Chennai Court October 2005 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.
G. Babu Vs. the Director General, Railway Protection Force,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ41
N. Kannadasan, J.1. The above writ petition is filed for the relief as stated therein.2. The petitioner has entered into the services of the Railway Protection Force in the year 1976. While he was working as a Constable, on 29.6.1992 a charge was framed against him relating to claim made by the petitioner in respect of his travelling allowance. According to the petitioner, on 18.7.1992, while he was on duty at about 11.00 A.M., the Assistant Security Commissioner by name Shri Edgar Fernandez visited the place of duty and took the petitioner to the lonely place for a secret conversation and directed the petitioner to meet him during the rest time. As per his directions, the petitioner met the Assistant Security Commissioner on 21.7.1992, during which time, the petitioner was promised that the said Officer would help him in the disciplinary proceedings and also would ensure that he would get further promotion as a Driver, for which a sum of Rs.15,000/- was demanded, which was later on re...
Gulf Air Company Vs. V.M. Rajalingam, Sole Proprietor `Bharathi Knitti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC662; (2005)4MLJ676
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The appellant is the defendant. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the money payable as damages for the delay in delivery of the goods. Despite service of summons, the defendant did not choose to appear. Therefore, ex parte decree was passed on 31.8.1995. When the notice was served in the execution petition filed in pursuance of the said decree, the applicant/appellant approached the trial Court for condonation of the delay of 3415 days (about 10 years) in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree.3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the fact that the ex-parte decree was passed on 31.8.1995 came to be known to the appellant only after service of E.P. notice on 14.9.2004 and therefore, there was a delay. The same can be condoned for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the defendant/appellant to contest the suit. He cited the following decisions:1) Chhabi Kulavi and Anr. v. Ganesh Chandra Mondal : 2000(8)SCALE268 ...
Hameed Vs. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Public ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ517
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner is the father of the detenu by name Hameed Mohamed Rizwi, who was detained by the impugned proceedings dated 31.03.2005 under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974).2. Heard Mr.B.Kumar learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for R-1 and learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for R-2.3. Even at the outset, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that though the Detaining Authority has relied upon that the detenu involved in two previous customs offences and registration numbers were furnished, yet, no document of any such particulars has been given. Inasmuch as the detenu is entitled to get those particulars, the Detaining Authority seriously erred in not giving the details sought for by the detenu. According to him, this has violated the mandate provided under Article 22(5) of the Con...
Mrs. Rabiyathul Basharia Vs. the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC581
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner by name Rabiyathul Basharia challenges the detention order dated 23.11.2004 imposed on her husband Sulthan Kayas under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974).2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for R-1 and R-3 and learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for R-2.3. In the light of the order to be passed hereunder, we are of the view that it is unnecessary to refer all the factual matrix as stated in the grounds of detention and argued by the counsel on either side. 4. According to Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned detention order was passed mechanically by the Detaining Authority without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. He also contended that the Detaining Authority erred in invoking Section 123 of the Customs Act and that the b...
The Director of School Education, the Chief Educational Officer, O/O. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC670
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The Director of School Education, Chennai, the Chief Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer, Thiruvarur have filed the above review application, questioning the order dated 7th January, 2005 made in W.P.M.P. No. 22713 of 2004 in W.P. No. 1891 2004.2. Mrs. T. Ananthi, learned counsel takes notice for the contesting 1st respondent.3. Heard both sides.4. The 1st respondent herein filed W.P. No. 18916 of 2004, questioning the order in T.A. 240 of 1999 dated 15th March, 2004 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. In W.P.M.P. No. 22713 of 2004, the petitioner therein has prayed for staff operation of the said order pending disposal of the writ petition. While passing order on 7th January, 2005, after finding that this Court has granted interim stay even on 5th July, 2004 and ordered notice to the respondents and in the absence of definite information from the respondents therein as well as on the assumption that if, the stay...
A. Arumugham Vs. K.M. Thambirajan and Trichy Cafe (P) Ltd. Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC188; (2005)4MLJ590
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The revision is directed against the order dated 7.10.2004 made in I.A.No.151 of 2004 in O.S.No.816 of 1999 allowing the said application and thereby refusing to accept the report of the Handwriting expert of Forensic Science Department, Chennai in D.No.7100/03,DOC 451/03 dated 25.5.2004 as conclusive evidence in respect of the alleged signature of the first defendant/revision petitioner herein found in the agreement of sale dated 8.12.1994 which is the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.816 of 1999, laid for specific performance.2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are as follows:2.1. The first respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.816 of 1999 for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 8.12.1994 executed by the revision petitioner/first defendant, who has denied his signature in the said agreement of sale.2.2. In order to substantiate his claim, the first respondent had taken out an application in I.A.No.761 of 2000 in O.S.No.816 of 1999 seeking t...
Rajamani Ammal, Vs. Sivasakthi Benefit Fund Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ650
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.11.2004 made in I.A. No. 189 of 2004 in O.S. No. 45 of 2004 on the file of District Court, Nagapattinam, refusing to reject the document marked as Ex.A-3 as inadmissible in evidence.2. The revision petitioners are defendants in the suit laid by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,50,929/- by deposit of title deeds with the respondent/plaintiff and thereby creating a mortgage. Incidentally the respondent/plaintiff pleaded that a memorandum dated 18.2.1995 was reduced to writing between the parties as to the deposit of the said title deeds, pertaining to the immovable properties of the revision petitioners/defendants. Contending that the said memorandum dated 18.2.1995 was neither duly stamped nor registered, the revision petitioners/defendants sought to reject the said memorandum dated 18.2.1995 by filing I.A. No. 189 of 2004. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 16.11.2004...
Batliboi and Company Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director Mr. Nirmal Bh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC436; 2006(1)CTC35; (2006)1MLJ276
P.K. Misra, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the defendants against the decree of the learned single Judge in C.S. No. 664 of 1995 dated 12.4.2000.2. The plaintiff / respondent filed the aforesaid suit for realisation of a sum of Rs. 54,87,973/- with interest at the rate of 24% on the principal sum of Rs. 54,87,973/- from the date of the suit till payment. 3. The plaintiff, a private limited company, is a registered Small Scale Industry manufacturing domestic/industrial/agricultural monoblock electric motor pump sets under the brand name 'BEACON' under the licencee Agreement from Best & Crompton, who are the owners of such trademark. The first defendant is a commercial trader engaged in selling and distributing various goods. The first defendant was the dealer of the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid pump sets throughout India during the period from 1985 to 1993. On the basis of the comprehensive orders placed by the first defendant, the plaintiff used to despatch the good...
Archean Granites Pvt. Ltd Vs. Rps Benefit Fund Limited, Rep. by the Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: [2007]139CompCas191(Mad); (2006)2CompLJ113(Mad); [2007]75SCL169(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J. The present appeals have been filed against the common order dated 30.4.2002 in Appln. Nos. 2047 to 2052 of 2000 arising out of C.P. Nos. 233 to 238 of 1999. Such applications were filed by the present appellant with a prayer that the sale deed executed by M/s. R.P.S. Benefit Fund Limited in favour of the appellant is valid and binding, and cannot be challenged in the winding up proceedings relating to M/s. R.P.S. Benefit Fund Ltd., with a further prayer to permit the appellant to pay the balance amount due to the Bank of Madura Ltd., and to get the original documents of title from the said Bank. 2. The basic allegations in such applications are as follows :- M/s. R.P.S. Benefit Fund Ltd., is a Company registered under the Companies Act. The said Company had purchased the disputed property by a sale deed dated 10.8.1995. Subsequently the said property was mortgaged to the Bank of Madura Ltd., by the Company by way of deposit of title deeds for a loan amount of Rs. 60 lak...
Bhanu Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director Sri B. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad83; II(2006)BC191; [2006]129CompCas481(Mad); 2005(5)CTC721; (2006)1MLJ54
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Andhra Bank and State Bank of India, Hyderabad, filed an application against M/s. Bhanu Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the guarantors, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,95,86,510.79 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A. No. 460 of 1999. After enquiry, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, passed a decree in favour of the banks as against M/s. Bhanu Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the guarantors on 31.10.2000. The judgment debtors, feeling aggrieved that the decree was passed on merits without giving an opportunity to them, filed an application to set aside the said decree, terming the same as an exparte one. Some of them filed applications to set aside the exparte decree. Some others filed applications to condone the delay in filing the applications to set aside the exparte decree. Ultimately, on 06.09.2002, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissed the said applications. Aggrieved by that, they filed appeals before the Debts Recovery A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »