Chennai Court April 2005 Judgments
Kandavel, Vs. Chidambara Padayachi (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC344
T.V. Masilamani, J.1. The defendants who have lost before both the courts below are the appellants.2. The first respondent (since deceased)/plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of title to the suit property and for permanent injunction against the appellants herein/defendants. The trial court having considered the recorded evidence and upon hearing both sides granted the decree as prayed for with costs. The appellants herein filed the first appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore and the learned Subordinate Judge after considering the evidence both oral and documentary and upon hearing the arguments on either side dismissed the appeal with costs by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Hence, this Second Appeal.3. The facts leading to the filing of the suit may be set out briefly hereunder:-(a) The plaintiff purchased the suit property from Renganayaki Ammal and Singaravelu Padayachi for Rs. 10,000/- on 14.8.1980 by means of a registered sale dee...
Tag this Judgment!Pappayammal Vs. Palanisamy, Sellammal (Died) and Rukmani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad431; 2005(3)CTC292; (2005)3MLJ32
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Pappayammal, appellant herein, filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants 1 and 2 and the said suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, she filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which, in turn, confirmed the same and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Second Appeal, as against the concurrent judgments.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows :One Kuppanna Gounder purchased two items of the suit property under Ex.B-1, dated 14.12.1932, and Ex.B-2, dated 19.07.1934 respectively. The said Kuppanna Gounder had two wives, namely, Muthammal and Sellammal. He got a son through his first wife, Muthammal, by name Duraisamy Gounder. After the death of Muthammal, Kuppanna Gounder married Sellammal, the second defendant, through whom, the first defendant Palanisamy was born. The said Kuppanna Gounder died on 30.07.1939, leaving behind his son Duraisamy Gounder, born through his first wife Muthammal, and the second w...
Tag this Judgment!Vattavila Sree Bhadrakali Educational Society, Rep. by Its President, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC328; (2005)3MLJ47
M. Thanikachalam, J. 1. The plaintiff society, who was successful in getting a decree as prayed for in O.S. No. 5934/1987 on the file of the VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, failed to sustain the same, when it was challenged before the first appellate Court in A.S. No. 300/92 on the file of the V Additional City Civil Judge and the result is this second appeal by the plaintiff. 2. Facts necessary to dispose of the appeal, as pleaded:- (a) The plaintiff society by name Vattavila Sree Bhadrakali Educational Society had established two schools by name Sridevi Girl's Higher Secondary School, Kollamcode and Sridevi Primary School, Panavila, Kollamcode, Kanyakumari District in the years 1977 and 1979 respectively. The two educational institutions are under the control and management of the plaintiff society, which was formed with a view to mitigate the lack of sufficient facilities, for the education of the linguistic minorities of Kanyakumari District. (b) The members of the Socie...
Tag this Judgment!Capt. P.K. Passi and ors. Vs. Nepc India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: [2006]131CompCas176(Mad); (2005)3MLJ204
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J. 1. These Company Petitions are filed under Section 433, 437 and 439 of the Companies Act for winding up of the respondent Company viz.,NEPC India Limited.2. According to the petitioners, they were employed as Pilots in the Respondent-Company. Salareies for the petitioners were not paid for a long period of time and their claims are as follows:-C.P.Nos Name of the petitioner Amount claimed193/99 Capt.P.K.Passi Rs.13,24,600/=194/99 Capt.P.K.Ayre Rs.11,23,564/=195/99 Capt.S.K.Deb Rs.13,99,488/=196/99 Capt.Deb Ranjan Das Rs.2,33,571/=197/99 Capt.H.N.Bavana Rs.9,59,216/=201/99 Capt.D.K.Das Rs.8,31,195/=In view of the inability of the respondent company to pay the salaries and for the reasons that the substratum of the company had collapsed and also for the reason also that the company was incapable of discharging its debts and liability, the petitioners had sought for winding up of the company under the provisions of the Company Act. 3. While the respondent have not ...
Tag this Judgment!J. Ameergani, W/O. Jaheer Hussai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC790
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. The present habeas corpus petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu who has been detained as per the detention order dated 13.12.2004, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City. The said order of preventive detention has been passed under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' read with orders issued by the Government in G.O. (D) Ho.258, Prohibition end Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18th October 2004.2. The grounds of detention disclose that the detenu Jaheer Hussain and his associates were engaged in illegal activities of copying and selling of new cinema films and obscene films without copyright and a case had been, registered under Section 292-A, I.P.C. read with 51-B read with 63B and 52A read with 68A of the Copyright...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmalingam Vs. Chakkravarthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC93; (2005)2MLJ633
S.K. Krishnan, J.1. The review application is filed against the judgment and decree dated 8.8.2003 passed in S.A.No. 1887 of 2002 by E. Padmanabhan, J.2. The petitioner is the appellant in S.A.No. 1887 of 2002. The above said second appeal was dismissed on 8.8.2003. However, aggrieved by the judgment and decree, which suffers from apparent error on the face of the record, the unsuccessful appellant, has come forward with the review application.3. Heard both sides.4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in para 10 of the judgment it is stated that the constructions were put up during the year 1988 by encroaching the suit property. However, the learned Judge came to a conclusion that the filing of the suit in the year 1998 by the plaintiff is an early action.5. Further, the learned counsel would contend that when it is admitted that the construction was put up in the year 1988 and the suit was filed in the year 1998, i.e. after ten years from the period of co...
Tag this Judgment!Manager (P and A), Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. G. Radhakr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ697
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge in setting aside the order of the appellant dated February 18, 1999, in and by which, the appellant informed the respondent herein that his term of employment expired and therefore, he would be relieved on and from March 31, 1999.2. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that the respondent joined as a 'security supervisor' in 1983 in the appellant-Corporation as contract labourer. The contractor was stated to be one Thai Security. Subsequently, in the year 1987, the contractor got changed and another establishment, called Priyadharshini Indira Gandhi Security Services came into picture and the respondent continued to serve in the same capacity as a 'contract labourer'. Subsequently, by an order dated January 21, 1988, the respondent was directly employed by the appellant- Corporation as 'security supervisor' with effect from January 13, 1988 for a fixed period. Similar su...
Tag this Judgment!The Icici Bank Ltd. (Formerly Icici Ltd.) Rep. by Its Board of Directo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC82
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Defendants 2 and 3 in C.S. No. 182 of 2005 on the file of the Original Side of this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 22.3.2005 made in O.A. No. 217 of 2005 filed in that suit, have preferred the above Original Side Appeal.2. Even at the admission stage, contesting respondents-1 and 2 are represented by counsel.3. Heard Mr. P.L. Narayanan, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. Sriram Panchu, learned Senior Counsel for respondents-1 and 2.4. In the light of the order to be passed here under, we are of the view that it is unnecessary for us to refer all the factual matrix as stated by both parties. Further, the learned single Judge has narrated the case of both the parties as culled out from the affidavit and counter affidavit filed before him.5. Respondents-1 and 2 herein filed C.S. No. 182 of 2005 before the Original Side of this Court seeking for a relief of declaration that the consent decree dated 23.06.2000 in Suit No. 535 of 2000 on the file of the High Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sarojini (Recorded as Legal Representative of the Deceased Smt. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC308; (2005)2MLJ543
S.K. Krishnan, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.S. No. 178 of 1981, dated 22.4.1992, the third defendant has preferred this original side appeal.2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:The plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein, has filed a suit against the defendants, for the following main reliefs:a) for partition and separate possession of the plaint A Schedule properties by metes and bounds and allot to her one fourth share in all the properties and valuing the B Schedule properties and deliver her 1/4th share therein to the plaintiff;b) for directing the defendant to pay the marriage expenses of the unmarried plaintiff to be paid from out of the estate; andc) for directing the defendants 1 and 2 to render a true and proper account of the mesne profits from 'A' Schedule and item 1 of the B Schedule property and pay her 1/4th share therein.3. On the basis of the oral and documentary eviden...
Tag this Judgment!K. Venkatesan and ors. Vs. State Bank of India, Rep. by Its Chairman,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: (2006)ILLJ1048Mad
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. The above two writ petitions and the connected writ petitions are disposed of by this common order, since common questions of law and facts are involved. We are treating W.P. Nos. 4858 and 4859 of 2001 as the leading cases. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in all these petitions and have perused the record. 3. W.P.No.4858 of 2001 has been filed for an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Clause 7 captioned 'Other Features' in the Circular No.Cir D.O. VRS:1 dated 02.01.2001 issued by the 2nd respondent as void, illegal and unconstitutional. 4. The prayer in W.P.No.4859 of 2001 is for the issuance of a writ, order or direction declaring the impugned order in Letter No.HRD/CDO/VRS/764 dated 02.02.2001 of the 3rd respondent therein and the consequent impugned order of the 2nd respondent therein in Letter No.HRD/CDO/VRS/853 dated 23.02.2001as void, illegal and unconstitutional. 5. Clause - 7 of the impugned Circular No.Cir D.O. VRS:...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »