Chennai Court April 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.
Madras Metropolitan Development Authority Vs. Sears Electronics Limite ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2003
Reported in: [2005]128CompCas545(Mad)
A.K. Rajan, J.1. Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 62,94,520.50 with further interest on Rs. 50,00,000 from March 16, 1993, till the date of realisation.2. The plaint averments are as follows : The plaintiff is the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'M.M.D.A.'), represented by its member-secretary. The first defendant is a company registered under the Companies Act; it was ordered to be wound up by order of this Court, dated November 26, 1993. Hence, the official liquidator is substituted in place of the first defendant. The second and third defendants are the non-rotational whole time directors of the first defendant-company. On December 21, 1990, the first defendant wrote a letter to the chairman of the Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited to forward a letter of request to M. M. D. A. for placing an inter-corporate deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs for interest and the same was forwarded to the plaintiff by the chairman of M/s. Electronics Corporatio...
Ramesh Enterprises Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. Esi Corpora ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC705; (2003)IIILLJ68Mad
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioner seeks for the issuance of Writ of Prohibition, to prohibit the respondents from enforcing the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act (In short, 'the ESI Act') against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is having a Factory at Virudhunagar, where raw coffee seeds are cured which involved the process of drying of coffee beans, removing husks, cleaning and grading of coffee seeds. According to the petitioner, it is a factory registered under the provisions of the 'Factories Act'. The petitioner claims exemption from the provisions of the ESI Act by virtue of the definition of 'Seasonal Factory' under Section 2(19A) of the said Act. 3. Section 2(19-A) of the ESI Act, reads as under: 'Section 2. Definitions, J9(A), 'Seasonal factory' means a factory which is exclusively engaged in one or more of the following manufacturing process, namely, cotton ginning, cotton or jute pressing, decortication of groundnuts, the manufacture of coffee...
K. Nathmal, Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad252; (2003)2MLJ271
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of two batches of writ petitions. The first batch will cover the writ petitions, W.P. Nos. 16776, 16777, 16778, 16779, 20857 and 20858 of 2000. In all these writ petitions a direction is sought to extend the lease for the unutilised period of the same. All the petitioners in these writ petitions were granted the lease for quarrying sand on various dates. Their contention is that because of the stay orders, etc. passed by this Court in some other writ petitions, these petitioners could not fully utilise the lease and, therefore, they seek the direction to the Government to permit them to continue the quarrying operation for the unutilised period. The claimed period is 4 years, 4 months and six days; 3 years and 2 months; 4 years and 4 months; 4 years and 4 months; 2 years and 10 months; and 2 years and 10 months respectively in the above petitions. 2. As against this, writ petitions, W.P. Nos. 553, 585, 2925 of 2001 and 34256 and 350...
A. Jagannathan Padayachi Vs. Arulmighu Swaminathaswamy, Devasthanam Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ430
T.V. Masilamani, J. 1. The defendant is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent filed the suit for damages for use and occupation to the tune of Rs. 1,31,975/- and after deducting Rs. 14,275/- towards compensation for 571 coconut trees at Rs. 25/- per tree payable to the appellant, he has made claim of Rs. 1,17,700/-. The appellant resisted the claim of the respondent, that he is entitled to the benefit of tenancy laws and pleaded inter alia in his written statement that the claim made by the respondent by way of damages for use and occupation is not maintainable. The respondent has also come forward with cross objection in respect of the disallowed portion of the claim.2. The facts that lead to the filing of this appeal may be briefly narrated hereunder:-The suit property is a coconut grove measuring 6.01 acres in R.S. No. 293/1 Thiruvalanchuli village, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District belonging to the respondent-Devasthanam and by an agreement between the appellant and the r...
P. Lakshmanan Vs. M. Krishnappa and K. Pappanna @ K. Munisamappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC454; (2003)2MLJ417
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The above civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 5.7.1999 made in I.A. No. 48 of 1998 in A.S. No. 50 of 1997 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Hosur.2. Tracing the history of the above civil revision petition coming to be filed, it comes to be known that the petitioner herein has filed the suit in O.S. No. 1 of 1995 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Hosur praying to declare his easementary rights by using the common way on Western side of the plaintiff's shed in the house site and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's easementary rights. The said suit having been dismissed by the trial Court by its judgment dated 31.7.1997, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 50 of 1997 before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Hosur. Pending the said appeal, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a petition in I.A. No. 48 of 1998 before the lower appellate Court...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Srinivasa Goods Transport
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: III(2003)ACC9; 2003ACJ2066; 2003(3)CTC15; (2003)IIILLJ254Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. National Insurance Company Limited, Madras-1, aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-No. 1, Madras-6 dated 16.11.1994, made in W.C.No. 87 of 1993, has preferred the above appeal.2. The first respondent herein/applicant made a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of death of her brother by name Mani alias Mahesh in a road accident on 29.8.90 in the course of his employment. According to her, her deceased brother Mani alias Mahesh was working as a cleaner under Messrs. Srinivasa Goods Transport, Madras-79, 2nd respondent herein on a daily wage of Rs. 40 and batta of Rs. 10. On 29.8.90 while the deceased employee was travelling as a cleaner in lorry TSC 1611, he met with an accident at Garay village, Boed District, Maharashtra State and died at the spot. As the death occurred out of and in the course of his employment, the owner of the vehicle, 2nd respondent herein and in the insurer, namely, appellant herein were l...
Arulmighu Kumbeswarar Koil by P.K. Annamalai (as Trustee and Worshippe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC408; (2003)2MLJ321
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in the suit.2. The suit has been filed by the Trustees as well as Worshippers of Arulmighu Kumbeswarar Koil, Kurinjipadi, in a representative capacity; representing Senguntha Mudaliar community of Eswaran Koil Street, Vachani Mudali Street and Ellaikal Street in Kurinjipadi.3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:(a) Arulmighu Kumbeswarar Temple at Kurinjipadi Old Street belongs to Senguntha Mudaliar community. It was built about 150 years ago. People of Senguntha Mudaliar community of the Old Street are managing the temple. Only in case of emergency, some others were managing the temple. This temple was built only for the benefit of their community. Many people of that community settled property in the name of the temple for the advancement of the people of that community. Though public are also worshipping in the temple, it is not a matter of right. The trustees were selected only from the community of the thr...
T. Subramania Nadar Vs. T. Varadharajan and T. Thirumoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad364; (2003)2MLJ224
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The Plaintiff is the appellant, who has filed the suit O.S. No. 229 of 1987 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam for the relief of Declaration and for permanent injunction. The suit was decreed as prayed for. On appeal by the respondents before the Sub-court, Gobichettipalayam, the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial court was set aside, hence this second appeal.2. The case of the appellant is as follows:-The appellant and the respondents are sons of Thavasi Nadar. The said Thavasi Nadar had three wife. The appellant was born through the second wife and the respondents are the sons born through the third wife. The appellant's grand father namely Veerappa Nadar had executed a settlement deed dated 26-03-1949 thereby settled the property to the Plaintiff and appointed Thavasi Nadar as guardian. The said Thavasi Nadar discharged himself from the guardianship in the year 1968 as the appellant had attained majority. Ever since 1968, the appe...
Susheela Ebenezer, Vs. the Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ332
K. Sampath, J.1. The parties will be referred to as per their ranks before the lower Court.2. The first respondent herein, the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (TIIC for short), filed TSFC OP NO. 177 of 1992 for directing the respondents therein to pay a sum of Rs. 1,74,647.47 as on 7.6.1992 with subsequent interest at 15.5% per annum till realisation by enforcing the liability personally against the respondents on the following allegations: 3. The first respondent, an industrial partnership concern, is carrying on the business of grinding, turning and drilling works on job order basis. Respondents 2 and 3 and one James Vedachalam as partners approached the petitioner for a term loan for their business. The petitioner sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 62,000/- on 31.3.1982. Out of the said amount, the petitioner disbursed a sum of Rs. 55,534/- to the first respondent. The loan was repayable in ten half-yearly instalments after a moratorium period of 12 months from the date...
P.R. Hemachandra Babu and anr. Vs. P.R. Janardhanam (Deceased) and Fiv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC49; 2003(2)CTC424; (2003)2MLJ475
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs, who lost in both the Courts below, are the appellants.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession as well as Rs. 1740 towards damages for use and occupation from 1.2.1987 and directing the defendant to pay Rs. 200 per month from the date of suit till delivery of possession as future damages. The house and the premises bearing door No. 10 (old No. 35), Veeraswami Pillai Street, Madras-1 belonged to P.V.Ramasamy Naidu, father of the 1st plaintiff, who had purchased the same out of his self acquisition and enjoyed it solely and absolutely. He had bequeathed the property in favour of the 1st plaintiff as well as the 2nd plaintiffs, his daughter-in-law under a Will dated 8.12.1957. The plaintiffs also obtained probate in O.P.No. 162 of 1964 and later converted into T.O.S.No. 3 of 1965 and got a probate on 9.3.1967. The defendant sought permission of the plaintiffs in 1970 to occupy a portio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »