Chennai Court May 2005 Judgments
P.T. Ummer Koya, Hon. Secretary, All India Chess Federation Vs. Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC86
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issue raised is one and the same in both the appeals, they are being disposed of by the following common order. O.S.A. No. 65 of 2005 has been filed against the order of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 17-03-2005 made in Application No. 755 of 2005 in C.S. No. 52 of 2005 in and by which the learned Judge dismissed the said application filed to revoke the leave to sue granted in Application No. 279/2005 in C.S. No. 52/2005 dated 25-1-2005. O.S.A. No. 72/2005 has been filed against order of the learned Judge dated 28-0 3-2005 passed in Application No. 1453/2005 in C.S. No. 211 of 2005 on the file of Original jurisdiction of this Court in and by which the learned Judge dismissed the said application filed to revoke the leave to sue granted to the plaintiffs for filing suit on 2-3-2005 in Application No. 1088/2005 in C.S. No. 211/2005. The learned Judge by separate but giving identical reasons dismissed both the applications; hence the above appeals.2...
Tag this Judgment!Natesan Vs. Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ388
S.K. Krishnan, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1994 passed in A.S. No. 12 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvellur, which was preferred against the Judgment and decree in O.S. No. 76 of 1986 , dated 23.12.1989 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvellur.2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:a. The plaintiff Natesan, one Govindarujulu Reddy, the defendant Ganesan and one Natarajan are the sons of Narayana Reddy of Mavoor village. The said Govindarujulu Reddy passed away leaving behind his wife Babyammal and two sons. During the year 1975 i.e. on 13.7.1975 there was a partition effected between the four sharers as a result of that a Kur chit was written to effect the said partition. The plaintiff was allotted one share which is the subject matter of the suit. From the date of partition the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of his respective share. He is residing in the first item of the property after constructing a hut th...
Tag this Judgment!M.i. Ibrahim Kutty Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Maruthanvode Branch Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad335; IV(2005)BC82; 2005(3)CTC274
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This revision is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, dated 18.11.2004, made in E.P. No. 30/2004 in L.A.O.S. No. 10/2001, ordering that E.P. No. 30/2004 is to be proceeded further. The Defendant/Judgment Debtor is the Revision Petitioner.2. The Indian Overseas Bank, Maruthanvode Branch, Edaicode Post, Kanyakumari District, is the Plaintiff. The Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 from the Plaintiff Bank on Demand Promissory Notes and Deed of Hypothecation. In security for the loan, the Defendant had also executed a Simple Mortgage Deed in respect of the properties, by deposit of Title Deeds, on 7.5.1991. Claiming Rs. 4,63,007, with subsequent interest and cost the Plaintiff Bank has filed the suit O.S. No. 10/2001. The suit was referred to Lok Adalat, Kuzhithurai. In the Lok Adalat both the Plaintiff Bank and the Defendant have agreed for a compromise and the Award was passed on 9.10.2003, in the terms of the compromise. The te...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Control for Cricket in India, (Bcci), Rep. by Its Secretary V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC609; 2006(1)CTLJ495(Mad); (2005)2MLJ653
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 21.03.2005 passed in W.P. No. 4120 of 2005. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.3. W.A. No. 636 of 2005 has been filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter referred to as 'BCCI') having its registered office at M.A. Chidambaram Stadium, Chennai. W.A. No. 676 of 2005 has been filed against the same order of the learned single Judge by Zee Telefilms Limited (hereinafter referred to as Zee) which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 4120 of 2005. W.A. No. 638 of 2005 has been filed by Mr. Jagmohan Dalmiya, the Chairman of the BCCI.4. W.P. No. 4120 of 2005, in which the impugned order was delivered, was filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent - BCCI in its communication dated 21.09.200 4 cancelling the tender process dated 07.08.2004, to quash the same and consequently direct the first resp...
Tag this Judgment!Venkadasan K., Secretary N.L.C.i.T.i. Apprentice Welfare Association V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ694
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge dated December 17, 2004 made in W.P.No. 35562 of 2003, in and by which, the learned single Judge declined to interfere with the settlement dated May 18, 1995 reached under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act between Management and Workmen of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited (in short, 'N.L.C. Ltd.').2. The terms of the said settlement dated May 18, 1995 are as under:'I. It is agreed by the management that the workers engaged by the INDCOSERVE in various production units as on May 18, 1995 in N.L.C. shall be absorbed in a phased manner over a period of 5 years. This absorption will, however, depend upon requirements, qualifications, length and nature of experience of the persons so engaged and subject to a test and selection by competent executives.II. It is agreed by the parties that it will be left to the management as to how many workers are to be absorbed from one particular...
Tag this Judgment!Officine Lovata S.P.A. Vs. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(30)PTC465(Mad)
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. In the former application, this Court granted leave on 23.6.2004 under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to the plaintiff to file the suit before this Court. In the latter application, the defendants are before this Court to have the relief already granted revoked. Heard the learned counsel on either side.2. The plaintiff is before this on it's original side complaining infringement of the plaintiff's registered trade mark and for consequential reliefs. To bring the suit before this Court, the plaintiff relies upon the following causes of action:'The plaintiff has it's liaison office in India at Chennai and as they are carrying on business at Chennai within the jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and under Section 62(2) of the Copy Right Act, 1957, a suit can be instituted where the plaintiff actually or voluntarily resides or carries on business; the plaintiff is located at and carries on business at Chennai within the j...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›