Chennai Court May 2004 Judgments
Kannuperumal and anr. Vs. Suseela, Mentally Retarded Person, Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC11; (2005)3MLJ263
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The plaintiff 2 and 4 in O.S. No. 72 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tindivanam are the revision petitioners. The revision is directed against the dismissal of I.A. No. 353 of 2003 filed by the revision petitioners under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. to transpose the plaintiffs 1 and 3 as defendants 4 and 5 in the suit. The petition was dismissed on 18.2.2004.2. The revision petitioners along with the respondents 4 and 5 herein filed the suit against the defendants 1 to 3, viz., the respondents 1 to 3 herein for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 20.3.1995 and in the alternative to refund the advance amount of Rs. 20,000 with interest at 18%. The first defendant is the mother and the defendants 2 and 3 are her sons. The first defendant got the suit properties allotted to her share in the partition between her and her sisters. The agreement of sale was entered into between the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and the defendants 1 to 3 o...
Tag this Judgment!Santhanalakshmi Vs. Pushpa and Selvi Alias Kuttiyammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC453; (2004)3MLJ40
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The unsuccessful landlady before the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowing the Rent Control Appeal preferred by tenants, thereby setting aside the eviction of the tenants from the petition premises ordered by the Rent Controller on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.2. The landlady as petitioner filed the Rent Control Original Petition seeking eviction of the respondents / tenants from the petition residential premises bearing Door No. 256 (old No. 122), Ambalathadayar Madam Street, Pondicherry, which is partly terraced and partly tiled building. In the family arrangement, the property was given to the petitioner, which originally belonged to her father. Her father and junior paternal uncle leased the said building to one Gopal Pathar, who was a Goldsmith, the husband of th...
Tag this Judgment!R. Parvathi, Vs. Kaliyaperumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ111
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The unsuccessful landlords before the Courts below are the revision petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the dismissal of the Rent Control Appeal filed by the landlords challenging the correctness of the dismissal of the Rent Control Original Petition filed for eviction of the respondent / tenant on the grounds of willful default in payment of rent and for demolition and reconstruction. 2. The landlords as petitioners filed the Rent Control Original Petition stating that the petition premises bearing Door No. 6 Kamakshi Amman Koil Street in Chidambaram Town, originally belonged to one Ranganathan, husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3. The respondent as a tenant took the said property on lease on 10.6.1986 on a monthly rent of Rs.375/-. The respondent / tenant paid rent till March 1995 and on the death of Ranganathan, the petitioners have become owners of the petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Fouress Engineering (India) (P) Ltd., by Its Manager Vs. V. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC362; (2004)3MLJ107
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the revision is filed against the fair rent enhanced to Rs.23,435/- per month by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in the appeal preferred by the tenant challenging the correctness of the fair rent fixed at Rs.18,648/- per month.2. The landlord filed the Rent Control Original Petition for fixation of fair rent in respect of a portion in the first floor of the petition premises bearing No.805, Anna Salai, Madras-2 with separate and independent access from premises No.804, Anna Salai, Madras-2. It is stated in the petition that the contractual rent is Rs.2,500/- per month. The tenant/revision petitioner is in occupation of a major portion of the first floor of the premises bearing No.805, Anna Salai, Madras consisting of one hall, two rooms, one reception room, one toilet, besides the exclusive staircase leading from the ground floor to the petition premises and the area in the occupation of the ten...
Tag this Judgment!K. Dhanabalan Vs. Parvathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC246
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The landlord is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Rent Control Appeal preferred by tenant, which was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority setting aside the eviction of the tenant from the petition premises ordered by the Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent.2. The landlord as petitioner filed the Rent Control Original Petition seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant from the petition non-residential premises bearing Door No. 30, Big Bazaar Street, Dindigul. In the petition, it is stated that the petition premises originally belonged to one Krishnan Chettiar, father of the petitioner, under whom the deceased first respondent became a tenant 40 years ago and after allotment of the petition premises to the petitioner in the family partition, the deceased first respondent also attorned tenancy. It is stated that the tenant paid rent only t...
Tag this Judgment!S. Loganathan Vs. V. Thirumoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC743
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J. 1. The landlord is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Rent Control Appeal preferred by tenant, which was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority setting aside the eviction of the tenant from the petition premises ordered by the Rent Controller on the ground of own use and occupation and additional accommodation. 2. The landlord as petitioner filed the Rent Control Original Petition seeking eviction of the respondent / tenant on the grounds that the petition shop was used for different purpose other than for which it was let out, that the tenant has caused nuisance and also on the ground that the petition premises consisting of shop and godown is required for the purpose of carrying on business by the landlord and also on the ground that the petition premises is required for additional accommodation. To the notice caused on 21.6.1999, no reply was sent by the respondent / t...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Industries D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ418
ORDER: Taking cognizance of the indiscriminate quarrying in the river systems of Tamil Nadu in a Public Interest Litigation, the Hon'ble High Court in their order dated 26.7.2002 had directed the State Government to constitute a Committee of Experts consisting of geologist, environmentalist and scientist to study the river and river beds in the State with reference to the impact of sand quarrying. Accordingly, the Government in the G.O. read above constituted a six member High Level Committee. The Committee after extensive touring of the river systems of the State has submitted its report to the Government. A copy of the report has been furnished to the Hon'ble High Court. The High Court, while ordering the Government to constitute the High Level Committee had also directed - 'The Government on receipt of the report from the Committee shall act in conformity with the guidelines and take all necessary further steps to arrest the exploitation and to protect and improve the situation and ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Pitchumani Vs. the Management of Sri Chakra Tyres Ltd., Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: [2004]121CompCas127(Mad); [2004(102)FLR384]; (2004)IILLJ994Mad
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. The matters have been referred to Full Bench to answer whether a private company is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and if so what are the parameters.2. These matters relate to transfer of employees of Sri Chakra Tyres Limited., T.V.S.Suziki Limited, Axle India Limited, ICICI Bank India Limited and G.E. Power Controls India Limited. While the employees complain the managements' act of their transfers as a measure of victimization and thus extraneous and mala fide, the managements counter the said allegations asserting that transfers are made in exigencies of service and for better performance of the companies, and not for any extraneous reasons or as a measure of victimization. 3. The learned single Judge has upheld the contention raised on behalf of the Managements that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and that the employees have to approach the forums created under the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›