Chennai Court August 2005 Judgments
Sundaram Finance Services Ltd., Rep. by Its President, the Principal O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ116
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. This suit is posted before the Court for withdrawal. Mr. M.S. Krishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff prayed for a direction for refund of the half of the Court Fee inasmuch as the suit claim was settled out of Court.2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that irrespective of the interim decree granted in A. No. 1361 of 2000 in C.S. No. 211 of 2000 on 4.12.2000 inasmuch as Section 69 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 only postulates the situation where a decree is dismissed as settled out of Court before any evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim, it should be held that the plaintiff is entitled for refund of half of the Court fee. However, learned Counsel was fair enough to place before the Court two decisions of this Court Paramasiva Mudaliar v. Krishnaveni Ammal, 1965 (1) MLJ 169 and Ratnasamy Nadar and Bros v, Subbuswami, AIR 1967 Mad. 180.3. In the former case, Justice K.S. Venkataraman held ...
Tag this Judgment!Y.P. Ganesan Vs. the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC277
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The plaint averments are as follows: --The defendant was appointed as the Procurement-cum-Hulling Agent for the plaintiff Corporation for 1984 'Kuruvai' Season. The appointment order is dated 27-7-1984. The defendant deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as security deposit on 25-7-1984. An agreement was entered into between the parties on 26-7-1984. To ensure safe custody of the paddy entrusted with the defendant, an Officer of the plaintiff Corporation was appointed as the Double Lock Officer for the defendant's godown, in which the paddy was stored. As per the terms of the agreement, the defendant will receive the paddy and store the same in his godown, and it was kept under double lock system from 14-11-1984 to 16-3-1985. A total quantity of 6157 bags of paddy weighing 410.463 M.Ts. was stored under the double lock system. Out of the said 6157 bags of paddy, 415 bags were of Super Fine Quality, 2070 bags were of Fine Quality and the b...
Tag this Judgment!P. Duraisamy Vs. the Secretary, State Government of Tamil Nadu, Home ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC493
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J. 1. The petitioner's grievance is against the variation of permit conditions by order of the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore.2. Every order of the Regional Transport Authority can be challenged by way of appeal/revision under Section 89/90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Hence this petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. If such an appeal/revision is filed we hope and trust that the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned. If any such appeal/revision is filed under Section 89/90 of the Act within three weeks from today, the same will be entertained without raising any objection as to limitation and shall be decided expeditiously thereafter. The Regional Transport Authority shall supply certified copy of all the proceedings varying the permit conditions if the petitioner approaches for the same....
Tag this Judgment!G. Jayakrishnan Vs. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTLJ430(Mad)
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This writ appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 28-4-2005, passed by the learned single Judge vacating the interim order granted in favour of the appellant. The appellant had filed the writ petition seeking for the relief of Writ of Certiorartfied Mandamus, calling for the records connected with invitation of tender for transport of TASMAC materials in vans in Thirupur issued by the second respondent and published in Dhina Thanthi paper dated 27-12-2004 calling for tenders to be opened on 5-1-2005 and quash the same and consequently cancel the tender notification dated 27-12-2004.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant first submitted that the tender notice was illegal as it was published only on 27-12-2004 in the newspaper but the last date for submitting the tender was 4-1-2005. Learned Counsel relied on Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000, which reads as under:20. Minimum time ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Dhanalakshmi Vs. the Govt. of Tamilnadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ391
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated 17.3.2005 issued in G.O.(2D) No. 81, Home(Court.III) Department, and to quash the same in so far as the respondents 3 to 12 are concerned and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to fill the vacancies in the cadre of District Judge following the rule of reservation.2. According to the petitioner, after enrolling herself as an Advocate in the year 1992, she has been practising both in civil and criminal side. When applications were called for to the post of District Judge, the petitioner had also applied for the same. She was called for the interview on 27.4.2004 and she had performed well in the interview. The first respondent, by G.O.(2D) No. 81, Home Department, dated 17.3.2005, appointed ten candidates as District Judges. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said G.O., made a representation to the second respondent that she being ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajan N.S. Vs. Indian Bank and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: (2006)ILLJ942Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The second respondent in the writ petition, is the appellant before us.2. The challenge is to the order of the learned single Judge, holding that the complaint preferred by the appellant before the second respondent herein, i.e. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai North, was without jurisdiction and thereby the second respondent was restrained from proceeding with the complaint by the issuance of a Writ of Prohibition.3. The brief facts which are required to be stated for the disposal of this Writ Appeal, are that the appellant was an employee of the first respondent bank. Pursuant to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (in short, VRS) thrown open by the first respondent bank in 2000, the appellant submitted his application expressing his willingness to go under the VRS. The appellant along with 3295 employees, was allowed to go under the VRS. It is stated that for the VRS employees, their pension settlement was made in a duration of three to fo...
Tag this Judgment!Khaja Hussain, Vs. the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3975
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, convicting the appellants/accused 1 to 4 for the offences under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, the appellants have filed this appeal.2. Originally, the appellants were tried for the offences of having committed murder of one Murthy and attempting to commit the murder of P.W.2 Murugan under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 IPC respectively.3. The trial Court acquitted the appellants/accused in respect of the charge under Section 307 read with 34 IPC and convicted them for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.4. The short facts would be summarized as follows:'(a) Appellants/accused are the Muslims and the victims are the Hindus. Since one Muslim fundamentalist, by name, Palani Baba was brutally murdered by Hindu fundamentalist at Pollachi in Coimbatore District, there was a continuous hatred between Muslims and Hindu...
Tag this Judgment!S. Murugan Vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: (2009)20VST706(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in RP No. JJ2/RP/MV/88/2001 dated April 1, 2002 and quash the same.2. The writ petition is filed against the order of the Joint Commissioner in revision proceedings dated April 1, 2002. The assessee is a dealer in two wheelers and he paid the tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for the sale of its vehicles, without paying entry tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 for use or sale. Thereafter, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thanjavur levied tax for the vehicles brought into the local area and gave set-off of the Tamil Nadu general sales tax amount paid in respect of the sale of the vehicles by the dealer. Thus, there is a balance amount of one per cent of the sale value. For the same, penalty under Section 15...
Tag this Judgment!G. Rajendran Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Its Secretary, Ministry ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad100
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. G. Rajendran, party-in-person, claiming himself as the President of Madras High Court Practicing Advocates' Association, has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the prayer, as under :'I therefore pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, in the nature of writ, directing the Union of India, represented by Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, first respondent, and Union of India, represented by Secretary, Home Department, second respondent, to strictly follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case, namely, Supreme Court Advocate on record Association -vs- Union of India, reported in : AIR1994SC268 and also the suggestions mentioned in this Writ Petition, in the matter of appointment of Judges to the Hon'ble High Court from out of the lists so far sent to the Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justic...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rathinaswamy, S/O. Sivasubramania Pillai and ors. Vs. S. Bhanumathi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad221; 2006(2)CTC491; (2006)3MLJ593
ORDERR. Banumathi, J. 1. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the order of District Munsif, Tiruvarur dated 24.2.2003 in LA. Nos. 27 to 29 of 2003 in O.S.A. No. 254 of 2000, declining to recall P.W.2 and to mark certain documents. The Plaintiffs are the Revision Petitioners.2. The relevant facts/pleadings necessitated for the disposal of these Civil Revision Petitions could briefly be stated thus:O.S. No. 254 of 2000.- The Plaintiffs are the permanent residents of Thenkarai Velangudi Village in Perungudi Vattam. The case of the Plaintiffs is that their forefathers owned R.S. Nos.l, 15, 16 arid 17 among other properties. The entire lands in Thenkarai Velangudi Village were owned by the Plaintiffs ancestors and now by the Plaintiffs. The ancestors of the Plaintiffs set apart about 15 cents in R.S.I6 now sub-divided as 16/IF under UDR and R.S.16/2 Punja by classification in Perungudi Vattam belonging to them as cremation and burial site and pathway respectively. The Plainti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »