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.
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rep. by Its Chairman and Superintending E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad400; (2005)3MLJ648
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the common judgment of the learned single Judge dated 23.4.99.2. Since common questions of law are involved we are disposing of these writ appeals by a common judgment. 3. We have heard Mr.V.R.Reddy, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Mr.G.Masilamani, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Mr.K.Alagiriswami, Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Advocates for the respondent-units and Mr.V.Raghupathi, learned Government Pleader. 4. The short question in this batch of appeals is whether the respondent-units are entitled to get the tariff concession in electricity supply under the proviso to High Tension Tariff I(a) of the Notification of the Government of Tamil Nadu Energy Department dated 14.2.97. 5. In this batch of cases we shall not discuss the individual facts of each of the respondent's cases as they are different in each case. We are only laying down the principle of law as to eligibility of tariff concess...
Triveni Alloys Limited, Rep. by Its Managing Director Ashok Goel Vs. B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: [2006]132CompCas190(Mad); (2006)5CompLJ79(Mad)
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the records. W.P. No.4481/2005 has been filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 24.1.2005 passed by the second respondent-Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation limited and to restrain respondents 2 to 6 from taking any action under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Securitisation Act'). W.P.No.32594/2003 has been filed for a writ of mandamus forbearing respondents 2 to 11 from initiating further proceedings until appeal in Appeal No.88/2003 dated 17.1.2003 on the file of the Hon'ble Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (R-1) is entertained and disposed of. 2. We have in the judgment in W.P.No.13056 of 2005 etc. batch, decided on 7.7.2005 (Digivision Electronics Ltd. v. Indian Bank), dealt with various arg...
Tarachand (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Kathija
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC255; (2005)3MLJ607
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This revision is directed against the order and decreetal order dated 4.10.2002 made in I.A. No. 21495/2000 in O.S. No. 50/1986 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, declining to condone the delay of 3,290 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the Petitioner in I.A. No. 8353/1991. The legal heirs of the deceased Inderchand Bothra are the Revision Petitioners.2. Relevant facts could briefly be stated thus :O.S. No. 50/1986.-- The Respondent has filed the suit for specific performance of contract relating to the house property in D. No. 974 Appavoo Mudali Street, Alandur. Case of the Plaintiff is that the deceased Inderchand Bothra had entered into an agreement of sale with the Plaintiff on 7.12.1985 to sell the suit property to the Plaintiff for Rs. 74,000 and received an advance of Rs. 5000 from the Plaintiff on 7.12.1985. The ...
Suresh Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1056
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. A. 1 to A. 3 are the appellants herein. Suresh Kumar alias Suresh, who is arrayed as A.I, Mohammed Ali alias Monu alias Jambu, who is arrayed as A. 2 and Narayanamoorthy alias Wins Moorthy, who is arrayed as A.3, have been convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 109, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Challenging the same, this appeal has been preferred.2. The short facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as follows :(a) The deceased-Ramalingam, P.W. 1 Appavoo, P.W, 2 Murugesan, are the friends of A.1 to A.8 are the residents of Kempatti Colony at Coimbatore. On 14-9-1997 at about 10 p.m. P.Ws. 1 and 2 along with the deceased went to Mahalakshmi Bakery to take tea. When they reached Mahalakshmi Bakery by travelling in a TVS moped, all the three accused, who were standing near Mahalakshmi Bakery, called them. P.W. 1 left the moped nearby and all of them went near the accused. A.3, Wins Moo...
Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Secretary, Railway Board, Min ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC703
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 10-02-2005 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, directing to fix the pension of the applicant (second respondent) for his service as Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal under Rule 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Rules read with para 9 of Part-I of Schedule I to the High Court Judges ( Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and as amended by Central Act 7 of 199 9 at Rs.51,190 per annum from 1-6-1998 and other allowable benefits, the Railway Administration has filed the above writ petition.2(a). The applicant-second respondent herein was directly elevated from the Bar as a Judge of the Madras High Court on 23-3-1990 and he retired on 31-5-1995 on attaining the age of 62 years. When he was serving as a Judge of the Madras High Court, he was appointed as Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi under the order dated 20-01-1995 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways. The appointment was for a period of 5 years fr...
Rt. Ref. T. Aruldoss, Bishop, Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church Vs. D. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC362
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. D. Ravindran, who was elected as the Secretary of the Church Council to hold the said position for a period of three years, i.e., from May 2001 to May 2004, on being aggrieved when the interim order dated 27.4.2004 passed by this Court in favour of the said Secretary has been violated by the Bishop of Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church, filed the contempt petition against the said Bishop. This Court on considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the contemner, found the contemner guilty of contempt and directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 which shall be paid to 'Abhaya Nilayam', Chennai. Challenging the same, this Contempt Appeal has been filed.2. The short facts leading to the filing of the contempt appeal are as follows:'(a) Rt. Rev. T. Aruldoss, Bishop of Tranquebar, issued a Circular on 21.1.2004 intimating to all the Church Council members that he assumes the functions and responsibilities of the Office of the Secr...
Subatra and ors. Vs. C. Pavalamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ178
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The respondents in E.A.No.34 of 2005 in E.A. No. 417 of 2000 in E.A. No. 380 of 2000 in E.P. No. 390 of 1996 in O.S. No. 709 of 1978 are the revision petitioners.2. The facts though may not be necessary in detail to dispose this revision, minimum requirements are as follows:One Balakrishnagiri Bai obtained a money decree against one Ramanathan in O.S. No. 709 of 1978 on the file of the Sub-Court, Dindigul, based on a promissory note. Pursuant to the decree, in order to realise the fruits of the same, by filing execution petition No. 103 of 1986, she brought the properties of Ramanathan in a Court auction, in which one Sankaranarayanan had purchased the property, being the successful auction purchaser. When the E.P. was posted for confirmation of sale, it appears the auction purchaser Sankaranarayanan died, resulting the impleading of the L.Rs.3. The judgment debtor, by name Ramanathan, seems to have sold the properties to one Shanmugam on 7.2.1985. Before Co...
M. Abu Tahir Vs. M. Rahamathulla
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ628
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The landlord is the revision petitioner.2. The revision petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the property described in R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, as well as contending that he is the landlord, has filed a petition for eviction of the tenant, on the ground that the tenant/respondent had committed wilful default in payment of rent that the demised premises is required for him to carry on business, which he is already owning and that the building, which is in dilapidated condition, is required for immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction, invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called 'the Act' under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(iii) and 14(i)(b) of the Act.3. The respondent/tenant, admitting the tenancy, quantum of rent, opposed the application for eviction that the landlord alone had refused to receive the rent when tendered, thereby compelling hi...
M. Saravanakumar and ors. Vs. the Secretary to Govt. Education Departm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ538
ORDERIn the letter 6th read above, the Director of Collegiate Education has stated that there are 1496 Lecturer posts vacant in Government Constituent Colleges and requested the Government to fill up the above posts by Guest Lecturers so that students do not suffer.2. The Government have examined the request of the Director of Collegiate Education at para-1 above and permit to fill up the vacant post by 1250 Lecturers by the Principals of erstwhile Government Arts and Science Colleges without consulting the Employment Exchanges at a remuneration of Rs.100/- per hour and Rs. 4000/- per month and they may remain in the post until either regular hands are selected by the Teachers Recruitment board or at the end of March 2005 whichever is earlier.3. The Director of Collegiate Education is requested to follow the following norms while engaging the Guest Lecturers.4. The Director Collegiate Education will intimate the number of Guest Lecturers to be engaged in each subject to the Principals ...
Venkata Subba Reddiar Vs. T. Kannan Alias Devarassu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC718
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioner in all the revisions is the landlord in H.R.C.O.P. Nos. 32, 30, 31, 33 and 34 of 2002 on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry. All the revisions have been filed against the judgments and decrees dated 24.4.2002 in R.C.A. Nos. 11, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry in reversing the orders of the Rent Controller, who refused to permit the first respondent/tenant for deposit of rent into Court, by allowing all the appeals. The landlord aggrieved against such judgments and decrees filed these revisions.2. The first respondent in all the revisions have filed the Rent Control Original Petitions for deposit of rent under Section 8(5) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming that they became tenants under the original owner Ramakrishna Reddiar, who is the father of the revision petitioner and husband of the second r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »