Chennai Court March 2004 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.
ismailkhan Gori Vagaiyara Rajapalayam Rep. by M.U. Mohammed Ibrahim an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ431
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. Challenging the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur made in AS No.63 of 1989, wherein the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Srivilliputhur granting decree in favour of the plaintiffs in a suit for declaratory relief was reversed. 2. Necessary facts for the disposal of this second appeal can shortly be stated thus:The suit property described in B schedule is a private property belonged to Gori family vagaiyara from the time immemorial. Trees were planted and stone platforms were erected there to meet the outsiders and boundaries were also marked by planting stones all around, on which it is inlaid in letters 'Thaikkal Pattani Doraimarkal elkai'. By document dated 18.12.1907, one of the heirs of late Ismail Khan Gori by name Mohideen Khan Gori has gifted his 1/3rd share to his sons by a registered gift deed. The suit property was used for the above said purpose till 1927. In 1927, in one portion, thatched building was erected and wrestl...
Mohamed Haneefa Vs. T.S. Arulanandam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ616
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The tenant, who was successful in resisting the eviction petition, before the Rent Controller, unable to sustain the same, when it is impugned in the appeal and its result is the revision.2. The petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.3099/2001, who is the respondent in this revision, is the owner of the premises, described in the petition, being a non residential one, in which the revision petitioner/tenant is running a shop. The landlord moved this application for the eviction of the tenant, only on the ground that the premises is bona fide required for him, for the purpose of running a business, since he is not having any other non residential building in this city. 3. The tenant/revision petitioner opposed the application contending, that as such the petitioner/landlord is not carrying on any business of his own and therefore, the requirement is not at all bona fide. It is further contended that his livelihood depends solely on the petition shop premises and if he is d...
A.R.R. Enterprises and A.R.R. Nut Corn Products Vs. the Asst. Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(172)ELT160(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The unsuccessful assessees, being aggrieved by the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench at Chennai (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') dated 19.7.1996, have come up before this Court.2. By the instant order, the Tribunal had held that the goods produced by the assessees were required to be assessed under Tariff Heading 2106. In fact, this order was passed in the appeals filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli against the common order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) Tiruchirapalli dated 20.9.1995, by which the said authority had allowed the appeals filed by the assessees against the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Thanjavur, dated 9.2.1995 and 10.5.1995, whereby, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Thanjavur had held that the appellants' manufacture being Pan masala, was to be classified under Chapter heading 2106....
Showkath Ali, S/O. Mohammed Gani Rauthar and B. Mahavir Jain, S/O. Ban ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ716
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the respondent dated 13.06.2002, made in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 451 of The Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 (in brevity 'the Act'), cancelling the licence granted to the petitioners for building permission and requiring the petitioners to hand over possession of the property located in T.S. Ward No.8, Block No.2, Survey Nos.40 and 41, Site 25 and 26, Door No.66-B, West Bashyagarlu Street, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.8407/98H.1/ West dated 13.06.2002 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to establish their claim before the competent Civil Court in respect of the properties of the petitioner located in T.S. Ward No.8, Block No.2, Survey Nos.40 and 41, Site 25 and 26, Door No.66-B, West Bashyagarlu Street...
Arasa Kumar and anr. Vs. Nallammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC127; [2006]129CompCas451(Mad); 2004(4)CTC261; (2004)3MLJ252; [2005]57SCL5(Mad)
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the suit properties and allotment of 6/12 shares to the plaintiffs.3. The plaintiffs' case is that they are brother and sister, and the 2nd defendant is the another brother of the plaintiffs and they are all sons and daughter of Siddhaiyan and Nallammal, the first defendant. Though the suit properties stand in the name of the first defendant, the same had been impressed with and treated as the joint family properties of the first plaintiff, the 2nd defendant and their father, Siddhaiyan, the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 and the father of the plaintiffs have been treating the suit properties as the joint family properties and in fact, they have also executed a registered mortgage in favour of Salem Fairlands House Building Society for availing house building loan. Siddhaiyan died intestate and therefore, the first plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are the surv...
Shahul Hammeed Vs. State Represented by Deputy Superintendent Q Branch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3000
1. The accused is facing a prosecution for the commission of offences under Section 21(2) and (3) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (in short 'POTA'), apart from Section 10 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The allegation against him is that he has arranged for a meeting on 13.4.2002, where inflammatory speeches were given by the speakers, suggesting their support and inviting the support of the public to a banned organisation called Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The offence having taken place in 2002, the other accused persons later on came to be arrested. However, this accused came to be arrested only on 11.3.2003, as according to the accused he surrendered before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, 'Q' Branch. 2. It is now a settled position that if the accused, who face the prosecution for the offences under POTA are behind the bars for one year, after one year the question of their bail application would be considered in the light of ordinary la...
Techmo Car Spa Vs. the Madras Aluminium Company Ltd. Represented by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR284(Madras); IV(2004)BC101; [2005]123CompCas533(Mad); 2004(3)CTC754; [2004]54SCL100(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional District Judge, Salem dated 22-10-2003, made in Arbitration O.P.No. 46 of 2003, Techmo Car SPA, Italy has filed the above appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. The respondent herein, The Madras Aluminium Company Limited, Mettur Dam filed the above Arbitration O.P., (O.P.No.46/2003) on 12-3-2003 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying for an order directing the Techmo Car to furnish security by depositing into Court to the credit of the said petition, a sum namely US $.5,757,565 equivalent to Rs.27,40,60,111 or in the alternative to furnish security to the said value in the form acceptable to the petitioner which could be enforced for recovering the aforesaid amount pending disposal of the arbitral proceedings and also an order of interim injunction restraining the said company from removing any records, papers and documents...
T.S. Ramu Vs. Neelakandan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC674
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J. 1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The revision is filed against the dismissal of M.P. No. 367 of 2001 in R.C.A. No. 529 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras.2. The respondent as landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 2216 of 1995 in the Rent Control Court(XII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for fixation of fair rent in respect of the petition non-residential premises bearing No.86, Subramania Swamy Koil Street, Saidapet, Madras-15, subject matter of this Civil Revision Petition. The learned Rent Controller considering the evidence of P.W.1, Engineer examined on the side of the landlord and that of the tenant as R.W.1 and the Engineer R.W.2 examined on the side of the tenant and also Exs.P-1 to P-3 marked on the side of the landlord fixed the fair rent at Rs. 498/- per month. Against that order the tenant ...
Saveetha Medical and Educational Trust Rep. by the President Saveetha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ687
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Both these writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner, viz., Saveetha Medical and Educational Trust, Chennai.2.1. Background factual matrix involved is undisputed and is essentially as follows:The petitioner/College applied to the first respondent/Government seeking permission to start Master of Dental Surgery (for brevity 'M.D.S.') course in Oral Pathology, with an annual intake of five students from the academic year 2001-2002, under the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948 (for brevity 'the Act').2.2. The first respondent/Government forwarded the application of the petitioner to the second respondent/ Dental Council of India, a statutory authority constituted under the Act, for their evaluation and recommendations for granting permission to the petitioner/College for starting the said course, as contemplated under Section 10-A of the Act. Accordingly, the second respondent/Dental Council of India appointed Inspectors to ascertain the infrastructure and...
K. Chellathangam Vs. the Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad288; (2004)2MLJ435
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The short, but crucial issue that arises for my consideration in the above writ petition is, whether the proceedings of the second appellate authority-the first respondent herein dated 1.11.2000, confirming the order of the first appellate authority-second respondent dated 10.12.1999 and that of the original authority-the third respondent herein dated 23.4.1998, terminating the agency granted to the petitioner by the respondents-Corporation, is in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Regulation 23 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972, which reads as follows:'23. Consideration of appeals:- (1) Where an appeal is received under these regulations, the appellate authority shall consider all the circumstances of the case and pass such others as it deems fit: Provided that the appellant shall be given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case.'2. To decide the above issue, I do not propose to go into the merits o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »