Chennai Court January 2003 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.
Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd. and anr. Vs. Express Publication ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC667; [2003]44SCL345(Mad)
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. These three company applications have been filed by M/s Price and Pierce (Asia Pacific) Private Limited having its office at Singapore.2. Comp.A.No. 1337 of 2002 is filed seeking for a direction to implead the applicant as a party/2nd respondent in C.P.No. 617 of 2000. Comp.A.No. 1782 of 2002 is filed seeking for a direction to vacate the order of status quo dated 9.1.2001 granted in C.A.No. 8 of 2001 in C.P.No. 617 of 2000 excluding the property at Gagan Mahal Village, Mursheerabad Taluk, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. Comp.A.No. 1783 of 2002 is filed seeking to grant necessary permission to the 2nd respondent in the application to execute the conveyance of the property situate at Gagan Mahal Village, Mursheerabad Taluk, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, in favour of the applicant, in terms of the agreement of sale dated 7.9.2000 for a consideration of Rs. 21.10 crores.3. Few facts relevant for the disposal of these applications may be summarized as follows:Ta...
L.M. Menezes and ors. Vs. Most Rev. Arul Das Jamas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad241
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J. 1. Application No. 3081 of 2002 is filed by the second defendant to revoke the Order dated 27-2-2002 passed in Application No. 567 of 2002 granting leave to the plaintiffs to institute the suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code.Application No. 3668 of 2002 is filed by the plaintiffs to implead 'John De Monte Trust' represented by its Trustee. Archbishop's House. 21 Santhome High Road, Chennai-4, as 10th defendant in the suit.2. The case in brief for disposal of all the applications is as follows :-- The plaintiffs filed an application No. 567 of 2002 and obtained leave to institute a suit against the defendants under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code on 27-2-2002. The leave granted under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code is liable to be revoked. The suit itself ought not to have been numbered by the Registry on the ground that the Trust is not a party to the proceedings and others are added as parties in their individual capacity. The Scheme Decree i...
The Management of India Radiators Ltd. and the Management of Western T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR647]; (2003)IILLJ615Mad
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The dispute before the Tribunal was regarding the payment of wages for the lock-out period which was from 22.10.1986 to 18.11.1986. That lock-out was declared by the employer on the ground that the workmen had gone on go-slow and there was a fall in the production and further that such action on the part of the workmen was also in contravention of an incentive scheme which inter alia required that the workmen '........ should not resort to any direct action like not working for incentive, before the failure of mutual discussion'. It was the case of the employer, and that case was not disbelieved that mutual discussion was in progress at the time the workmen decided to reduce the level of production, and that, some time after the lock-out was declared, the disputes which had led to the go-slow and the subsequent lock-out was in fact resolved amicably. While so amicably resolving the dispute which concerned bonus and also general demands it was agreed that th...
Jesudoss Vs. Sebasthian (Died),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ447
A.K. Rajan, J.1. The parties are closely related to each other. Originally, a suit in O.S.255 of 199 was filed by one Sebastian, the writ petitioner herein (Sebastian died during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court and his legal representatives have been brought on record). 2. The suit was filed for injunction not to interfere with the possession of the suit property; that was dismissed by the trial Court; against that, an appeal was filed and the first Appellate Court reversed the finding and decreed the suit, as prayed for. Against the judgment of the first Appellate Court, the defendant in that suit, Jesudoss had filed the second appeal. 3. While these civil proceedings are pending before the City Civil Court, the said Sebastian made an application before the Revenue Authorities to declare him as the cultivating tenant of the properties; that claim was dismissed by the Tahsildar, against which he filed an appeal to the Special Deputy Collector who also confirmed th...
Ravi Fabrics Vs. Shaherbon Traders,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad192; II(2003)BC336; (2003)1MLJ586
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. 'What is the rate of interest from the date of notice demanding payment of interest till the date of institution of suit?' is the issue involved in this case.2. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. 3. The plaintiff/company filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,510.65 with interest at the rate of 21% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of payment. 4. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff sold and delivered to the first defendant, the textile goods and after giving credit to the payment made by the first defendant, there was a due owing to the plaintiff Rs.7,510.65 towards the balance for value of the goods and is liable to pay interest on the unpaid value of the goods at the rate of 21% per annum. The demand notice was sent on 11-7-1984. The first defendant sent a reply, accepting his liability to pay the principal amount, but denied the liability to pay any amount towards interest. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›