Chennai Court April 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.
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its Chairman Cum Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC267; (2005)IILLJ926Mad; (2005)2MLJ539
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 25.3.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 12356 of 2003.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and find no merit in this appeal.3. The respondent was an employee of the appellant. By order dated 4.12.2000 he was removed from the service of the appellant as he was invalidated on medical grounds and found not suitable for the post of Heavy Passenger Vehicle Driver and he was removed from duty with immediate effect. The disability which he incurred was spinal problem (Disc Prolapse - L4, L5 & L5 S1).4. The respondent filed the writ petition which has been allowed by the learned single Judge and hence this appeal. We fully agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge.5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent did not incur the injury in the course of his employment. In our opinion this submission is misconceived. It may be noted t...
Formation of Indian Network Marketing Association, Rep. by Its Preside ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ526
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 07.01.2005, passed in W.P.No.22674 of 2004. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. 3. In our opinion, this appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of lack of locus standi. The appellant was not a party in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by M/s. Apple FMCG Marketing Pvt. Ltd., which is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The prayer in the writ petition was for a mandamus restraining respondents from interfering with the business activities of the petitioner - company in selling its products through its distributors by using the network marketing system. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned singe Judge by his order dated 07.01.2005. 4. The writ petitioner has not filed this appeal. Instead, it has been filed by an Association which claims to have been formed to redress the grievances of its members...
Hindu Community in General and Citizens of Gobichettipalayam Senniappa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ149
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. An interesting question of law arises in the appeal in A.S. No. 851 of 1989 regarding the character of the Will left by one Palaniappa Chettiar (testator) and his wife Chinnammal @ Rangammal (testatrix) and the question is whether the Will left by them dated 26.9.1968 is a joint Will or a joint and mutual Will. The question that arises in A.S. No. 606 of 1989 is whether the Will executed by Chinnammal @ Rangammal dated 27.11.1980 is a true, valid and genuine Will. Apart from the two questions in both the appeals, other points that arise are, whether the suit has been properly instituted after getting proper leave of the Court under Section 92, C.P.C., whether the properties left by the testator and the testatrix are trust properties and whether the trust has been validly created and also other incidental questions regarding the maintainability of the appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:(a) The plaintiffs are the appellants in A.S. No. 851 ...
Meena R. Sampath, Managing Director, Sri Venkatesa Paper and Boards Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: III(2006)BC44; [2006]134CompCas74(Mad); [2005]5CTC533
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. This O.P. has been brought forth by the petitioner, who faces trial in C.C. No. 286 of 2004 which was taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dindigul, under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C.2. The de facto complainant gave a complaint alleging that it rendered service to M/s. Sri Venkatesa Paper and Boards Ltd. for which there was a liability of Rs. 7,47,500 payable to the de facto complainant; that on the request of M/s. Sri Venkatesa Paper and Boards Ltd., through its Directors, the same was deposited in the fixed deposit, on the promise to return the same on maturity; that the same was also matured on 8.5.2001; that there was a further promise of returning the same with interest; that it was again renewed for one year; that despite the maturity of the same, it was not repaid, and hence, it has become necessary to initiate proceedings. On receipt of the complaint, a case came to be registered by the State through the first respondent police under ...
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its Regional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad274; 2005(2)CTC401; (2005)2MLJ385
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree of the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 23.9.2003 passed in A.S. No. 135 of 2000. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. We are deeply distressed by the facts of this case. The appellant is a Public Sector Corporation and therefore was expected to behave like an ideal person, but in this case we find that it has been illegally retaining possession of the property in dispute for 16 years after 1989 when its lease had admittedly come to an end. These days, unfortunately, some people are illegally holding on to the property over which they have no right to continue in possession once the period of the lease or grant ceases to exist. This is most improper and cannot be appreciated by this Court, particularly since the appellant which is a Public Sector Undertaking must know how to respect the law.4. The suit, from which this appeal has arisen, was filed b...
Management of WavIn India Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: [2006(106)FLR557]
P.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The challenge in these writ appeals is to the order of the learned single Judge, dated December 14, 2000 in W.P.Nos. 3556 of 1998, 5685 of 1998 to 5690 of 1998 and 5711 of 1998 to 5722 of 1998.2. The challenge in the above said writ petitions was to the two common awards passed by the first respondent-Labour Court in I.D.Nos. 195 of 1990 to 200 of 1990, 240 of 1990, 241 of 1990 and 701 of 1990 to 713 of 1990, dated March 31, 1997 respectively. Under the said awards, the first respondent-Labour Court directed the appellant to reinstate the concerned workmen with continuity of service, with full back wages and other attendant benefits less the amount already paid by way of compensation.3. The brief facts which led to the raising of the above disputes are required to be stated. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of PVC pipes. The respective second respondent in these appeals were all employed under the appellant. It is stated that after the expiry of...
V.S. Jagadeesan Vs. Madar Saheb,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ467
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The second defendant in O.S. No. 127 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore is the revision petitioner. The revision is filed challenging the order dated 8.4.2004, dismissing the petition I.A. No. 272 of 2004 filed under Order XIV Rule 2(ii) read with Section 151 C.P.C. to try the issue with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction as preliminary issue. 2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title to the suit properties and for possession; for declaration that the power of attorney deed dated 21.1.1999 obtained by the first defendant by fraud and misrepresentation is not binding on the plaintiff and also for declaration that the sale deeds dated 27.1.1997, 29.1.1997 and 16.9.1999 executed by the first defendant in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 under the invalid power of attorney deed are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.3. The plaintiff claims title to the suit properties as grant made by th...
V. Mohanan and V. Ramesh Vs. K. Thanickachalam,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ530
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above original side appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.11.2004 made in Original Application No. 696 of 2004 in C.S. No. 685 of 2004, in and by which, the learned Judge dismissed the said application filed for injunction, pending disposal of the suit.2. The appellants / plaintiffs filed a civil suit in C.S. No. 685 of 2004 against the respondents herein / defendants therein, praying for a decree declaring that the final decree dated 19.01.1987 passed in I.A. No. 30274 of 1974 in O.S. No. 3631 of 1961 as amended on 08.04.1 991 is null and void, declaring their title to the suit property and for consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Pending disposal of the said suit, the plaintiffs filed O.A. No. 69 6 of 2004, praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession...
Mazdoor Welfare Trust, Represented by Its Managing Trustee, N.V. Devi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad392; 2005(2)CTC368; (2005)2MLJ502
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above Original Side Appeals have been filed against common order dated 24-2-2005 made in Application Nos. 1223/2004; 1 224/2004; 779/2004; and 780/2004 respectively in C.S. No. 160/2004 on the file of Single Judge of this Court. By the said order, the learned Single Judge held that Leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was properly granted in favour of the plaintiffs to file a suit in respect of affairs of Mazdoor Welfare Trust on the file of Original Side of this Court and also confirmed the Leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. He also dismissed the Applications to revoke the leave granted.2. Heard Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, learned senior counsel for the appellants; Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel for respondents 1 to 3; M. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for fifth respondent; and Mr. R. Krishnasamy, learned senior counsel for sixth respondent.3. The Southern Railway Mazdoor Union represented through its General Secretar...
American Baptist Foreign Mission Society, a Corporation Duly Establish ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC243
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The above Original Side Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 10.12.2004 made in Original Application No. 4740 of 2004 in C.S. No. 124 of 1994. The learned Judge, after holding that the applicant therein, a third party, cannot have any say in the matter in dispute, rejected its request to implead it as a party.2. The respondents 1 to 5 in this appeal filed a suit in O.S. No. 124 of 1994 on the file of the this Court under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for removal of the first defendant Company, viz., The Property Association of Baptist Churches Private Ltd., from the post of Trusteeship of the properties mentioned in Schedule I, prohibiting the second defendant/7th respondent herein from associating itself with the administration of the Trust, enquiring into the affairs of the Trustee Company, as to its income, expenditure and outgoing for the period from 1980 onwards, enquiring into several transfers of immovable...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »