Chennai Court September 2005 Judgments
Sudhandiran Vs. S. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad10; 2005(5)CTC617; (2005)4MLJ127
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. Heard both sides. The only question to be decided in this revision petition is as to whether an execution petition can be proceeded when an application under Insolvency Act is filed against the judgment debtor.2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied on the decision rendered in (Mahendrakumar Baishya Shaha v. Deeneshchandra Ray Chaudhuri) : AIR1933Cal561 to say that filing of petition before the Insolvency Court is sufficient to stay the proceedings pending before the executing Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on the decision reported in (Pothuganti Venkateshwarulu and Anr. v. Yangala Mallaiah) AIR 2001 AP 358 to say that mere filing of an application before the Insolvency Court is not sufficient to stay the proceedings of the execution Court. It is relevant to extract paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said decision, which runs as follows:-'3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the responden...
Tag this Judgment!R. Murugan Vs. M.O.M. Abubucker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC473
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Judge Nagercoil, made in R.C.A.No. 5/2004, confirming the order of the Rent Controller/Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil in R.C.O.P.No. 17/1999, ordering eviction under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (in short, the Act). The tenant is the revision petitioner.2. For convenience, the parties are referred to their original rank in rent control petition.3. The demised premises relates to NMC 28/3-141, New No. 51/1, 141/1, Nagercoil. The respondent has become a tenant under the petitioner/landlord pursuant to a Lease Agreement. At the time of Agreement of Lease, the rate of rent per month was Rs. 225. Subsequently on 31st August, 1995, a fresh Lease Agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent and the rate of interest was increased from Rs. 225 to Rs. 275. There was an earlier ad...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kuppusamy Vs. P.K. Subramani,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC734; (2005)4MLJ269
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 25.8.2004 in I.A. No. 664 of 2003 in O.S. No. 206 of 1987 on the file of District Munsif, Arakkonam.2. The respondents/plaintiffs 2 to 5 along with their mother Kuppammal filed the suit for permanent injunction against the revision petitioner/defendant. In the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 664 of 2003 to amend the plaint, which was objected to by the revision petitioner/defendant.3. The trial Court allowed the said application placing reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2004 2 MLJ 411 (Sarammal v. S. Dilshad Begum and Ors.), wherein it is held that the amendment can be ordered if no new case is set up in the amendment. It is against this order, the present revision petition has been filed by the defendant.4. The main objection of the revision petitioner is that the powers conferred under Order VI Rule 17 seeking to amend the plaint cannot be resorted to annul t...
Tag this Judgment!Radhabai Ammal and anr. Vs. N. Loganathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad70; (2005)4MLJ625
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The respondents in A.S. No. 106 of 2003 on the file of Principal District Judge, Vellore are the Revision Petitioners herein. The appellants in the said appeal filed I.A. No. 133 of 2004 under Order 8, Rule 9 of C.P.C. to receive Additional Written Statement, which was allowed, hence the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioners respondents herein have originally filed the petition in I.A. No. 256 of 2000 for reception of additional written statement during the pendency of suit in O.S. No. 259 of 2000 raising the plea of limitation, estoppel and other grounds, which was however closed without passing any interim Order, hence an application in I.A. No. 133 of 2004 was taken out in the said A.S. No. 106 of 2003 for the very same relief. Considering the plea taken by the respondents, the first Appellate Court found that the trial Court has hastily dismissed the application of the respondents herein ...
Tag this Judgment!N.V.S. Agro Derivatives Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2005
Reported in: [2006]144STC106(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu. 1977/2005 dated July 11, 2005 and quash the same as illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and for further direction to the respondent to accept the renewal fees and renew the petitioner's registration certificate issued under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a dealer in agro products and an assessee on the file of the respondent both under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (State Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act) and doing business from the year 1999 after obtaining due registration certificate, under the provisions of the Act. The certificates were duly renewed year after year by paying the, necessary fee by following the provisions for renew...
Tag this Judgment!Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Limited Rep. by Its Direc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2005
Reported in: [2006]129CompCas670(Mad)
ORDERD.Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner company was incorporated on 13.5.91 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. As the petitioner company is a Non Banking Financial Company, in terms of the amendment to the Reserve Bank of India Act in 1997, it should obtain a Certificate of Registration from the Reserve Bank of India. Such a Certificate of Registration was granted to the petitioner company by the Reserve Bank of India on 20.4.98. By the order dated 6.8.2005, the said Certificate has been cancelled. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition is filed basically on the following three grounds:-(1) As per the first proviso to Sub-section (6) of Section 45IA, before the Certificate of Registration is cancelled, the Reserve Bank of India ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner company for taking necessary steps to comply with such provisions or fulfilment of such condition. In the absence of such opportunity, the impugned order is unsustainable. (2) In the...
Tag this Judgment!L.P. Narayanan Chettiyar, Hereditary Trustee of Arulmighu Suyamprakasa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ252
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. The writ appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 19.04.2005 made in interlocutory applications.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that the writ appeals can be disposed off at this stage.3. The appellant/petitioner challenged the election of the third respondent, who was elected as the Hereditary Trustee of the temple in question and the consequential recognition by the second respondent, the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Administration Department, Sivaganga, which was upheld by the first respondent, the Commissioner of HR & CE, Administration Department.4. In our opinion the writ petition itself was liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy and hence, it should not have been entertained at all.5. It may be noted that all orders of the Commissioner can be challenged before the State Government under Section 114 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.6....
Tag this Judgment!Tvl. N.V.S. Agro Derivatives, Rep. by Partner, Namperumal Vs. the Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ192
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu. 1977/2005 dated 11.7.2005 and quash the same as illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and for further direction to the respondent to accept the renewal fees and renew the petitioner's registration certificate issued under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a dealer in Agro Products and an assessee on the file of the respondent both under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (State Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act) and doing business from the year 1999 after obtaining due Registration Certificate, under the provisions of the Act. The certificates were duly renewed year after year by paying the necessary fee by following the provisions for renewal. T...
Tag this Judgment!Metco Polymers Pvt. Limited and Vs. Madhu Inflatables Pvt. Limited and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ294
P.K. Misra, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 6.4.2005 in O.A.No.731 of 2005 arising out of C.S.No.638 of 2003. 2. The said suit was filed by the present appellants under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner infringing upon the Registered Designs granted to the second plaintiff in respect of the manufacture and sale of the articles, namely, Air Water Beds, Water Beds and Squared Water Seats/Water Cushion and, directing the defendants to render true and proper accounts to the plaintiffs in respect of the manufacture or sales of the Air Water Beds, Water Beds and Squared Water Seats/Water Cushion and, consequently directing the defendants to pay damages to the plaintiffs. 3. During pendency of the suit, the appellants also filed an application for interim injunction restraining the defendants / respondents from the manufacture, sale, distribution and all ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Seetha Devi Vs. Janaki Ramachandran Educational and Charitable Trus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ360
N. Kannadasan, J.1. The above appeal is filed as against the order dated 2.2.2005 in Original Application No. 827 of 2004 in C.S.No.791 of 2004 wherein the defendant/appellant herein is restrained from in any manner whatsoever interfering with the smooth functioning of the second plaintiff/second applicant as the trustee of the first plaintiff/first applicant and as the Correspondent of the schools coming under the trust in pursuance of the trust deed dated 24.4.1985 as amended from time to time, including running of the schools and operating the bank accounts and for consequential reliefs.2. The suit is filed to declare the second plaintiff as validly appointed trustee of the first plaintiff trust (hereinafter called as the 'Trust') and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner interfering with the smooth functioning of the second plaintiff as the trustee of the first plaintiff including functioning as the Correspondent of the schools coming under the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »