Chennai Court November 1995 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.
Vijayalakshmi Art Productions Vs. Vijaya Productions Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1995
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas353(Mad); 1996(2)CTC396
Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. This is a petition for the winding up of the respondent company under section 433(e) and (f) read with sections 43(a) and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. This petition was filed on April 8, 1994. The question of limitation looms large in this petition. 2. The petitioner, Sri Vijayalakshmi Art Production, a registered partnership firm, claims to have advanced to the respondent company between July 2, 1985, and March 8, 1990, large sums of the money aggregating to Rs. 71,000,00. The petitioner has stated that the said sums were advanced at the request of the respondent and were to carry interest at mutually agreed rates. The petitioner has, at para 5 of the petition stated : 'The receipt of the above loan was acknowledged by the respondent under various correspondence, the last of which is dated January 21, 1994, by the respondent's chartered accountant on behalf of the respondent company, and by one of the directors of the respondent company on January 24, 19...
Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Hindusthan Photo Film Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1995
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas960(Mad)
Jayasimha Babu, J.1. This petition for winding up under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') has been filed by the petitioner, Maruti Udyog Ltd., New Delhi, for winding up the respondent, Hindusthan Photo Film Mfg. Co. Ltd., on the ground that despite the statutory demand, the respondent-company has failed to pay the debt admittedly due to the petitioner, the amount of the outstanding debt being Rs. 5 crores together with interest thereon. The rate of interest, according to the petitioner, is 21 per cent per annum while the case of the respondent is that the rate of interest is only 15 per cent per annum.2. It is admitted that the petitioner-company which was also a public sector company till about a year preceding the date of presentation of this company petition, had advanced large sums of money periodically as and by way of inter-corporate loans to the respondent-company commencing from 16-4-1984, the first such loan being a sum of Rs. 5 crores. An Agreement...
R.N. Velumani Vs. Narayanaswami Naidu Alias Rajunaidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC220; (1996)IMLJ195
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows:- The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant. The plaintiff has got half share in the suit schedule properties which are the ancestral properties. The first defendant has fallen into evil ways discarded his responsibility to maintain his family since 1965. He has neglected to take care of his children and wife. He is a spend thrift indulging in all sorts of bad ways and he is leading an immoral and illegal life. It seems he has mortgaged the family properties for debts borrowed by third parties by standing as a surety. The second defendant has obtained a decree against the first defendant and two others in O.S. No. 877 of 1971 and has brought the property for sale. The first defendant is hand inglove with the second defendant. The upset price fixed for the property worth more than Rs. 50,000 is far low. The first defendant's mother Manguthayammal filed an application in the execution peti...
R.N. Velumani Vs. Narayanasami Naidu Alias Raju Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ195
Govardhan, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant. The plaintiff has got half share in the suit schedule properties which are the ancestral properties. The first defendant has fallen into evil ways discarded his responsibility to maintain his family since 1965. He has neglected to take care of his children and wife. He is a spend thrift indulging in all sorts of bad ways and he is leading an immoral and illegal life. It seems he has mortgaged the family properties for debts borrowed by third parties by standing as a surety. The second defendant has obtained a decree against the first defendant and two others in O.S. No. 877 of 1971 and has brought the property for sale. The first defendant is handing love with the second defendant. The upset price fixed for the property worth more than Rs. 50,000- is far low. The first defendant's mother Manguthayammal filed an application in the execution petition ...
Madurai Children Aid Society, Madurai Vs. the Labour Court, Madurai an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1995
Reported in: (1996)IMLJ357
ORDER1. The petitioner, who claims to be a voluntary service organisation and registered as a Society under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, filed the above writ petition to quash the award passed by the 1st respondent in I.D. No. 353 of 1991 dated March 27, 1993. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : The main objects of the petitioner - society are as under : (a) To establish a non-official agency for carrying on the provisions of the Madras Children Act, 1920, and such other laws as may be in force from time to time for the prevention of juvenile crime and promotion of the welfare of children in Madurai district and more particularly; (b) To provide a Home of shelter for the reception of juvenile offenders during enquiry into their cases, and for the proper care of juveniles who may be placed under the supervision or committed to its custody by the Court; (c) To work the probation system as tar as possible in dealing with juvenile delinquent...
Sudhakara Maller Vs. the Directorate of Medical Education and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC160
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent herein to cancel the admission of the third respondent from the post graduate course (M.D.S.) in the speciality of prosthodontics and allot the same to the petitioner, stating that he holds a B.D.S. degree of the Tamilnadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University: there is only one Government Dental College in Tamil Nadu for post-graduate studies and there arc only seven specialities for which entrance examination has been conducted; there are only two seats in each speciality: out of this 50% of the scats in each speciality are reserved for service candidates and the rest are available for open competition, for Selection and admission on the basis of merit. The petitioner took the entrance examination conducted by the first respondent on 20.5.1995. he got 49.95% of marks; out of two scats in Orthodontics the first seat was given to service candidate who secured 47.41 ma...
Shoba Viswanathan Vs. D.P. Kingsley
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC465
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This petition for condonation of delay of 135 days in filing the appeal is posted before us on our direction given yesterday when C.M.P. No. 12907 of 1995 for fixing a date for hearing the O.S. Appeal was posted before us. We were informed that this petition was pending. We find now that in the petition for condonation of delay, while ordering notice, the Division Bench directed that petition to be posted along with the appeal for hearing. Thus, the registry numbered the appeal. When the petition was posted again after some time, the Bench passed the following order-'Wrongly posted. Post long with the appeal.'2. Obviously, the Bench was under the impression that a petition to condone the delay could be disposed of long with the main appeal. In our opinion, the said view is erroneous. It is settled law that unless the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, the same cannot be taken on file. Section 3 of the Limitation Act provides that every suit instituted, appeal...
Shantha Bai Vs. Krishna Bai and 9 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC171
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. There is absolutely no merit in this civil revision petition filed by the defendant against the dismissal order in I.A. No. 5866 of 1995 in O.S. No. 915 of 1983 on the file of VIII Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, for excusing the delay in filing certain documents.2. The petition was filed under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC. The suit O.S. No. 915 of 1983 was filed about 12 years prior to the filing of the said I.A. No. 5866 of 1995. That apart, in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. No. 5866 of 1995 no reason at all has been given as to why those documents could not be produced in time. Order 13 Rule 1 C.P.C. says that at or before settlement of issues documents have to be produced.3. It is also not stated when actually issues were framed in the suit. Eventhough it is not stated in the supporting affidavit to the Interlocutory Application the learned counsel for the petitioner also was also unable to say when actually issues were framed. While Order 13 Rule 1 CPC...
Taherbal Mulla Abbas Bhai Vs. Buhari Sons Private Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ536
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. This revision is directed against the order passed in I.A. No. 19615 of 1984 in O.S. No. 150 of 1978. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 150 of 1978 to realise the amount of Rs. 27,552 due on a hundi executed by the defendant. In the plaint, the rate of interest was stated as 36%. The defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement in July, 1978. The defendant submitted to a decree on 23.4.1980. Accordingly, a consent decree was passed on 23.4.1980. Thereafter, the defendant filed I.A. No. 19615 of 1984 in the month of October, 1984, under Sections 151 and 152, C.P.C. with a prayer to modify the decree dated 23.4.1980 by stating the rate of interest as 6% per annum instead of 36% per annum as stated in the decree. The plaintiff filed a counter stating that this petition is barred by limitation as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It was further submitted that inasmuch as the defendant submitted to a dec...
Madurai Children Aid Society, Represented by Its President Vs. the Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ357
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner, who claims to be a voluntary service organisation and registered as a Society under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, filed the above writ petition to quash the award passed by the 1st respondent in I.D. No. 353 of 1991 dated 27.3.1993.2.The facts of the case in brief are as follows:The main objects of the petitioner-society are as under:(a) To establish a non-official agency for carrying on the provisions of the Madras Children Act, 1920, and such other laws as may be in force from time to time for the prevention of juvenile crime and promotion of the welfare of children in Madurai District and more particularly;(b) To provide a Home of shelter for the reception of juvenile offenders during enquiry into their cases, and for the proper care of juveniles who may be placed under the supervision or committed to its custody by the court;(c) To work the probation system as far as possible in dealing with juvenile delinquen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »