Chennai Court August 2005 Judgments
S. Mohan, S/O. Late P. Subramani Vs. Cruz Mary and Anbu, S/O. Late P. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC191
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 10.09.2001 passed by IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No. 17056 of 2000 in O.S.No. 8894 of 1994, dismissing the Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, declining to condone the delay of 547 days in filing the Application to restore the Suit in O.S.No. 8894 of 1994. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.2. O.S.No. 8894 of 1994:- The Suit Property relates to Plot No. 51, Adisesha Nagar, Third Street, Main Road, Perambur, Madras - 600 012 measuring 1500 Sq.Ft., in R.S.No. 321. The Suit Property belonged to Perambur Harijan Welfare Co-operative House Site Society. The Society is a registered Society and its Members are Harijans. The object of the Society is to uplift the Harijan Members. The Suit Site was allotted to one Pappammal - Grandmother of the Plaintiff. The said Pappammal had put up a super structure in the Suit Property, which bears Door No. 4. The Suit Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Govindaraj Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4676
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Insanity of the appellant, at the time of commission of offence, is the main plea that has been urged before this Court, seeking for setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial Court, for the offences under Sections 307 and 302 IPC.2. The short facts are as follows :'(a) P.W.1 Raju Naicker is the brother-in-law of the deceased Hanumanthan. Govindaraj, accused, is distantly related to the deceased. Both were inimical towards each other, in regard to a bund, dividing the lands belonging to both. (b) P.W.1 Raju Nicker is a resident of Pythamparai village. On 02.02.1999, he came to the village of the deceased for attending a function. On 03.02.1999 also, he stayed in the house of the deceased. On 03.02.1999, at about 05.30 p.m., when he was inside the house, he heard a sound outside, where some children cried aloud. P.W.1 came out of the house and saw the deceased, being chased by the accused with a soori knife. He intervened and stopped...
Tag this Judgment!N. Kandasamy and R. Senthamarai Vs. the Authorised Officer State Bank ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad14; (2005)3MLJ684
D. Murugesan, J.1. Both the writ appeals relate to the challenge to the tender notice bearing Nos. 2/2005 & 3/2005 published in 'Dinamani' Tamil daily dated 7.3.2005. As the grounds of challenge are common, both the writ appeals are disposed of by this order.2. The State Bank of India, SSI Branch, Bhavani, a secured creditor, initiated action to recover the dues from the borrowers under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Pursuant to the said action, it caused two tender notices bearing Nos. 2/2005 & 3/2005 dated 7.3.2005 in 'Dinamani' Tamil daily calling for bids for sale of movable and immovable properties by means of sealed tenders. The last date for receiving the tenders was fixed at 17.00 hrs. on 22.3.2005. Due to the strike by the officers' of the said bank, the branch did not function on 22.3.2005 and, therefore, the tenders were accepted till 17.00 hrs. on 23.3.2005. The bank received 14 ten...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Chandrasekar Vs. the Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Ssi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ280
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner has questioned the tender notice bearing nos.2/2005 & 3/2005 published in 'Dinamani' Tamil daily dated 7.3.2005 in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, he was present in the bank's premises on 22.3.2005 with cash for taking demand draft with a proposal to take part in the tender process. He saw a notice affixed in front of the bank to the effect that the tender will not be received on 22.3.2005 due to the bank officers' strike and the sealed tenders will not be opened on 22.3.2005 and that the last date for receipt of tenders and the opening date will be intimated later. On believing the said notice, he was forced to return and thereafter, without any further intimation, the tenders were received from various persons on 23.3.2005 and they were opened and the bid of K.K. Rangasamy, the second respondent was accepted.2. On the above averments, the petitioner has questioned the tender notices on the ground that as per Rule 6(2) of the Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Rep. by Its Gen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ602
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned interlocutory order dated 24.8.2004 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 21431 and 21432 of 2004.2. The aforesaid writ petitions were filed against orders of the Regional Transport Authority renewing the permit.3. Under Section 89/90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 every order of the Regional Transport Authority can be challenged by way of appeal/revision before the State Transport Appellate Authority. Hence there was a clear right of appeal/revision. The petition should not have been entertained at all in view of the clear alternative remedy. We have dismissed a large number of such writ petitions recently. In M/s. Thangamalar Transports, Sulur, Coimbatore District v. K. A.G. Travels and Ors. (Writ Appeal No. 1386 of 2005 etc. batch) dated 22.7.2005 and Senthilnayagam v. M. Paul Jayaraj and Ors. (W.A. Nos. 1417 and 1418 of 2005) dated 27.7.2005 the order of the Regional Transport Author...
Tag this Judgment!Jayalakshmi Trading Co., Rep. by One of Its Partners D.S. Chalam Vs. K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad179
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. These revisions are preferred against the order dated 19.2.2001, made in I.A.Nos. 16843 and 16486/2000 in O.S. No. 9054/1996, by the V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, allowing the applications filed under Order 13, Rules 3 and 6 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC, deleting Ex.A.14. Plaintiff - Jayalakshmi Trading Company is the Revision Petitioner.2. C.S.No. 1040/1992 - Original Side, High Court Madras.Transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai and renumbered as O.S.No. 954/1996:-The first Defendant is the absolute owner of the property bearing Door No. 4, III Street, Balaji Nagar, Madras-14. The Defendants 1 and 3 approached the Plaintiff for financial loan for promoting multi-storeyed building in the above said property. The Defendants agreed to pay the interest regularly and they offered to pay the money back by constructing and selling flats to the prospective purchasers. Borrowing a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- the Defendants have executed Promissory Notes on various...
Tag this Judgment!Wellworth Electronics Rep. by Its Proprietor, Vs. the Union of India ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: [2006]130CompCas610(Mad); (2006)5CompLJ65(Mad); (2005)4MLJ98
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ declaring the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcements of Security Interest (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2004 contained in Notification No. SO 466(E) dt.06.04.2004 as illegal and ultra vires. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. It appears that the third respondent/Indian O erseas Bank issued a notice dated 23.04.2004 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Securitisation Act') proposing to take certain actions against the properties alleged to be mortgaged. The third respondent thereafter issued a possession notice on 28.07.2004 under Section 13(4) read with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 taking symbolic possession of the property. 4. Aggrieved by the issuance of the possession notice...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Neelamegam Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: (2006)ILLJ983Mad; (2005)4MLJ256
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. Though this writ appeal was preferred against the interim order of the learned single Judge, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. In the main writ petition the challenge is to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 20.8.2003 in Na.Da.Na.Ka.No. 6460/2003/A.4. In the said proceedings certain charges were levelled against the then trustees who got elected on 4.3.2001. Some of the charges are serious namely, the jewels of the temple came to be misappropriated by the then trustees. Pending disposal of the writ petition, by way of an interim order, the operation of the said charge sheet cum show cause notice came to be stayed. As against the said order of the learned single Judge this writ appeal has been preferred. 2. At the outset we wish to state that as against the show cause notice the writ petition itself should not have been entertained vide Executive Engineer v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, : AIR1996SC691 . Apart from the order of interi...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Enterprises Rep. by Managing Partner, D. Lokesh Shetty, Vs. the A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad449; 2(2005)CLT513; (2005)4MLJ457
1.1. W.P. No. 22410 of 2005 came for admission on 12.7.2005. Since on that date, there was no representation due to boycott, the matter was adjourned to next week, namely, 18.7.2005.1.2. W.P. No. 22426 of 2005 came for admission on 13.7.2005. Even though the advocates boycotted the court, but still on representation by the party in person, the matter was admitted ordering notice to the respondents in W.P.M.P. No. 24453 of 2005 returnable by one week.1.3. Meanwhile, W.P. No. 22410 of 2005 came for admission again on 19.7.2005 on which date the said writ petition was admitted and the counsel for the petitioner was directed to serve papers on the Standing counsel for the respondents and the matter was adjourned to 25.7.2005 along with connected writ petition, W.P. No. 22426 of 2005. But, the matter was not posted on 25.7.2005.1.4. While so, one another writ petition, W.P. No. 23818 of 2005 came up for admission on 26.7.2005, on which date one Mr. Xavier Arulraj, learned counsel taking not...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›