Chennai Court September 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.
Ramaswamy Vs. the Inspector General of Registrations and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad305
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to release the document No. 2549/1997 filed before him for registration on 25-9-1997.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner purchased an extent of 2410 Sq. ft. in Survey No. 708/1, 714/1 (Part) at Pallapatti Village, Dindigul Taluk within the registration district of Sub-Registrar, Dindigul-II. The owners of the property executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 25-9-1997. The sale deed was presented for registration to the third respondent and the document was given the number 2549/ 1997. The property was valued for the purpose of registration at Rs. 48,200/- and the stamp duty of Rs. 5,802/- was paid. The third respondent felt that the value of the agricultural land would be more. Hence he referred the matter to the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Madurai-20 who determined the value of the property at Rs...
Tvs Finance and Services Ltd. Vs. Kwality Spinning Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: [2004]52SCL500(Mad)
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. By consent of the parties both OA. No. 69/2003 and A. No. 1286/2003 were taken up for final disposal.2. OA.No. 69/2003 is to pass an order of interim injunction, restraining the respondent from alienating, encumbering or otherwise dealing with the machinery. OA.No. 316/2003 is to appoint in Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the machinery and to take Police protection, if necessary and also to break open the lock and to hand over the machinery to the applicant. A.No. 1286/2003 is to extend the time to the Advocate Commissioner.3. The applicant has been carrying on the business of Hire Purchase Finance, leasing, etc. and the respondent entered into a hire purchase agreement with the applicant on 28-3-1997, whereby, the machinery set out in the Schedule-A to the Judge's Summons were leased out to the respondent and the respondent had also entered into a supplementary agreement on 28-3-1997 to honour the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreem...
Duraikannu, Vs. Malayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ551
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J. 1. The Plaintiffs 2 to 5 in the suit are the petitioners herein. The Plaintiffs have filed the suit O.S. No. 728 of 1987 before the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal for declaration and injunction. Before the trial court, both the plaintiffs and defendant have let in oral and documentary evidence. After considering the same, the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the petitioners herein have preferred A.S. No. 275 of 2002. Pending appeal, the petitioners have filed I.A. No. 8 of 2002 under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) CPC seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. After affording opportunity to both sides, the first Appellate Court dismissed the application, which is challenged in this revision.2. Mr. Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the first Appellate Court erred in dismissing the application fil...
K. Chandru, Vs. the President, Karambakkam Village Panchayat and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ832
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard Mr. S.N. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. M.S. Palanisamy, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the second respondent in W.P.No.15741 of 2003, respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.17683 of 2003 and respondents 1, 3 and 4 in W.P.No.20758 of 2003.2. These writ petitions are related to the grant of fishery rights in Karambakkam Rettai Eri Tank located in Karambakkam Panchayat, as per the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Lease and Licencing of Fishery Rights in water sources vested and regulated by Village Panchayats and Panchayat Union Councils) Rules, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), notified by exercising the powers conferred under Section 242 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 and in supersession of the Tamil Nadu Lease and Licencing of Fishery Rights in Panchayats, Panchayat Union Rules, 1983, as per G.O.Ms. No.169, Rural Development (P3) dated 16.8.1999.3. Admittedly, even though fishery rights were le...
M. Karunamurthy Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Chief Engineer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ750
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 7.12.2002 of the third respondent refusing to refer the requisition of the petitioner to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity 'the Act') for fixation of higher compensation, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the third respondent in his proceedings dated 7.12.2002 and quash the same and to consequently direct the fifth respondent to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act to Sub-Court, Vellore for the purpose of determinng the market value of the petitioner's lands comprised in Survey No. 84/2-A measuring 537 Sq.ft., in survey No. 90 measuring 9228 sq.ft. And in survey No. 88/1 measuring 1073 sq.ft.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of this Court in M.P. PALANI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS reported in 1999 WLR 760 contends that the statement of the land owner during the award enquiry ask...
Sundaram Finance Limited Vs. Kamaraj National Labour Organisation Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC138; (2004)IILLJ25Mad; (2004)1MLJ316; [2004]51SCL149(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Appellant herein challenges the order dated 21-2-2003 passed by the learned single Judge while disposing of the W.P.M.P. No. 93 of 2003 and W.V.M.P. No. 40 of 2003 in W.P. No. 79 of 2003. By the instant order, the learned single Judge has confirmed the stay orders granted on 2-1-2003 and 10-1-2003. It is an admitted position that the writ petition, W.P. No. 79 of 2003 and the other connected writ petitions, W.P. Nos.972 to 974 and 1526 of 2003, are on the identical subject but, filed by different Trade Unions.2. In the present writ petition, viz. W.P. No. 79 of 2003, the petitioner-Union challenged the order passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short 'BIFR') dated 23-4-2002 in BIFR Case No. 103 of 1998 and the consequential sale notice thereto. The prayer in this writ petition is as follows:'... to issue appropriate writs, orders or directions and more particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus and after calling for ...
Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port) Vs. Registrar, Office of C and Ce a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(91)ECC359; 2004(164)ELT412(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. By consent of both parties main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. Aggrieved by the Final Order No. 2/2002 dt 28.5.2002 passed by the Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Office of the Customs and Central Excise-first respondent herein, the Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port), Chennai-1 has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:The second respondent herein has filed an application under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, seeking to settle the matter on the basis that he needs certain consideration in regard to benefits of exoneration of the prosecution etc. The second respondent company, registered for manufacture and export of plastic ophthalmic lenses, had also obtained two Advance Licences bearing Nos. 2040439 dated 30.3.95 and 3491572 dated 17.3.95 from Joint Director of Foreign Trade (JDGFT), Bangalore for import of certain raw-material required for ...
Cc (Sea Port) Vs. Settlement Commission S.R.F. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(111)LC531(Madras)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of both parties main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. Aggrieved by the Final Order No. 2/2002 dated 28.5.2002 reported in 2003 (58) RLT 1045 (SET. COM) passed by the Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Office of the Customs and Central Excise-first respondent herein, the Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port), Chennai-I has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:The second respondent herein has filed an application under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, seeking to settle the matter on the basis that he needs certain consideration in regard to benefits of exoneration of the prosecution etc. The second respondent company, registered for manufacture and export of plastic ophthalmic lenses, had also obtained two Advance Licences bearing Nos. 2040439 dated 30.3.1995 from Joint Director of Foreign Trade (JDGFT), Bangalore for import of certain raw-mat...
M. Asoan D. Sheam (Minor) Represented by Mother Usha as Guardian Vs. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ778
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. By consent of both parties, the Civil Revision Petition itself has been taken up for final disposal. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 203 of 1989 on the file of District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram challenging the correctness of the order in I.A.No. 849 of 2002 dated 21.11.2002.3. The parties are described as per their rankings in the suit.4. The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 203 of 1999 claiming maintenance through her guardian, mother. The suit was resisted by filing written statement. The defendant also filed I.A. No. 849 of 2002 pending suit that the trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case stating that the marriage of the defendant with the mother of the plaintiff was celebrated on 6.2.1995 at Kottamam in Kerala State and as such the marriage and the birth of the plaintiff due to the wed lock have been admitted. After marriage, both were residing in the marital...
K. Parkunam Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC676
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order passed by the third respondent, the Chief Engineer, Distribution, dated 16.7.1999, imposing punishment of stoppage of increment. Such order has been confirmed in appeal by order dated 27.10.2000. Appellate order itself indicates that based on the suo motu power of review, the Chief Engineer had revived the charges against the petitioner and had imposed the punishment.2. As a matter of fact, the Superintending Engineer had passed an order in November 1993 to the following effect :-' . . . The explanation given by the Assistant Engineer is accepted due to the reasons putforth by him. He is instructed to be careful in future. . . .' 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order which had been passed on 23.11.1993 could not have been passed suo motu review by the Chief Engineer after the lapse of period of limitation. In this respect, he has invited my at...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »