Chennai Court April 2002 Judgments
P.G. Vivekanandan and ors. and Archean Granites Ltd. Vs. R.P.S. Benefi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas649(Mad); (2006)2CompLJ134(Mad); [2004]49SCL671(Mad)
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. Application No. 2047 of 2000 has been taken out in C. P. No. 233 of 1999 by Archean Granites Ltd. praying this court to hold that the sale deed executed by R. P. S. Benefit Fund Ltd. in favour of the applicant is valid and binding and that the same cannot be challenged in the winding up proceedings and permit the applicant to pay the balance money due to the Bank of Madura Ltd., which is a secured creditor and get the document of title from the said bank.Application No. 2048 of 2000 has been filed in C. P. No. 234 of 1999 by the same applicant for the identical relief.Application No. 2049 of 2000 has been filed in C. P. No. 235 of 1999 by the same applicant for the identical relief.Application No. 2050 of 2000 has been filed in C P. No. 236 of 1999 by the same applicant for the identical relief.Application No. 2051 of 2000 has been filed in C. P. No. 237 of 1999 by the same applicant for the identical relief.Application No. 2052 of 2000 has been filed in C. P. No. ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ramanathan and Company, Rep. by Its Managing Partner R. Panneerselv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ622
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The petitioner, a registered Engineering Contractor prays for the issue of a writ of Declaration declaring as Clause 3 of the pre-qualification prescribed in Tender Notification No.14/2002, dated 28.3.2002 of the second respondent in so far as it relates to insistence of completion of works under Items (i) to (viii) therein, to the extent therein under one single work, is arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires and unsustainable in law and direct the second respondent to issue tender schedule in respect of the said notification to the petitioner permitting the petitioner to participate in the said tender on merits and in accordance with law.2. Heard Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate taking notice for the respondents.3. It is not necessary to set out the details regarding the petitioner, an Engineering Contractor. The petitioner is aggrieved by one of the stipulations in the tender conditions, namely e...
Tag this Judgment!S.D. Dhandapani Vs. the Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Pudukkot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad442; [2004]121CompCas669(Mad); (2002)2MLJ656
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.58 of 19992 for recovery of money. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/defendant filed an application in I.A.No.299 of 1993 under Section 10 C.P.C. for stay of the proceedings of the suit until final adjudication in Company Petition No.80 of 1991 pending on the file of this Court. The said application was dismissed. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and also gone through the impugned order.4. At the outset, I shall state that Section 10 C.P.C. would not at all apply in this case, because the company petition pending before this Court cannot be termed to be a suit and therefore, Section 10 C.P.C. cannot be invoked by the Court, in which the suit for recovery of money is pending, to stay the proceedings of the suit. 5. As per Section 10 C.P.C., no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Murugesan and Company Rep. by Its Partner Nagarathinam Vs. Vijayalaksh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ135
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. Both the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the Civil Revision Petition are directed against the fair and decretal orders both dated 12.4.2000, while the C.M.A.No.1056 of 2000 and C.M.A.No.191 of 2001 are preferred against the fair and decretal order made in E.A.No.324 of 1998, the C.R.P.No.2589 of 2001 is filed against the fair and decretal order made in E.A.No.39 of 1999, in one and the same E.P.No.82 of 1997 in O.S.No.175 of 1988 by the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.2. For the sake of easy reference and convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in C.M.A.No.1056 of 2000.3. Tracing the history of the coming into being of all the above matters, it comes to be known that the appellant in C.M.A.No.1056 of 2000 viz. Murugesan and Company had filed the suit in O.S.No.175 of 1988 against the respondents 1 to 6 for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,88,756.01 with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of r...
Tag this Judgment!Marayammal Vs. R. Kamalathal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ734
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Maryammal, the petitioner is the second defendant. After completion of trial, she filed four applications in I.A. Nos. 283, 284, 285 and 286 of 2002 to reopen the case, to recall of the petitioner (D.W.I) again and to produce the Revenue records and the records pertaining to the electricity service connection which would be relevant to prove her possession in respect of the suit property. These applications were dismissed through a common order. Hence, these separate revisions. 2. The respondents filed a suit for partition and separate possession. According to the plaintiffs, Chennamalai, the father had two wives, namely Angayammal and Poovayee. Out of their wedlock, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 were born. The father Chennamalai executed a settlement deed in favour of their mother in respect of 'A' Schedule property. On the death of their mother, 1/5 share would devolve on the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3. In respect of'B' Schedule proper...
Tag this Judgment!Damodharan V. and ors. and Coimbatore District Consumers Co-operative ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ718Mad
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. Out of four writ petitions, one was filed by the management and the three writ petitions were filed by the workers against the common award, dated February 10, 1995; passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.D. Nos. 513, 562 and 578 of 1991. 2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 17548 of 1995 is the Coimbatore District Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores, Ltd. The respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were working in the Confiscated Goods Sales Section in Chinthamani Main Super Market, Coimbatore. A surprise inspection was made on August 3, 1989 by the inspection team in the Confiscated Goods Sale Section and it was found from the records that the value of battery cells meant for watches, calculators had been inflated by the respondents 2, 3 and 4. The second respondent was working as section incharge between July 1, 1985 and December 31, 1988 and the third and fourth respondents were working as helpers. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4, signed the stock statement, dated December ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagarjuna Construction Co. Limited Vs. the General Manager (Lube Expan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ500
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The original petitions arise out of two awards - one in respect of Work Order No. 9067/WO/01, and the other in respect of Work Order No. 8820/WO/904/90.2. The claimant in both the matters is one and the same. The respondents are also one and the same.3. Pursuant to an invitation to tender, published by the first respondent, the claimant submitted its tender and was awarded the work of sight grading roads for phase I and fencing for Lube Expansion Project at the first respondent's factory at Manali, in and by the first respondent's telegraphic acceptance, dated 6.7.1990. A formal agreement was also executed between the applicant and the first respondent. The time for completion of the work was ten months from the said day. However, the work was completed only on 30.11.1991. During the course of execution of the work and after the completion thereof, certain disputes arose between the applicant and the first respondent. The claimant invoked the arbitration clause in...
Tag this Judgment!K. Somasundaram, Vs. Tamil Nadu Housing Board Rep. by Its Managing Dir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ569
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. In this writ petition, prayer has been made for quashing the publication of a notice published in daily newspaper Dina Malar dated 19.1.2000.2. Aforesaid notice has been published at the instance of the respondent No.1, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Notice purports to indicate that a proposal has been made by the Housing Board by letter No.Ni.A.2(2)/73950/82 dated 31.3.1987 for acquiring the lands indicated in the notice and the general public should not purchase any land in the survey numbers referred to in the notice.3. The petitioners 1 to 29 are the original owners of various properties covered under such notice. Petitioner No.30 which is a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act has entered into agreement with other petitioners to purchase the lands for the purpose of developing the same as house-sites. It has been contended in the petition that the proposal by the Board to acquire the land had emanated on 31.3.1937, but the said pr...
Tag this Judgment!Akkammal Steels Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Director K. Venkatesh, Coimbato ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(150)ELT48(Mad)
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. These writ petitions raise common questions of fact and law and were heard together and shall be governed by the common judgment.2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. It has filed the writ petitions to quash the proceedings dated 16.2.2000 in C.No.IV/16/131/98 and C.No.IV/16/132/98 and for a direction to the first respondent to issue certificate for full and final settlement of Tax Arrears in accordance with Section 90(2) read with Section 91 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998.3. Under the Compounded Levy Scheme introduced by Section 3-A of the Central Excise Act, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore determined the capacity of the production of the petitioner's unit. The Commissioner of Central Excise determined that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.6,66,666/- per month for furnace, taking the capacity of the furnace as 4 MT. The petitioner has represented before the Commissioner to redetermine the capacity as only one furna...
Tag this Judgment!G. Krishnamoorthy and G.K. Moorthy Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ597
P.K. Misra, J.1. The present writ petition has originally been filed by G. Krishnamoorthy @ G.K. Moorthy for quashing the order passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the application of the original petitioner for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension. Original Petitioner having expired during pendency of the petitioner, his widow has been substituted. However, in the judgment, the original petitioner shall be referred as petitioner for convenience.2. A Scheme for grant of pension to the Freedom Fighters was introduced by the respondent No.1 in G.O.Ms.No.2064, Public (General) Department, dated 28.9.66 dated 28.9.1966 with effect from 1.10.1966. As per the aforesaid Scheme, the freedom fighters who were sentenced to imprisonment for not less than three months or who were killed in action or were awarded capital punishment or died due to firing or lathi charge, on account of participation in the National Movement are eligible (In the case of a deceased freedom fighter, who was otherwise el...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »