Chennai Court June 2005 Judgments
Periasamy, Vs. Allimuthu,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ425
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This revision is preferred against the order made in I.A.No.858/2002 in O.S.No.710/1996, dated 29.7.2003, on the file of the Addl. District Munsif, Namakkal, allowing the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on payment of cost of Rs. 1000/- and condoning the delay in filing the petition to set aside abatement and the application to implead Legal Representatives of deceased Kaliammal. The Defendants are the Revision Petitioners.2. Plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the suit property and to allot 3/5th share to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants are related as under:-Marappa Gounder died on 2.7.1987= Kaliammal (P-1) died on 28.11.2000||-------------------------------------------| | | |Periasamy-D-1 Allimuthu Nallammal Perumayee-D-2| || |Minor Selvi GurumurthyD-3 Proposed Legal Representative3. Case of the Plaintiff is that Marappa Gounder died intestate on 2.7.1987. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants 1 and 2 are the Legal Representa...
Tag this Judgment!C.S.i. Church Devanankuruchi Rep. by Its Power of Attorney Rt. Rev. Dr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ418
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of District Munsif, Thiruchengode, made in I.A. No. 678 of 2002 in I.A. No. 21 of 2002 in O.S. No. 6 of 2002 dated 8-7-2002, dismissing the petition filed under Section 151 C.P.C. declining to grant police protection. Plaintiffs are the Revision Petitioners.2. The case of the Plaintiffs is that there was a London Mission Church in Devanankuruchi Village and a London Mission Teachers house, both 2 cents each in S. No. 91. London Missionary Society had transferred all its property in favour of Church of South India under the registered document on 11-4-1965. Natham Survey - 0.04 cents was sub-divided as S. No. 326/8. The old Church in the Teachers house was dilapidated. Regarding the construction of the house, there was a panchayat between Christians and Non-Christians of Adi-Dravidar Community on 4-2-2001 and again on 1-8-2001. Subsequently on 5-9-2001, there was a conciliation meeting in the presence of Thasildar, Thir...
Tag this Judgment!M. Appadurai Vs. P. Radhakrishnan, Assistant Inspector of Labour-i and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ658Mad
P.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. D. Harikrishnan for the petitioner and Mr.D.Krishnakumar, Special Government Pleader for the second respondent.2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 20/4/1993 in M.W. No. 8/93 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in a proceeding under Section 20 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act. Such a proceeding had been initiated on the basis of the application filed by the first respondent, namely, The Assistant Inspector of Labour - I, Dharmapuri. In the impugned order, the second respondent has directed the present petitioner to pay the difference in minimum rates of wages of the various workers including one M. Dharman. 2. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present writ petition is confined to the order so far as it relates to M. Dharman. The main contention is that M. Dharman is not an employee under the present petitioner. 3. The present writ petition has been dismissed against the first respondent because of non-compliance of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Chandran Vs. Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)BC54
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. The complainant, in CC No. 204 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Coimbatore having failed in his attempt to get a conviction against the respondent/accused, has come to the Court as appellant, seeking the same relief.2. It is the case of appellant/complainant, that the accused/respondent along with another, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 90,000 on 4.7.1994, that in order to discharge the said debt, he had issued a cheque dated 19.3.1997 for a sum of Rs. 1,47,000, which includes interest, that when the cheque was tendered for collection, the same was returned with an endorsement 'funds insufficient', that even after the issue of mandatory notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount and in this view since he had committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, he should be dealt with accordingly.3. The accused/respondent upon appearance appears to have not only denied the liability, but also the issuance of the cheq...
Tag this Judgment!Muthulakshmi, W/O. Arumugham Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Chief S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC650; (2005)3MLJ421
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 21.11.2001 passed by the Third Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry in I.A. No. 2104 of 2001 in O.S. No. 626 of 1999, allowing the Application filed under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C to take up the issue of jurisdiction as the preliminary issue before going into other issues. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner. 2. For disposal of this Revision, we may briefly refer to the relevant facts:-The dry land bearing S. No. 209/3-A having an extent of 6 Hectares 11 acres 32 cents situated in Pillaichavady and Kalapet Villages in Oulgaret Commune were acquired by the Government for the purpose of establishment of Central University Phase IV under Award No. 1/87 dated 25.03.1987. An amount of Rs. 2,56,990/0- was awarded as compensation for the lands acquired by the Government. The Land Acquisition Officer could not decide the rightful ownership of the acquired lands, ordered the compensation amount to be d...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Sukhure Bhai Vs. Durai Kuppuswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad186; 2006(2)CTC211
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 9.12.1999, made in I.A. No. 415/1999 in O.S. No. 372/1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam, ordering police protection.2. The suit property relates to the vacant plot measuring 259 Sq.ft. in S. No. 319/part new S. No. 26, Palani, Gandhi Road, Arakkonam. 3. Case of the Plaintiff is that the suit property is a joint family property of Veeraragavalu and his brothers. The Plaintiff has purchased suit property from the said Veeraragavalu for valid consideration by the Sale Deed dated 23.9.1999. Since the date of purchase, the Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also the share of other brothers, which formed part and parcel of the suit property. The Defendants have no right or title over the suit property; but are attempting to interfere with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment and hence the suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants and...
Tag this Judgment!Express News Papers Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Sp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Mad)246; [2006]280ITR452(Mad)
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, in which the following questions of law are said to be involved:'(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in observing and directing the Assessing Officer to disallow the entire claim of depreciation if the facts are found that the scaffolding materials at the time of termination of lease is not recovered?(ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in exercising jurisdiction which results in enhancement of the assessment on the appellant when the Tribunal has no jurisdiction?(iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the depreciation on scaffolding material is not to be allowed at the rate of 100%?2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the material on record.3. The assessee is a public limited company deriving income from property, finance and leasing business. The relevant assessment year is 1989-90.4. The asse...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Home Departme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ698
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, dated 21.09.2001, made in O.A. No. 4266 of 1999, directing the Director General of Police to issue appointment order to the applicant Sathish Kumar (first respondent herein) as Grade-II Police Constable, the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department; Director General of Police, Chennai-4 and the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai, have filed W.P. No. 2265 of 2002. Questioning similar direction issued in O.A. No. 3903 of 1999, in the case of the applicant therein by name G.Spencer (first respondent herein), the very same Officers have filed another Writ Petition, that is, W.P. No. 2266 of 2002.2. Since both the Writ Petitions relate to similar order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, they are being disposed of by the following common order.3. In the light of the order to be passed here under, it is unnecessary to refer all the factual matrix as averre...
Tag this Judgment!K. Padmavathi, Vs. the Corporation of Coimbatore, Rep. by Its Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTLJ7(Mad); (2005)4MLJ11
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The writ petitioners are the appellants herein. They filed a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3, the Commissioner of Corporation and Corporation officials to allot the 144 newly constructed open shops in the public market, viz., Panneerselvam Market, Coimbatore either by way of lease or licence or on payment of daily sungam only in accordance with law and procedures prescribed therefor, instead of, arbitrarily allotting to the men and agents of the respondents 4 and 5, the individuals.2. The short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:'(a) Panneerselvam Public Market in Coimbatore is belonging to the Corporation of Coimbatore, the first respondent herein. It consists of 34 permanent shops including 12 Mutton Stalls and 5 Provision Stores. There is also a vast open area in front of the shops. (b) In accordance with the Bye-laws, the Corporation has been leasing out 34 permanent shops through Tender-cum-Public Auction on ...
Tag this Judgment!Federation of Pammal and Nagalkeni Welfare Association, Rep. by Its Ge ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ1
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Federation of Pammal and Nagalkeni Welfare Association has filed W.P.No.19969 of 2003, seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent District Collector, Kancheepuram; the second respondent Executive Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Department, Chennai; and the third respondent Executive Officer, Pammal Town Panchayat, not to dig up or damage any part of Pammal Thirupananthal Lake, its bunds and walls for the purpose of the proposed drainage work.2. K.S.V.Devanathan filed W.P.No.21769 of 2003 for issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the District Collector, Kancheepuram, third respondent, from proceeding with the construction of open sewerage drain water line on the bunds of Thirupananthal Lake and demolishing the bunds and inlets for the purpose of drainage work and to direct the second respondent Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to investigate into the matter regarding the same. 3. Since the issue involved in both th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »