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.
Retired Official Association and ors. Vs. Sports Development Authority ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ556
Makkandey Katju, C. J.1. Writ Petition No. 11700 of 2005 has been filed with a prayer for mandamus for bearing the respondrnts or any per son acting though or under them from putting up a hostel or any other structure In the land of 12 acres comprised in T.S. No. 26, Block No. 24, Ward No. D measuring 7.9600 sq. meters (20 acres) situated in the rear side of the building complex of the Namakkal Kavlngai Ramalingam Government College of Arts for Women. Namakkal In violation of the resolutions and decisions of the first, third and fifth respondents.2. Writ Petition No. 1 1701 of 2005 has been filed with a prayer for mandamus directing the respondents to implement the Resolution passed as Agenda No. 1 at the meeting of the Namakkal Unit of the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu at the Namiikkal Colleclorate on 11-1-1999 and approved by order No. Na.Ka.42730/98/02 dated 21-1-2000 of the third respondent as confirmed by the Resolution No. 55 dated 30-6-2003 passed by the fifth respo...
Sri Lakshmi Narayanan Finance, Rep. by Its Partner C.N. Raghava Mudali ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC112; 2005(3)CTC671
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. Aggrieved against the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kancheepuram, in C.M.P. Nos. 1721 and 3029 of 2001 in C.C. Nos. 107 and 108 of 2002 respectively dated 21.3.2003 discharging the respondent from criminal cases filed against her, the above criminal revision cases are filed by the revision petitioner/complainant.2. The revision petitioner in both the cases is the complainant and the respondent in both the cases arrayed as A-3 in C.C. Nos. 107 and 108 of 2002.3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both the cases submitted that the trial of the criminal cases already commenced and the revision petitioner/complainant in both the cases examined himself as P.W. 1 and bank witness also examined on his side and at this stage, the discharge petitions filed by the respondent, subject matter of the revisions, were allowed. In this regard, the learned counsel further submitted that since the criminal case initiated under Secti...
Madar Kalvi Christava Sangam by Its Secretary Sudhan Appadurai and the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad395; 2005(4)CTC150; (2005)3MLJ582
T.V. Masilamani, J.1.The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit before the trial court.2. The appellants filed the suit for declaration that the first appellant/first plaintiff is a minority educational institution without being subjected to any outside interference and for costs. The defendants resisted the suit by filing separate written statements on various grounds and the trial court having analysed the evidence both oral and documentary and upon hearing both sides decreed the suit for declaration as prayed for, but declined to grant the relief that the first appellant institution shall not be subjected to any outside interference. 3. The appellants having aggrieved over the disallowed portion of the relief, preferred the appeal before the III Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore in A.S.No.264 of 1991. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge after perusing the recorded evidence in the light of the arguments advanced on either side, concurred with the judgment and decree pa...
M. Balachandran Vs. P. Manthiri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC700
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. M. Balachandran, the petitioner herein, is the defendant in the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the respondents in O.S. No. 1260 of 1990. The suit was decreed on 4.1.1995. The execution petition was filed in E.P. No. 211 of 1995. The Executing Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to demolish the construction. The petitioner, the judgment-debtor filed E.A. No. 161 of 2004 under Section 47, C.P.C. challenging the decree and also seeking a direction from the Executing Court to the Advocate Commissioner to conduct survey of his property to ascertain as to whether any encroachment is made by him with the help of the qualified Surveyor. The above application has been dismissed by the Executing Court. Hence, this revision.2. Mr. S.N. Amarnath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the order impugned, would cite the decisions in Kamalaathy v. B. Subramaiah 2001 (2) CTC 331 and Perumal Naicker v. Rathina Naicker, : AIR2004Mad492 and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›