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.
Dr. Rajendran S/O. Veerappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Rama Chidambaram S/O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: III(2006)BC113; (2006)3MLJ924
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the order dated 11.12.2003 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai in I.A. No. 15 of 2003 and LA. No. 135 of 2003 in O.S. No. 205 of 2002, allowing the Petitions filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, directing the Parties to settle the dispute by Arbitration and dismissing the Suit in O.S. No. 205 of 2002. The Plaintiffs are the Revision Petitioners.2. The Plaintiffs are Father and Son. Case of the Plaintiffs is that Second Plaintiff-Ravichandran and Defendants 2 and 3 were doing Partnership Business under the name and style of 'G.S. Garments International' dealing in leather products. The Partnership Agreement was entered into on 9.9.1990 and amended on 27.12.1990. Second Partnership Agreement was entered into between the Second Plaintiff and the Defendants on 27.6.1996. After two years, the Partnership Business was closed and the Partners have entered into a Compromise...
V.K. Seshasayee and anr. Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: (2005)6CompLJ463(Mad); [2006]66SCL414(Mad)
D. Murugesan, J.1. The applicants are the ex-directors of the company in liquidation, viz., M/s. Seshasayee Industries Limited. They have approached this court seeking for a direction to the official liquidator to effectively represent in the proceedings initiated by the ICICI Limited and now pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai, in O. A. No. 355 of 2001 so as to protect the interest of creditors, workers and shareholders.2. The cause for this application, as could be seen from the affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants, is as follows :The company in liquidation was ordered to be wound up on February 20, 1996, by this court in C. P. No. 39 of 1994 pursuant to the recommendation of the BIFR under Section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1986. Even before the company was ordered to be wound up, one of the secured creditors of the company, viz., ICICI Ltd. instituted a Suit No. 3781 of 1994 on the file of the High Court, Mumbai. The High Co...
Mrs. Ismail Beebi Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3570
M. Chockalingam, J.1. The sole accused in a case of murder on being found guilty as per the charge and awarded life imprisonment by the Court of Sessions, Erode, in S.C. No. 208 of 1998 has preferred the present appeal.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could be stated thus :-P.W.1 is a resident of Vellakoil Kacherivalasu. The appellant also belongs to the same village. The appellant was having two children, one aged about four years and the other aged about four months. She was deserved by her husband who went over t durai. On the date of occurrence, namely, on 20.9.97, at about 7.00 p.m., when P.W.1 was returning from the temple after attending nature's call, she found the appellant going near the well having one child over her shoulder and taking the other child by her hand. The appellant on nearing the well threw the four months old baby child into the well. This was witnessed by P.W.1. When the appellant attempted to throw the other child also, P.W.1 stop...
Smt. I. Veluthai, W/O Late Irulandi, Proprietor of Lucky Xerox and Tel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC525; (2005)4MLJ516
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.4609 of 1998 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the judgment dated 4.9.2001 in C.M.A.No.106 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras reversing the interim injunction granted in I.A.No.10676 of 1998 by the V Assistant Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the revision petitioner/plaintiff except under due process of law, by allowing the appeal.2. The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.4609 of 1998 for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property except under due process of law claiming that as per orders dated 25.7.1993 and 1.10.1993 issued by the respondents/defendants her deceased...
R. Ayyasamy Vs. Ganesan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ190
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Revision is preferred against the order of the Additional District Munsif, Kallakuruchi, made in I.A.No. 2993 of 1998 in O.S.No. 747 of 1990, dated 27-01-1999, dismissing the Application filed under Section 151 C.P.C., declining to condone the delay of 1024 days in representing the Petition to set aside the exparte decree. The 11th Defendant Ayyasamy, is the Revision Petitioner.2. The relevant facts for disposal of this Revision Petition could briefly be stated thus:-a) O.S.No. 747 of 1990:- Claiming through one Ayyangkutty, the Plaintiffs have filed the Suit for 1/3rd share in the suit properties. The parties are related as under:- Perumal(Died in 1950)|_________________________________________________________________| | |Guardu Sadayan Ayyangkutty@ Chinnapaiyan(Died in 1965) (Died in 1985) (Died in 1982)| |_______________________________________ ____________________________| | | | | | | | |Ramasamy Ayyakannu Dhanapal Pip Pappa Jaya Selvamani Annamalai Gan...
Chandran and Ashokan Vs. Gopalakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ680
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioners in all the revision petitions are the landlords. These revisions are directed against the orders of dismissal of R.C.O.P.Nos. 1 to 3 of 1994 on the file of the Rent Control (District Munsif) Court, Gobichettipalayam, as per orders dated 6.8.1996, filed for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and also on the ground of denial of title, as confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Gobichettipalayam in R.C.A.Nos. 3 to 5 of 1996, as per judgments dated 19.8.1997.2. Though all the revision petitions arise out of separate judgments, since the landlords in all these revision petitions are one and the same and similar question of law and fact arises, all these revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order.3. The revision petitioners/landlords filed R.C.O.P.Nos. 1 to 3 of 1994 against the respondents/tenants for eviction from the petition premises. These Rent Control...
Krishnaru and Prasanth Vs. Incorporated and Unincorporated Devaswams R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC608; (2005)4MLJ270
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The appellants/defendants, who were unable to satisfy the first appellate Court, in a petition to amend the written statement, are the revision petitioners.2. The respondent in this revision, moved the District Munsif's Court, Kuzhithurai for declaration of title in respect of an immovable property, measuring 68 cents, in old Survey No. 1116-A, co-related to new Survey Nos. 552/2 and a portion of 552/1, with a consequential prayer of permanent injunction or in the alternative for recovery of possession, claiming title to the suit property, further alleging that while re-survey took place, the authorities have wrongly classified the suit property as patta land, issuing patta to the defendants, with among other grounds.3. The suit was resisted by the defendants/revision petitioners contending that at any point of time, the suit property was not a poramboke, that the entire area in re-survey Nos. 552/1 and 552/2 belongs to the defendants, which was gifted to th...
Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ48
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 11.04.2005, passed in W.P.Nos. 5700 to 570 3 of 2005.2. Writ Appeal No. 832 of 2005 has been filed against the order passed in W.P.No. 5700 of 2005 for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents therein to permit the petitioner to draw samples for analysis of goods for a test report by an independent agency in respect of the goods under detention pertaining to Bill of Entry Nos. 7020 63 and 702064 dated 20.10.2004. The other three writ appeals namely., W.A.Nos. 833, 834 and 835 of 2005 have been filed against the common order passed in W.P.Nos. 5701, 5702 and 5703 of 2005 for a writ of mandamus to direct provisional assessment of the goods under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 while releasing the goods pertaining to Bill of Entry Nos. 695193 dated 07.10.2004, 702063 dated 20.10.2004 and 70 2064 dated 20.10.2004.3. The appellant is a manufacturing uni...
Gupta Enterprises Rep. by Its Partner Mr. Krishna Kishore Vs. the Prin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: [2006]145STC453(Mad)
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner, claiming to be the largest exporter of sandal wood, prays for a mandamus to forbear the respondents from making any claim or demand for the payment of demurrage charges and penal charges from the petitioner in respect of the purchase orders issued by notices dated 7.9.1994, 8.9.1994 and 13.9.1994 by respondents-2 to 4 respectively.2. The petitioner was the successful bidder at the following auctions held for sale of sandal wood by the respondent/Forest Department:Sl. Place Date Quantity Amount Date of ConfirmationNo.1 Sathyamangalam 07/04/1994 23 M.Tonnes 48,81,500/- 13/9/1994 2 Salem 07/06/1994 63 M.Tonnes 1,43,48,000/- 09/08/1994 3 Tirupattur 07/08/1994 123.500 M.Tonnes 2,64,58,650/- 09/07/1994 3. According to the petitioner, all the confirmation orders were received by them on 30.9.1994. It is their further case that purchases were for export and hence, exempt from sales tax, as provided under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act....
C. Ramamoorthy and C. Suganabai Vs. T.M. Balakrishna Mudaliar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC252; (2005)4MLJ189
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs/decree holders are the revision petitioners. The revision is filed against the refusal for numbering the execution petition filed under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. for executing the decree obtained by the plaintiffs in T.P.T.O.S.No. 13 of 1975 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Tirupattur.2. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No. 13 of 1975 on the file of District Munsif, Tirupattur, for bare injunction and the suit, after contest, was decreed on 30.01.1976. The judgment of the trial Court was reversed by lower appellate Court by judgment dated 20.08.1977 and on appeal by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs, the decree and judgment of the trial Court was confirmed by this Court by judgment dated 15.12.1980. At the time of filing of the suit, the suit properties were situated within the jurisdiction of District Munsif Court, Tirupattur, being the lands situated in Sathambakkam and Peria Kammesw...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »