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.
Ramapandiyan and Vs. the Manager, Indian Bank, Chinglepet Branch,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2005
Reported in: [2010]97SCL62(Mad)
N. Kannadasan, J.1. The above appeals arise as against the order dated 31.3.2005 in C.A. Nos.272 and 273 of 2005 in C.P.No.130 of 1999.2. The company petition is filed in respect of the Company called M/s. Anubhav Plantations Ltd., which is a company in liquidation. In the company petition, the Company Court has appointed Mr. M. Ravindran, Senior Advocate as an Administrator in respect of the company in liquidation with a view to take effective steps to recover the amounts due from various persons who owe money to the company and in order to distribute the same to the depositors.3. The Administrator filed a memo dated 24.2.2000 before the Company Court with regard o the payment of Rs.96 lakhs made by the company to the appellants towards the advance amount for the purchase of 35.60 acres of land situate at Idayakodumanthangal Village, Chinglepet Taluk, Kancheepuram District. In the said proceedings, the first appellant appeared before the Company Court on 29.6.2000 and admitted the rec...
Smt. Jayachitra W/O. V. Ganeshh and Vs. A.N.S. Nall Azhagu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC418
P.K. Misra, J.1. These three appeals are directed against the common order dated 20.9.2005, passed by the learned single Judge in O.A. No. 568 of 2005, Appln.Nos.2341, 2775 and 3947 of 2005 arising out of C.S. No. 479 of 2005.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows :-The suit bearing C.S. No. 479 of 2005 has been filed by the plaintiffs/respondents against the present appellants/defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and enjoyment of 'A' Schedule property, except by due process of law, and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to deliver the original title deeds and documents as indicated in 'B' schedule. Schedule 'A' consist of land and building. There is no dispute that such land and house belong to the plaintiffs. On 15.12.1999, there was an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants for sale of the property bearing Door No. 91, Poes Garden, Chennai. A sum of Rs...
Minor Subha and Vs. Ramu,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC444; (2005)4MLJ637
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner herein, who has filed a suit in O.S.No.41 of 2002 before the Sub Court, Tiruvarur for partition. In the said suit, the respondents herein have filed a written statement, alleging that the petitioners ought to have paid Court fee under Section 37(1) of the Act. Pursuant to that notice dated 21.10.2002 was issued by the trial Court, directing the petitioner herein to value Under Section 37(1) of Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (in Short `the Act'). Objections were filed by the petitioners stating that they are in joint possession, the other family members have a right in coparcenary/joint family properties, without their consent alieniated petitioners' share which is not binding on them in respect of their share is concerned, hence not liable to pay Stamp Duty under Section 37(1) of the Act and maintain the same to be paid under Section 37(2) of the Act is perfectly valid. The trial Court has directed the pet...
G. Saravanan Vs. the District Employment Officer and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ467
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The prayer in WP No. 1676 of 2001 is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to sponsor the name of the petitioner herein - Registration No. 5538/1985 to the second respondent for appointment to the post of Assistant in the Dharmapuri District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Dharmapuri by considering his seniority in registration with the Employment Exchange, Krishnagiri.2. WP No. 3345 of 2001 has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the third respondent from in any manner appointing the candidates for the post of Assistants pursuant to the publication dated 22-11-2000 without considering the petitioner's claim for appointment based on petitioner's seniority in the employment exchange and previous experience.3. The case of the petitioner in WP No. 1676 of 2001 is that he had completed his higher secondary course in April 1984 and also underwent General basic course in Nachiappa Co-operative Training Institute, Salem and passed ...
The Executive Engineer-iv, Electricity Department and Vs. Varadha Stee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ462
Markandey Katju, C.J.W.P. No.27467 of 2005:1. This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari against the impugned order dated 17.8.2005 passed by the first respondent, the Superintending Engineer-III, Electricity Department, Pondicherry, under Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, by which the writ petitioner was provisionally assessed to pay electricity charges to the tune of Rs.2,65,37,000/- and was permitted to file objections against the same. 2. The aforesaid notice dated 17.08.2005 reads as follows:-' No.6386/ED/SE-III/AE-Tech/F.39/HT-VADSteel/2005-2006GOVERNMENT OF PONDICHERRYELECTRICITY DEPARTMENTASSESSMENT NOTICE FOR THEFT OF ENERGYPondicherry, the 17th August, 2005ToM/s Vardha SteelsR.S.No.122/1 & 122/6,Thuthipet, Villianur Commune,Pondicherry 605 502. Sub: Theft of electricity in the premises of M/s Varadha Steels, Sedarapet - Provisional Assessment notice for payment of Extra levy - Reg. Ref: (1) Show Cause Notice of this department No.227...
Venu Srinivasan Vs. Krishnamachari, Secretary Divya Desa Paarambariya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ596
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. Let us give hereunder the details of the proceedings listed before us:The 9th respondent, 6th respondent, 10th respondent, 7th respondent and 8th respondent in W.P.No.13382/2005 are the appellants in the various writ appeals. In the writ petition, a learned Judge of this court passed a final order on 15.06.2005, having regard to the materials brought to his notice, directing the State Government (first respondent therein) to register the offence relating to destroying a Sivan Sannathi in Azhagiya Nambirayar Temple, Thirukurungudi, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District against respondents 5 to 10; investigate the said offence against the said respondents and proceed in accordance with law, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice. In W.P. No. 23178/2004, the writ petitioner prayed for a mandamus directing respondents therein to re-install the idols of Siva, Murugan and Vinayagar in it's original place from where they were removed in Arulmighu Azhagiya Nambiray...
M. Natarajan Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Spe/Cbi/Acb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-2005
Reported in: 2006(197)ELT476(Mad)
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The Criminal Revision Petition is preferred against the order passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 146 of 2005 in C.C. No.6 of 2004, dated 18.04.2005. The Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6 of 2004, on the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases (VIII Addl.), Chennai.2. The brief facts mentioned in the Crl. O.P., which can also be applied in the Revision Case, are as follows:-One Dr. S. Balakrishnan (3rd accused) purchased a Lexus car, which was sent by ship to Madras in July 1994. Yogesh Balakrishnan (4th accused), who is the son of 3rd accused, delivered certain documents for getting clearance of the said car from the Customs Department. One of the said documents was the letter dated 08.09.1994 of 1st accused, the present petitioner, who is the publisher of a magazine called 'TAMIlARASI', which was commenced in the year 1992. The 1st accused is also the author of ...
Radha H. Joshi, Vs. Pioneer Surgical Company Represented by Its Partne ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ482
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The Revision Petitioners are the landlords. The landlords, who were unsuccessful before the learned Rent Controller (XII Judge, Small Causes Court), Madras in seeking an order of eviction of the respondents/tenants from the petition premises, in filing the Rent Control Original Petition No. 816 of 1993, on the ground of own use and occupation by way of additional accommodation, under the order dated 1.4.1997 and as confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Small Causes Court), Madras in R.C.A.No. 503 of 1997 as per judgement dated 21.2.2002, have filed this Civil Revision Petition. 2. Hariprasad Joshi, the husband of the 1st revision petitioner and father of the revision petitioners 2 and 3, filed the Rent Control Original Petition seeking eviction of the respondents from the petition premises, namely, non-residential shop portion in the ground floor, bearing Door No. 13 (Old No. 149), Nyniappa Naicken Street, Madras-600003, t...
P.G. Narayanan, Member Rajya Sabha, Leader of the All India Anna Dravi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ22
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Mr. P.G. Narayanan, a Rajya Sabha Member and Leader of the All India Anna Diravida Munnetra Kazhagam Parliamentary Party, has filed this writ petition for issue of Quo Warranto as against Mr.T.Theethan, Accountant General (Audit), Tamil Nadu, Office of the Accountant General, Chennai, calling for him to cause to this Court how and under what authority he is holding the position of Accountant General (Audit), Tamil, Nadu, since he acted in a manner prejudicial to Chapter V of the Constitution of India against the elected Tamil Nadu State Government by holding a Press/Media Conference on 31.7.2004.2. The gist of the plea made on behalf of the petitioner is as follows:'Since the petitioner is interested in the public welfare of Tamil Nadu, he has got the locus standi to plead for the cause of the public and as such, he is well within his rights to file this public interest litigation seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto. The Comptroller and Aud...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›