Chennai Court April 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.
Novartis AG, rep. by It's Power of Attorney Ms. Ritushka Negi and Anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC95; 2004(29)PTC108(Mad)
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. In all the original applications an ex parte order of injunction was granted by this Court on 20.1.2004. To vacate that ex parte order in each suit, the aggrieved party has filed an application. This application to vacate the injunction stands accompanied by two applications having successive numbers, namely one to stay the operation of the 'Exclusive Marketing Rights', hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'EMR' and the other, to implead the authority, which granted the 'EMR', as a party to the suit. Of course, it must be noticed that in C.S.No. 5/2004 and C.S.No. 6/2004, there is no such application to stay the operation of the 'EMR' and to implead the authority, which issued the said 'EMR', as a party to the suit. The authority, which issued the 'EMR', had filed a counter stating that 'EMR' was justifiably granted. In the context of this Court deciding to hear the originalapplications, where an ex pane order of injunction was granted and the applicatio...
Kadambur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, Rep. by Its P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR969]; (2004)3MLJ241
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the Award, dated 27.03.1997, passed in I.D.No.52 of 1996 by the first respondent Labour Court.2. The second respondent was employed as a Peon in the petitioner Bank from 11.3.1981 and subsequently was appointed as a Salesman from 01.01.1983 and on 16.11.1988, deficit in the stock of fertilizers bags, which were under the care of the second respondent, was found out and a charge memo was issued. The second respondent denied the charges, pursuant to which a domestic enquiry was held and the enquiry officer found the second respondent guilty of the charges of misappropriation and thereafter the second respondent was terminated from service on 12.10.1992.3. The second respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.52 of 1996 on the file of first respondent Labour Court and sought for reinstatement. The Labour Court in the preliminary issue found that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper ...
P.N.S. Gopinath and ors. Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ243
ORDERC. Nagappan, J. 1. The petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the second respondent in Roc. No. A4/2476/97, dated 27.09.1997.2. According to the petitioners, the land comprised in Survey No. 550, Mayiladumparai Village, Andipatti Taluk, is classified as Panchamthangi Kanmai Poramboke in the revenue records and the ancestors of the petitioners, about 40 years ago, planted silk cotton, coconut, Tamarind, Mango, Jack Fruit and Naval trees on the poramboke land and cultivated them. It is further stated by the petitioners that the Government issued 'B' Memos to the petitioners and collected penal assessment from them. The petitioners have further stated that they applied to the third respondent for issuance of 2C Patta in their names in respect of the trees and the Special Officer of the 4th respondent Panchayat Board passed a Resolution, dated 03.09.1996, recommending the issue of 2C patta to the petitioners and the third respondent also...
The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Vs. Muthu Konar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC56
P.D. Dinakaran,J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1992 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai made in L.A.O.P.No.11 of 1988, increasing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.23.40 per cent to Rs.650/- per cent, for the land of an extent of 1.20 acres located in Survey No.255/4 in Rahinipattai Village, Sivagangai District, acquired pursuant to the notification dated 27.8.1986 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, for the purpose of providing housing sites to Adi Dravidars.2.1. Mr.E.Sampath Kumar, learned Government Advocate challenges the enhancement of compensation made by learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai in the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1992 made in L.A.O.P.No.11 of 1988, preferred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the respondent/claimant, on the ground that the enhancement was made without any basis and without taking into consideration any documentary evidence.2.2. Mr.E.Samp...
Varadhan Vs. Kannammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ290
ORDERT.V. Masilamani, J. 1. This revision petition is preferred by the tenant/second respondent before the Rent Controller and appellant in the Rent Control Appeal against the impugned judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.No.8 of 1995 dated 30.6.1998 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Ranipet confirming the fair and decretal orders passed by the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Ranipet in R.C.O.P.No.25 of 1990 dated 9.8.1995.2. The parties to the revision petition may be referred to in the same order as they were arrayed in the Courts below for the sake of convenience. 3. The landlady/petitioner filed the Rent Control Petition under Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960) for eviction of the tenants/respondents on the grounds that after the death of the original tenant, the first respondent, there was no privity of contract between the p...
Workmen of Ge Power Controls India (Pvt.) Ltd. Rep. by G.E. Employees ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR960]; (2004)3MLJ221
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. By consent of counsel on either side, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal and common argument is advanced in both the writ petitions, hence common order is passed.2. The prayer in W.P. No. 5898 of 2004 is for a Writ of Declaration to declare that portion of the notice of the first respondent dated 2nd March 2004 under which the first respondent Management is requiring its workmen listed in the Annexure hereto to report at Limbasi, Gujarat to work under the third respondent to be illegal and unenforceable and the consequent individual orders of transfers issued to the members of the Petitioner Union, specimen of which dated 2nd March 2004 has been issued to the Petitioner to be illegal, void and unenforceable and amounting to unfair labour practice and direct the respondent Management to permit the said workman to continue at Work at Hosur Plant forthwith on the lifting of the lockout.3. WP No. 7485 of 2004 has been filed praying for a Writ of Ma...
Dr. P. Venkatarama Reddy Vs. R. Aswathnarayana Setty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ672
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The unsuccessful tenant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction of the revision petitioner / tenant passed by the Rent Controller in respect of the non-residential premises on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and for own use and occupation by the respondent / landlord. 2. The landlord as petitioner filed the Rent Control Original Petition for eviction of the respondent / tenant on the ground that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent from March 1994 at the rate of Rs.450/- p.m. It is stated that the petition shop premises was leased out to the respondent / tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.400/- per month from August 1984, that the rent was enhanced in April 1988 from Rs. 400/- to Rs.450/- per month, that the resp...
Tamil Nadu Mahajana Sangam, Represented by Its President C. Venkatasub ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC189
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The two Revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and W.P.No. 25648 of 2002 are related to the conduct of election in the Mannar Thirumalai Naicker College Society (hereinafter called 'the Society'). The Society is established by a linguistic minority. The Society has its bye-laws and administers educational institutions through a Committee, which is an elected Body. Membership is restricted to persons of the Naidu Community and enrolment is by making donations/contributions. When a dispute arose in 1993 suits regarding the then elected Committee were filed. In the Second Appeals that arose out of them, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to conduct the elections and an Advocate Receiver to manage the Society in the interregnum. New members were inducted by the Advocate Receiver and an election was conducted and the results declared. The grievance is, the enrolment was illegal and beyond the powers of the Advocate Commissioner and created an...
Ravikumar P. Vs. Chief Manager (Credit) and Disciplinary Authority, Ba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ652Mad
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in this proceedings Ref. ZO:DA:AS-235:646, dated February 26, 2004, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to take the assistance of a lawyer as per Clause 12(a)(iii) of the Bipartite settlement dated April 10, 2002, in the enquiry proceedings held into the chargememo No.ZO:DA:AS:235:412, dated November 19, 2003.2. Petitioner is working as a Staff Head Cashier (Category F) with the respondent- bank's Royapetta branch. On August 13, 2003, while he was working in the branch, a surprise inspection was made. In the said inspection, a shortage of cash to the tune of Rs. 75,900 was found. Thereafter, a chargesheet, was given to the petitioner and the petitioner also submitted his explanation. Enquiry officer was appointed by the management. Petitioner submitted an application on February 16, 2004, seeking ...
Kotti Vs. A.M. Rangabhashyam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC256; (2004)2MLJ683
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The tenant, who suffered an eviction order concurrently, is the revision petitioner.2. The respondent herein is the owner of the premises bearing door No.64, Kilpauk Garden Colony, measuring an extent of 177.66 sq.ft., which is in the occupation of the revision petitioner, as tenant, where he is carrying on a business, under the name and style of Koti Stores. The rent agreed for the premises is Rs.1000/- and as pleaded in paragraph-5 of the petition, the landlord had also received a sum of Rs.25,000/- as advance, contravening the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act. The landlord's son is one A.S. Govindaraj @ Anand. It seems after the death of his wife, Mr. Govindaraj migrated from Pondicherry to Madras, winding up his business, which he was carrying on, at Pondicherry. According to the petitioner, his son desires to continue the same business, since he had the experience of 4 1/2 years. In this view, the petitioner/landlord ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »