Chennai Court September 2003 Judgments
Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam, Charitable Trust Hospital Rep. by Its Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ592Mad; (2003)3MLJ740
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of all the contesting parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. Aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai dated 16.07.2003 made in M.A. No. 15 of 2003 in I.D. No. 5 of 2002, Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam Charitable Trust Hospital through its Managing Trustee has filed the above writ petition to quash the same.3. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:The petitioner is a Public Charitable Trust rendering services to the Society at large. The petitioner Trust, purchased the financial asset of the third respondent in accordance with the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement and Security and Interest Act,2002. The sale is free of all encumbrances whatsoever. The petitioner came to understand that the third respondent had availed financial assistance from various financial institutions to meet its business requirements. On account of default committe...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Organics Ltd., Represented by Its Managing Director, K. Sriniva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad115; (2003)3MLJ796
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of all the parties writ petitions themselves are taken up for disposal. M/s. Orient Organics Limited has filed W.P.No. 17166/2002 praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the State Industries Promotion Corporation (SIPCOT in short), first respondent to receive a sum of Rs. 48.60 lakhs from the petitioner as one time settlement amount and hand over the unit of the petitioner situated in Plot No. B3/4 and 3/5A, Maraimalainagar Industrial Estate, Maraimalainagar, Kancheepuram District.2. In W.P. No. 1785/2003, the very same petitioner seeks to issue a writ of declaration declaring that the sale of land, building and plant and machinery of the petitioner company, situate in Plot No. B3/4 and 3/5A, Maraimalainagar Industrial Estate, Maraimalainagar, Kancheepuram District in favour of the second respondent is illegal, unenforceable in law and null and void. 3. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:According to the petitioner, initial...
Tag this Judgment!V.C. Viswanathan Vs. the Commissioner, Sathyamangalam Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1649
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The above criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records relating to S.T.C.No.219 of 2003 from the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, Erode District and quash the same as against the petitioner.2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate on the criminal side it comes to be known that the respondent has filed a complaint before the Court below in S.T.C.No.219 of 2003 as against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 262 and 313 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') and when the same is pending trial, the petitioner has come forward to file the above criminal original petition.3. In his petition, the petitioner would submit that the respondent has filed the complaint on ground that he has not obt...
Tag this Judgment!Coimbatore Stock Exchange Ltd., Rep. by Its Director, Stock Exchange B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC385; (2003)3MLJ672
P. Shanmugam, J.1. All the above appeals are filed under Section 27 of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 (Act 14 of 1998).2. The appellants, as consumers of electricity, have preferred the appeals aggrieved by the Tariff Order of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 15.3.2003, fixing fresh tariff in respect of Commercial and High Tension consumers of electricity. 3. The Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act 1998 (Act 14 of 1998), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', has been enacted by the Parliament providing for the establishment of State Electricity Regulatory Commissions to rationalize electricity tariff, framing of transparent policies regarding subsidies, promotion of efficient and environmentally benign policies and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Government of Tamil Nadu constituted the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'TNERC') in G.O. Ms. No. 58, Energy (A.1) Department dated ...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Samivel Vs. K. Annamalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ703
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in I.A. No. 358 of 2002 in O.S. No. 98 of 2002 by the learned Subordinate Judge Mettur. 2. The revision petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 98 of 2002 praying for a decree directing the defendant/respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs. 2, 14, 120/- with interest on the principal amount of Rs. 90, 000/- at 24% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest thereon till realization on the ground that on 01.10.1996, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 90, 000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note promising to repay the amount with interest at 24% p.a. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed I.A. No. 358 of 2002 for attachment of the properties of the defendant before judgment. In support of the above application, the plaintiff also filed a third party affidavit, by name, T.S. Ambayeram. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application for ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Asad Cassim, Proprietor, Trans Globe Freight Forwarders Vs. Union ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: 2003LC1035(Madras)
P.K. Misra, J. 1. Petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/s. Trans Globe Freight Forwarders, Chennai. He had filed an application for issuance of a Customs House Agent's Licence. It is alleged in the petition that before 1997, the petitioner while functioning as Managing Partner of M/s. Integrated Freight Systems was carrying on business as Customs House Agent's Licence and even though licence was valid till 2000, the same had been surrendered in 1997. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected on 22.12.1988 solely on the ground that the petitioner was not a 'G' Card holder and the employees R. Sasikumar, D. Suresh and M.G. Naganathan though holding 'G' Card, were not graduates. The aforesaid order of the second respondent was challenged in appeal before the third respondent, who has rejected the same on similar grounds. The orders passed by the respondents 2 & 3 are challenged mainly on the ground that those orders are based on misconception of Regulation 6. In the connected ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramco Industries Limited Rep. by Its Authorised Signatory K. Ramachand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ62
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Both the writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner. Hence, they were heard and disposed of jointly.2.1. The Superintending Engineer, Vellore, by proceedings dated 19.8.2000 demanded a sum of Rs. 3,21,338/- towards the compensation charges, as per Clause 2.04-5.02 of the schedule of the terms and conditions of the supply of electricity and required the petitioner to make the said payment of Rs. 3,21,338/- in ten monthly instalments. 2.2. The order of the Superintending Engineer dated 19.8.2000 reads as follows.' TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD ASSESSMENT ...
Tag this Judgment!Madura Coats Limited Vs. Central Board of Excise and Customs and Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: 2004(163)ELT164(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed to declare the Circular No. 433/66/98-CX.6 dated 27.11.1998 issued by the first respondent, the Central Board of Excise and Customs, as ultra vires on the ground that such circular violates the provisions contained in Section 37B of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter called as 'the Excise Act'), Note 2 of Chapter 59 of the Central Excise Tariff Act (hereinafter called as 'the Tariff Act') and Article 14, 19 and 265 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner manufactures various textile products including fusible interlining cloth, which is used inside the garments, for cuffs, collars, etc.. Such interlining cloth is partially coated with plastic. In 1989, the Central Board of Excise and Customs (hereinafter called as 'the Board') issued a circular indicating that such interlining cloth would be classifiable under Chapters 52 to 55 of the HSN depending upon the textile material prior to use. Under the Finance Act, 1989, Chap...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ramachandra thevar Vs. Murugesan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad245
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. In a suit for redemption, the defendant suffered a decree partially and questioning the same, he has filed the second appeal. 2. The suit property originally belonged to one Sheik Dawood Rowther. On 6.3.1964, he sold the same in favour of one Ramuammal. Ramuammal's first husband is Sundararaj and her second husband is Kottaiya Thevar. After the death of Ramuammal, Veeranan S/o. Kottaiya Devar became the absolute owner of the suit property, since other heirs of Ramuammal predeceased, thereby leaving no other legal heirs. From the owner, Veeranan, the plaintiffs have purchased the property on 3.7.1983. The predecessor in interest of Veeranan usufructuarily mortgaged (othi) the suit property in favour of the defendant. In pursuance of the sale, in favour of the plaintiffs by the owner of the suit property, the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the suit property, which right was given, even in the sale deed. The plaintiffs are entitled to the benefits of Debt Relief ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mohan and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad122; (2003)3MLJ773
ORDERP.D. Dinkaran, J.1. No representation on behalf of the petitioners.2.1. Concededly, the petitioners are tenants with respect to the premises at Door Nos. 12-A, 19, ,21, 21-A, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34-A, 44, 46, 61, 84, 98, 103, 104, 109-A, 136-A, 138-B, 141-A, 165, 166, 169, 171, 172 and 182 respectively situated at Rajapillai Thottam, T. Nagar, Chennai-17.2.2. The owners of the said premises filed W. P. No. 13633 of 1995 seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents therein not to supply electricity to any persons occupying the portion of the extent of 72 grounds 325 sq. ft. comprised in T. S. No. 5260/1, Block No. 119 in Mambalam Guindy Taluk, known as Raju Pillai Thottam except for those to whom electricity has already been supplied,2.3. On the other hand, some of the tenants with respect to premises at Door Nos. 161, (SIC)1, 81, 98, 141, 109, 116, 139(C), 137, 141-A, 104, 138, 30, 127, 26, 21, 84, 113, 29, 27, 182, 165, 162, 162/1, 142. 171 and 172 at Raju Pillai Thottam, T. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »