Chennai Court August 2004 Judgments
S.R. Surendiraraj Vs. Komalavalli,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC174; (2004)4MLJ415
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 12.9.2003 made in M.P.No.125 of 1999 in E.P. No.160 of 1998 in R.C.O.P. No. 2244 of 1992 by the Rent Controller and the XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2. Tracing the history of the above Civil Revision Petition coming to be filed on the part of the petitioner herein, who is the judgment debtor and the tenant, it comes to be known that the respondents are the legal heirs of one Gnanaprakasam, who was the landlord and he filed the R.C.O.P. No. 160 of 1998 before the Court below as against the petitioner herein for eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on ground of additional accommodation and the said R.C.O.P. having been decreed as prayed for; an Execution Petition in E.P. No.160 of 1998 has also been filed by the landlord; that during pendency of the said Execution Proceedings, the landlord died and his legal Repres...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kayethey Ajam Vs. Ananthi @ Ameena Bivi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad70; 2004(5)CTC96; (2004)4MLJ328
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the fair and decretal orders both dated 3.1.2003 respectively made in I.A.Nos. 103 and 104 of 2002 in A.S.No. 99 of 2000 by the Court of Additional District Fast Track Judge, Ramanathapuram. 2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be taken that the petitioner herein has filed the suit in O.S.No. 405 of 1993 before the Court of Principal District Munsif, Ramanathapuram, against the respondents herein for declaration and injunction declaring that the first respondent is not his wife and respondents 2 to 5 are not his children and restraining the respondents from claiming any right in his property. The Trial Court, after full trial, has partly allowed the suit declaring that the first respondent is not the wife of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are not their children but has held that the respondents 4 and 5 are the children of the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Chokhani International Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. Pachiap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad82; 2004(5)CTC169; (2004)4MLJ518
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 1.10.2002 made in I.A.No. 7851 of 2002 in O.S.No. 1183 of 2000 by the Court of III Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai.2. Tracing the history of the above Civil Revision Petition coming to be filed, it comes to be known that the respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No. 1183 of 2000 before the lower Court as against the revision petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,57,315.20 together with interest at 18% p.a. on Rs. 4,67,840 from the date of plaint till the date of realization and for costs.3. It further come to be known that pending the suit, the petitioner herein has filed the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No. 7851 of 2002 under Order 37, Rule 3 of C.P.C. praying to grant leave to the defendant to file its written statement and contest the case on merits and since the said petition was dismissed by the Court below, the petitioner/defendant has come forward to...
Tag this Judgment!L. Narayanan and anr. Vs. Nil
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad17
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 3-9-2003 made in Trust O.P. No. 1 of 1990 by the Court of Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli seeking to set aside the same on certain grounds that the Court be low failed to see that the lands in question regarding which a Trust Settlement Deed had been executed by the father of the petitioners have been lying waste without income and hence the intention of the executor of the settlement cannot be implemented in any way consequent to which the petitioners are unable to perform 'uthsavams' as directed by their father; that the H.R. and C.E. Board will not get any vested right and cannot object for the sake of the immovable property as the Trust created is not a public charitable trust; that the lands in question cannot generate any income in the present condition since irrigation facility is not available; that the petitioners are giving undertaking to deposit the sale procee...
Tag this Judgment!Lords Insullations India Private Limited, Rep. by Its Director, Mr. P. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: [2004]122CompCas892(Mad); 2005(1)CTC34; [2006]65SCL15(Mad)
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent dated 15.09.2003 as confirmed by review order dated 19.2004 directing the petitioner's company to delete the words 'Lords' from its existing name and change to some other name/prefix.2. Affidavit in support of this writ petition and counter affidavit are perused. Heard the learned counsel for either side. 3. Learned counsel while advancing his argument on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner company was incorporated under Companies Act on 10.03.2003 under No. CIN U74210TN2003PTC050487. Certificate of incorporation was also issued to the petitioner's company. That ever since the petitioner's company was incorporated with the main objects as Engineers and contractors specialised in the field of Thermal, Hydro and acoustic insulation and suppliers of all insulation, ancillary materials, among other objects regis...
Tag this Judgment!Chenni, Vs. Chellammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ172
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. Defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.302 of 1986 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Erode, have preferred this appeal.2.1. Respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal, as plaintiffs, have filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 2/9th shares in the suit properties. 2.2. According to the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2, all the suit properties belonged to their father Veeran, son of Siddhan. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that Veeran having acquired the properties, enjoyed the same and died in the year 1984 intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 7 as his Class-I heirs, who are entitled to inherit the properties in equal shares. On that basis, according to the plaintiffs, when they demanded division of properties to their brothers and other sisters, it was refused, resulting in the filing of the suit for partition to declare their share of 2/9...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Anandam Pillai (Deceased) and A. Dhatchinamoorthy Vs. the State R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC368; (2004)4MLJ377
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner prays for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to G.O.Ms. No. 81 dated 21.5.2002 of the first respondent, to quash the same as null and void and to direct the second respondent to remove the third respondent from the post of Executive Officer appointed to Sri Nacharammal Kattalai, Vandiyoor attached to Arulmigu Kallalagar Tirukkoil, Madurai and allow the writ petitioner to function as hereditary trustee in pursuance of the Scheme already framed for the Kattalai.2. The specific endowment attached to the third respondent-temple is governed by the scheme framed in O.A. No. 3 of 1967 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai. The specific endowment and the administration vests in the hereditary trustees comprising of two branches, one branch represented by Anandham Pillai, the writ petitioner, and the other branch represented by the tenth respondent.3. While the ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Velmurugan Vs. P. Srinivasan and P. Ravi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ109
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The above revision petitions are listed today for admission and I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the counsel for the Caveators.2. The tenants, who lost their case before the courts below are the revision petitioners. The appellate authority, by common order dated 21-04-2004 dismissed both R.C.A. Nos. 31 of 2003 filed against HRCOP No. 61 of 2001 and RCA No. 33 of 2003 filed against HRCOP No. 63 of 2001. Aggrieved by the order passed in RCA No. 31 of 2003, CRP No. 1265 of 2004 is filed and as against the order passed in RCA No. 33 of 2003, CRP No. 1264 of 2004 is filed by the tenants. The respondents in the above revision petitions are landlords, who have filed petitions under Section 14(1) (b) of The Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 for eviction against the petitioners herein.3. The plea of the respondents is that the building, in which the petitioners are in occupation is about 93 years old and in dilapidated ...
Tag this Judgment!Geetha Ramani Vs. the District Educational Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ177
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Ms. Selvi George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Sivashanmuga Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:One Mr. A. Gajendran was employed as a Secondary Grade Teacher and he died in harness on 4.8.1986. The said person had married one Valliammal. But, since there was no issue through the said Valliammal, he had married one Chellammal. The present writ petitioner is the daughter born to him through his second wife Chellammal. After the death of the bread winner of the family, the first wife Mrs. Valliammal died on 29.9.1990. An application was made on behalf of the present petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and ultimately, in the year 1996, the petitioner was appointed as the Junior Assistant/Typist. Subsequently, by order dated 1.7.2002, she was terminated from service solely on the ground that she was born through the second wife and...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Director of Postal Services and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ592Mad
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.2. The Union of India and the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chennai City North Division, Chennai-600 023, have filed the present writ petition against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, in O.A. No. 915 of 1998 whereunder the Tribunal has modified the punishment imposed on the present contesting respondent No. 2 from recovery of certain amount and stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect to one of censure alone. As a matter of fact, after going through the materials on record and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, imposition of 'censure' would practically amount to granting a merit certificate to the second respondent.3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:At the relevant time, the present second respondent was working as Accounts ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »