Chennai Court March 2005 Judgments
P. Rajaprabaharan Rep. by Father and Natural Guardian Mr. D. Pugazhent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad346
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 4-1-2005. Facts in detail have been set out in the impugned order of the learned single Judge and hence we do not deem it necessary to repeat the same in the judgment except where they are necessary. 2. Petitioner/appellant, who is physically disabled due to residual polio, applied for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 2004-05 as against the seats reserved for physically handicapped candidates. His claim was rejected on the ground that his disability was assessed at 48% only whereas, the prospectus issued by the Director of Medical Education provided that candidates with 50% to 70% disability alone were entitled for consideration under the reserved quota. He, therefore, filed the writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge holding that the State Government can prescribe higher level of disability than the one prescribed by the said...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. N.G. Karunakaran Vs. the Chairman, National Highways Authority of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad248; (2005)2MLJ446
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. In commemoration of the 57th Birthday Celebrations of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, one M. Ravichandran, President of Tamil Nadu Handloom and Textiles Development Corporation, Perambalur, who happens to be the District Secretary of AIADMK Party of Perambalur District, applied for permission for construction of two arches, one at Perambalur Junction and the other at Turaimangalam Junction and the same was granted by the authorities concerned. 2. Opposing the move for the said construction, one Mr. N.G. Karunakaran has filed this W.P. No. 6820 of 2005 as a Public Interest Litigation before this Division Bench and one Mr. A. Abdul Farook, a Ward Councillor of Perambalur Municipality, had earlier filed W.P. No. 2503 of 200 5 before a learned single Judge of this Court. The said Writ Petition filed by Abdul Farook was dismissed and as against the order passed by the learned single Judge, he filed the present Writ Appeal No. 410 of 2005 before this Division...
Tag this Judgment!Zee Telefilms Limited Represented by Its Executive Vice President-lega ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC525; (2005)2MLJ281
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner, Zee Telefilms Limited, prays for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the first respondent in its communication dated 21.9.2004 cancelling the tender process dated 7.8.2004 and to quash the same and to consequently direct the first respondent to act in furtherance of the decision arrived at on 5.9.2004 in the matter of exclusive television rights for telecast of cricket matches in India under the aegis of the first respondent and the International Cricket Council.2. In view of the urgency and by consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.3. I do not propose to extract the pleadings of both sides in detail in view of the scope of the points argued before me and in order to avoid the repetitive contentions raised by both sides in their respective pleadings. It is sufficient to briefly state the background in which this writ petition has been filed.4. The petitioner is one of the vertically integ...
Tag this Judgment!Texon (India) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Director R. Kesavan Vs. Govt. of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: 2006(203)ELT557(Mad)
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to make appropriate changes in the Electronic Data Interchange System to enable filing of the documents in accordance with the actual transaction value as per the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.2. When the matter came up for hearing, by consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.3. It is admitted by both the parties that the Customs Department is introducing complete computerisation. According to the petitioner, the respondents should make appropriate changes in the Electronic Data Interchange System (EDI System in short), to process the documents in accordance with actual transaction value, as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.4. Learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents submitted that the actual transaction value, as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, can be entered in the documents prepared as per ...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyamuthu and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC241; (2005)2MLJ431
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 31.3.1999. We have heard Mr. V. Ayyadurai learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. Nos. 1054 and 1055 of 1999 and Mr. D. Shivakumaran, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. No. 2169/99, Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Advocate General for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 3.2. Before the learned single Judge learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants had raised three arguments, which are as follows:1. In as much as the third respondent has utilised only an extent of 120 acres out of an extent of 523 acres acquired for the very same purpose, the present acquisition of 156 acres is unnecessary and unwarranted. In other words, according to him, there is no need of any lands for the requisitioning body, accordingly the present acquisition is not warranted;2. In as much as specific authorisation authorising the Special Tahsild...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Home Pipe Company Ltd. Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Contro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2005
Reported in: 2006(203)ELT197(Mad)
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J.1. The above writ petition is filed seeking the relief as stated therein.2. The petitioner entered into a contract with TWAD board for supply of MS Pipes and supplies of various sizes for the water supply schemes at Pudukottai, Madurai and Coimbatore. As per the contract, the petitioner has to lay down pipes for the supply of water and the pipes have to be bent to suit the topographic conditions. In order to withstand the water pressure, instead of connecting two joints like elbows and screws, the necessary bend has to be made in the said pipes. The petitioner classified those goods under the heading 73.05 and sub heading 7305.90 for the classification of the Central Excise. Though the third respondent has approved the classified list initially under the said heading 7305.90 of the heading 73.05, subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to revise the classification under the heading 7307.07. After an enquiry, the third respondent has confirmed the demand and t...
Tag this Judgment!Kasipalayam Town Panchayat, Rep. by Its Executive Officer Vs. Arumugam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC362; (2005)2MLJ524
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J.1. Both the above Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the common fair and decretal order dated 30.1.2004 passed in I.A. Nos. 660 and 661 of 2004 in C.F.R. No. 14330 of 2001 by the Principal District Judge, Erode.2. The petitioner has filed two applications seeking to condone the delay of 355 days and 358 days in representing the appeal memorandum. 3. The respondents have filed the suit in O.S. No. 480 of 1994 as early as in the year 1994 claiming damages as against the defendants. The petitioner herein is also one of the defendants. The trial Court decreed the suit to the effect that the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent herein shall equally liable to pay damages to the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the petitioner seems to have preferred appeal with deficiency of court fee, which was returned for compliance. In the meanwhile when the plaintiffs/respondents filed Execution Petition in E.P. No. 120 of 2003 . The petitioner has represented the appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Kitnammal Vs. Nallaselvan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC356; (2005)2MLJ227
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 140 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal. The revision is filed against the order dated 13.12.2002 made in I.A. No. 325 of 2002 in I.A. No. 213 of 2002. 2. I.A. No. 325 of 2002 was filed to scrap the report and the rough plan of the first advocate-commissioner filed in I.A. No. 213 of 2002. The trial Court after enquiry dismissed the petition.3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit on 12.2.2002 for declaration that the defendant is not entitled for any irrigation channel and also for pathway in the suit lands at Pudukottai village, Namakkal District and for consequential permanent injunction. The suit was contested by filing written statement on 26.6.2002. The plaintiffs also filed I.A. No. 213 of 2002 along with the suit, in which, advocate-commissioner was appointed, who after inspecting the suit properties on 14.2.2002 filed report and rough plan. At the ti...
Tag this Judgment!Santha and Prabhavathy Vs. K.V. Janardhana Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ15
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 672 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Sub Court are the revision petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. This revision is directed against the order of dismissal dated 23.01.2004 and made in I.A. No. 953 of 2002 filed under Order XXVI Rules 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure to appoint a commissioner for effecting division of items 1 and 2 as per the preliminary decree dated 13.12.200 passed in O.S. No. 672 of 1987 directing him to file a report with plans taking into consideration value, quality and provision for convenient enjoyment of the shares allotted to them. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition in O.S. No. 672 of 1987 on the file of the Court of Additional Sub-Judge, Salem, and the suit properties consist of four items. The suit was contested by the defendants which resulted in passing of preliminary decree on 13.12.2000 in respect of item Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit prope...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kattuva Rowther Vs. the State, Rep. by D.i.G. of Police, Madurai Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC253
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. The only grievance ventilated by the petitioner before this Court in this original petition is that the petitioner and his son went to the Melur Police Station on 27.1.2005, where the Sub Inspector of Police was present and they were asked to wait from 12.00 noon to 10.30 p.m., and they were not even allowed to take their food and they could not come out; that at about 10.30 p.m., they were asked to withdraw the complaint; that on the next morning, they met the Inspector of Police and a report was made; that he also insisted that the complaint should be withdrawn and under the stated circumstances, the petitioner could not ventilate his grievance against the opposite party either, or a case is registered against the wrong doers, and hence action has got to be taken against the erring police officials.2. Heard the learned counsel for the State also.3. Under the stated circumstances, it would be suffice to issue a direction to the second respondent, Superintend...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »