the running of the time will not be suspended and a right is going to be created if the time stipulated expires. the time within which the action may be brought is to be measured from the date on which the aggrieved party had the knowledge of the judgment and also to weigh the nature of the disability that prevented him to invoke the jurisdiction questioning the judgment. if the explanation offered is unsustainable and when a right is created in favour of the party in whose favour the judgment is there, the right cannot be taken .....Tag this Judgment!