Chennai Court July 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.
Mannariah and Sons (P) Ltd., Vs. M.M. Sankaranarayanan, S/O. M.R. Mann ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: [2007]138CompCas95(Mad)
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20.03.2003 passed by VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No. 9994 of 2000 in O.S.No. 8575 of 1996, condoning the delay of 1008 days in filing the Application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C to restore the Suit in O.S.No. 8575 of 1996, which has been dismissed for default. The Defendants are the Revision Petitioners. 2. The Plaintiff was the Company Executive of the First Defendant Company. Challenging the Notice of Revocation dated 24.04.1992 issued by the Board of Directors and the Second Defendant Chairman, revoking the services of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Declaration, declaring that the alleged revocation of his office of Managing Director of the Defendant Company is invalid, ineffective and void and that he has been and he continues to be the Managing Director of the First Defendant Company. The Suit was originally filed in May 1992 on the Original Side ...
K.M. Mohan Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad65; (2005)3MLJ689
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. By this common judgment, we dispose off the aforesaid two writ appeals, viz. W.A. No. 1172 of 2005, filed against the order dated 15-03-2005 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and W.A. No. 1455 of 2005, filed against the interlocutory order dated 25-4-2005, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.M.P. No. 14987 of 2005 in W.P. No. 13681 of 2005.3. Facts, in brief, are: The appellant in both these appeals was the lessee in respect of the building belonging to the respondent Municipality, wherein he was running a hotel business since 1988. When the lease period, which was renewed periodically once in three years, expired on 31-3-2005, the respondent-Municipality refused to grant further renewal of the lease in favour of the appellant and directed him to vacate the building as it was resolved by the Municipality to demolish the existing structure and to put up a new construction and to lease out the building by...
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Chief Engineer, National Hig ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC368
P.K. Misra, J. 1. These two appeals have been filed by the State Government under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. O.S.A. No. 7 of 2000 is directed against the order in O.P. No. 558 of 1995, which has been filed by Respondent No. 1, for filing the award and making it a Rule of Court. O. S.A. No. 8 of 2000 is filed against the order in O.P. No. 328 of 1996 dismissing the application of the appellant under Section 30/33 of the Act to set aside the award.2. The relevant facts are narrated hereunder :-By agreement dated 10.10.1974, Respondent No. 1 was awarded the contract relating to construction of a bridge across Pamban Strait. Value of the contract was Rs. 5,13,08,000/- and the work was to be completed within 48 months from 17.11.1974, the date on which the site was handed over. The period for completion of the work was extended by the Government from time to time and was last extended till 31.12.1980. On account of a severe cyclone on 24.11.1978, Respondent No. 1 suffered heav...
Velusamy and Sekar Vs. M. Ponnusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC191
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J. 1.The Revision Petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S. No. 247/2001, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Namakkal. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to the suit cart track referred to in the plaint rough Plan and also for such other reliefs. 2. The respondent/plaintiff also filed an Application I.A. No. 471/2001 in O.S. No. 247/2001, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Namakkal, for interim injunction, restraining the Revision Petitioners/defendants, not to disturb the respondent/plaintiff from using the suit cart track. The said I.A. No. 471/2001, after contest, was dismissed as per the order dated 4.7.2001, on finding that even at the time of filing of the suit, the suit cart track was closed, which fact has not been stated in the plaint by the respondent/plaintiff. 3. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application I.A. No. 637/2001, in O.S. No. 247/2001, on...
T.N. Anantha Rao and K. Kandasamy Vs. N. Bhanumoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC314; (2005)3MLJ675
R. Banumathi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 26.09.2000 in I.A.No. 11399 of 1997 in O.S.No. 12547 of 1996, allowing the Application filed under Order IX Rule 9 r/w Section 151 C.P.C and thereby restoring the Suit in O.S.No. 12547 of 1996 on file. Defendants 1 and 2 are the Revision Petitioners. 2. O.S.No. 3133 of 1986:- The Suit was filed by the Revision Petitioners / Defendants against the Plaintiff and two others for Possession and other reliefs. The said Suit was decreed by Judgment and Decree dated 21.07.1995. Two other Defendants in O.S.No. 3133 of 1986 are the Plaintiff's Younger Brother by name N.Phaneerudrudu and the Plaintiff's Brother-in-law. The Judgment and Decree in O.S.No. 3133 of 1986 was confirmed in A.S.No. 230 of 1995. The concurrent findings of the Courts below were confirmed in S.A.No. 605 of 1996. The said Second Appeal was dismissed even in the admission stage. 3. O.S.No. 12547...
The Tamil Nadu, Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Chairman and Assistant ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ601
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 30.4.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 5255 of 2004.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 3. In the impugned order, the learned Judge has observed as follows:'The respondents are directed to give electricity connection by strengthening the existing transformer available nearer to the premises of the petitioners on payment of necessary amount by the petitioners.'4. In our opinion, it was not proper for the learned Judge to give such a direction.5. Ordinarily, the Judiciary should not encroach into the Legislative or Executive domain vide Rama.Muthuramalingam vs . Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mannargudi, : AIR2005Mad1 . There is a broad separation of powers under the Constitution and it is not proper for Judges to encroach into the sphere of another organ of the State. By the impugned order, the learned Judge, with due resp...
Sudha Moulee, Teacher Training Institution, rep. by Its President M. L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC671; (2005)3MLJ650
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 23.6.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 37397 of 2004.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order and find no infirmity in the same.3. The appellant institution wanted to start a D.TEd Course at Thirukannur, Pondicherry State. The National Council for Teachers' Education, Southern Regional Committee made an inspection and found certain infirmities and hence refused to grant recognition to the institution. Against that order, the appellant filed appeal before the National Council for Teachers' Education, New Delhi, which has remanded the matter back to the second respondent for verifying the claims of the institution by causing an inspection. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are no provisions in the NCTE Act or Rules for remand of an appeal. In our opinion, such a power is an inherent power of the appellate aut...
Sarala Srinath Rep. by Her Power of Attorney Agent, M.R. Bhaskaran S/O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC176; [2006]66SCL107(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the common order dated 17.12.2004 passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Appln.Nos.1170 & 1172 of 2004 arising out of Company Petition Nos.233 to 238 of 1999.2. Company Petition Nos.233 to 238 of 1999 were filed on 26.7.1999 for winding up of R.P.S. Benefit Fund Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act. By order dated 28.6.2004 in C.A.No.287 of 200 4, arising out of C.P.Nos.233 to 238 of 1999, the learned Company Judge granted permission to effect paper publication for sale of 221.5.9 acres of land in Kancheepuram district. The present dispute relates to 4.50 acres of land in Sirukaveripakkam and 12.72 acres of land in Keelambi. Pursuant to the said order, sale notice was published on 21.7.2004. On 31.8.2004, two applications were filed by the present appellants. The affidavits in support of the applications were sworn to by Mr. Bhaskaran, who is the power of attorney holder of the applicant in C.A.No.1170 of ...
Kln Sowrashtra College of Engineering Council Rep. by Its Secretary Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC207; (2005)3MLJ683
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 11.11.2002. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. The appellant was respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, but without even issuing notice to the appellant the writ petition was disposed off with a direction to the authority to make an enquiry into the complaints made by the writ petitioner.3. It is the first principle of justice that no order should be passed against a party without hearing that party. In this case, with due respect to the learned single Judge, he has violated that fundamental rule of justice, inasmuch as without even issuing notice to respondent No. 4 in the writ petition (appellant before us) he has passed the final order directing enquiry against the appellant. In our opinion, such an order could only have been passed, if at all, after giving a hearing to the appellant. Hence a fundamental rule of natural justice has been ...
P.R. Kannaiyan (Died) and ors. Vs. Ramasamy Mandiri, S/O. Govinda Mand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC457
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. The present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent was filed by the plaintiff. During pendency of the appeal, on his death, the legal representatives have been impleaded as appellants 2 to 8. The appeal is confined to items 9 and 17 of the suit schedule.2. The suit was filed for partition claiming 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. The trial Court had decreed the suit in part in respect of items 1, 2, 3, 6 to 18, 20, 22 to 24 and 28 and rejected the claim for partition in respect of items 4, 5, 19, 21, 25 to 27, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff was arrayed as the first respondent and defendants 4 and 5 were arrayed as respondents 2 and 3 in the first appeal. Even though the appeal was filed in respect of the decreed items of property, as apparent from the judgment of the learned single Judge, at the time of final hearing, the appellants before the single Judge confined their submissions with regard to items 9 and 17 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »