Chennai Court February 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.
Ranjitkumar Vs. Gopal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC526; (2003)1MLJ573
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The civil revision petition arises under the following circumstances:The first respondent herein filed suit/ O.S. No. 521 of 1996, before the District Munsif's Court, Valangaiman, against his brother/the second respondent herein for a declaration that the suit property belonged to him absolutely pursuant to a settlement deed, dt. 8.12.1986, by Late Sulochana Bai, mother of the parties. The second respondent was given permission to occupy the property for a period of six months to enable him to get possession of another property which the mother wanted to give him, and before doing which, she passed away. After her death, her heirs, including the first respondent herein, settled the other property on the second respondent. As the defendant did not vacate the property, notice was issued. The second respondent sent a reply refusing to vacate the premises stating that Sulochana Bai had executed a Will on 21.2.1986 bequeathing the suit property to his son as well as th...
Muniammal Vs. Muthu Gounder (Died) and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC475; (2003)1MLJ565
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 208 of 1985, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vellore, is the appellant in the second appeal. The first respondent herein, who died pending second appeal and whose Legal Representatives have been brought on record as the other respondents, filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of A and B schedule properties on the following averments:2. Plaint A and B schedule properties originally belonged to one Benjamin. They are adjacent to each other. Benjamin sold the properties to Dhanabakiyam on 24.9.1951. By mistake, the 'B' schedule property was omitted to be mentioned in the sale deed. However, ever since the date of sale in her favour, Dhanabakiyam was in possession and enjoyment of both the items. On 15.3.1967 Dhanabakiyam sold the properties to the plaintiff. Since the date of his purchase, the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the properties. As regards the property not covered by th...
Tanfac Industries Ltd., Rep. by M.H. Upadhyaya, Joint President Vs. Mo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(155)ELT251(Mad)
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. In W.P. No. 13045/99, the writ petitioner M/s. TANFAC Industries Ltd., has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent, Monopolies Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi, in RTP Enquiry 238/98 (Mis. Application) dated 27.5.99 insofar as the petitioner is concerned.2. In W.P. No. 13046/99, the very same writ petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the 3rd respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin in C. No. VII/10/139/99 in order in original No. 20/99-AC, TTN, dated 16.7.99, quash the same and forbear the 3rd respondent from levying duty in any other manner except as provided by the Customs Act, 1962, and the Valuation Rules, 1988, by issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus.3. Heard Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in both the writ petitions, Mr. R. Krish...
Jan De Nul N.V. Represented by Its Area Manager and Finance Controller ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(155)ELT221(Mad)
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The Writ Petition No. 42580 of 2002 has been filed seeking for a direction for implementation of the order passed by the second respondent dated 30.9.2002. More particularly, the petitioner in the said writ petition has prayed that the bank guarantee No. 18 of 1999 should be cancelled after payment of the custom duty to be quantified pursuant to the order of the appellate authority dated 30.9.2002. The connected writ petition No. 47102 of 2002 has been filed by the department against the order passed by the CEGAT rejecting the application for staying the operation of the order dated 30.9.2002 passed by the appellate authority. 3. If the writ petition filed by the department would be allowed and stay as prayed for by them would be granted, the question of implementing the order passed by the appellate authority would not arise at this stage. On the other hand, if the writ petition filed by the department is de...
Jini Dhanrajgir, Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ217
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Appellants are aggrieved by the permission granted on 12.03.2001 by the first respondent for the sub division of old door No.5, New No.11, Dr. P.V. Cherian Crescent, Egmore, Chennai, belonging to the third respondent and his children, into four plots and the separate planning permissions granted on 16.05.2001 to put up four dwelling units in buildings consisting of ground and first floor in each one of the sub divided plots. The fourth respondent is the builder. The first respondent granted the impugned permissions as the delegate of the second respondent which has framed the Development Control Rules (Rules) under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. 2. Appellants are close relatives of the late wife of the third respondent, one of them being her sister, others being her nephews. The plots with buildings owned by them, and the plot on which a building had existed and is now sub divided, are part of the larger property that was owned by late Dr. ...
Rm. Murugan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC522
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Even though the matter was listed for considering the question of stay and vacation of stay, since the questions involved were the same the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal on consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 3. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice dated 18.12.2002 in Na.Ka.No.16898/2002-A3 wherein the date was fixed for holding the meeting of the Nagercoil Municipality for considering the no-confidence motion against the Vice-Chairman(the present petitioner). 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to the provisions contained in Sections 40 and 40 A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and has contended that the notice of no-confidence motion is void being in contravention of the aforesaid two provisions. The provisions contained in Sections 40 and 40-A are extracted here under. '40.State Government to remo...
immaculate Heart of Mary Society, Rep. by Sister Regina Marry Fihm Mot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC449; (2003)1MLJ579
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondents relating to the land acquisition notification of the first respondent as published in page 2 of the District Gazette, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District, Special Edition dated 30.1.1996, Sivaganga and quash the same.2. The petitioner is a Society and has filed the above writ petition with the following averments.The Petitioner Society was formed with the noble object of looking after the temporal affairs and to promote spiritual, educational and other interests to do the charitable and benevolent works and that several public oriented institutions like schools and colleges etc. are being run by the Society. The Society, to improve its activities, purchased lands to an extent of 5.38 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 444/4 and 445/1. Those lands were purchased by way of two registered sale deeds dated 15.9.1995 on the fi...
Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ591
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed praying this Court to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records in proceedings F. No. 27(25)90-P1-I dated 9.11.1995 on the file of third respondent herein and quash the same.2. The case of the petitioner, which is a Company called M/s Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited, having its registered office at No. B-211, 11th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Madras, is as follows,The petitioner Company was started in the year 1980 and which has been manufacturing Ephedrine Hydrochloride and Pseudo Ephedrine Hydrochloride, which are life saving drugs for Asthma, Whooping Cough etc. Originally, the Company was manufacturing Ephedrine Hydrochloride based on the research work done by M/s. C.D.R.I., Lucknow, which is the basic manufacturer. A certificate in this regard for the petitioner was issued by the Director, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India on 22.9.1984. The Company, which is having a researc...
K.P.S. Sathyamoorthy Vs. State of Tamilnadu, Through the Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC666
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner, alleging to be belonging to the Scheduled Caste being a member of the Hindu Pallan community and professing Hindu religious faith, has come forward to file the above criminal original petition praying to call for the records and quash the final report dated 14.11.2002 filed by the first respondent before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi in Crl.M.P. No. 4936 of 2002 as illegal and improper and to issue necessary directions or orders for fresh investigation in respect of the complainant's complaint dated 28.10.2002 filed before the said Magistrate by any other competent investigating agency.2. The petitioner would submit that on 26.10.2002 while he was going through the leading Tamil Daily magazines `Dina Thanthi' and `Dina Malar' circulated in his area, he read a press statement in the nature of a circular given by the 4th respondent/accused inviting all Hindu Religious communal associations to attend a meeting to be held at Madras in re...
The Management of Best and Crompton Engineering Ltd. Vs. the Presiding ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR927]; (2003)IILLJ502Mad
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The employer's claim that it had transferred its undertaking and, therefore, the offer of employment to the claimants before the Labour Court by the alleged transferee was sufficient compliance with Section 25FF and that the appellant employer was not liable to pay any amount to the claimants or to retain them in service was accepted by the Labour Court, but has been negatived by the learned single Judge, at the instance of the workmen who had challenged that award in the writ petition. The employer is in appeal before us.2. It is the case of the employer/appellant that it was manufacturing lifts besides other items and that the lift factory was functioning at Thondayarpet High Road. It had been manufacturing lifts at a different location from 1959. The shift to the Thondayarpet High Road was in the year 1961. The premises at which the lift was being manufactured between 1959 and 1961 also contained a foundry and that foundry was registered as a separate factor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »