Chennai Court December 2006 Judgments
S.S. International, a Division of S.S.i. Media India Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC470
ORDERK. Suguna, J.1. (i) W.P. No. 39339/2006 is filed to quash the impugned order of the second respondent dated 18.8.2006 issued in Letter No. Centre Median/2006/Advt.Perm/SSI/D-1 and for further direction to forbear the respondents from in any manner interfer with the petitioner's right in respect of the Centre Median from Spencer Plaza Junction to L.I.C.(ii) W.P.No.39340/2006 is filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 18.8.2006 issued in Letter No. Centre Median/2006/Advt.Perm/TN Lion and for further direction to forbear the respondents in any manner interfere with the petitioner's right in respect of the Centre Medians at GWT Road Km 3/6-4/6.(iii) W.P.No.39359/2006 is filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 18.8.2006 issued in Letter No. Centre Median/2006/Advt.Perm/Vantage/D-1 and for further direction, directing the respondents to renew the license in favour of the petitioner in connection with various stretches of centre medians without foll...
Tag this Judgment!V.N. Subramaniyam Vs. A. Nawab John and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC144; (2007)1MLJ669
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The revision petitioner who is a subsequent purchaser of the suit property and impleaded as the second defendant in the suit suit, has filed these revisions as against the allowing of the I.A.Nos:75 and 76 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, which have been filed to condone the delay of 585 days and 1328 days respectively in representing the Plaint with deficit court fee and also against the dismissal of his I.A.NO.3 of 2006 filed for rejection of the Plaint, passed by the learned Additional District Judge,(Fast Track Court-IV), Bhavani. 2. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the revision petitioner who is the 2nd defendant in the suit purchased the land from Vadivelu, the power agent of the sixth respondent on 8.4.1999. The respondents/plaintiffs 1 to 5 filed a suit for specific performance against the 6th respondent/1st defendant on 20.8.1998 before the Sub Court, Bhavani based on the agreement dated 22.3.1995. The respondents/p...
Tag this Judgment!Aditya Masala, Nani Agro Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Selvaraj,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ611
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 207 of 2006 is filed for striking of the plaint in O.S. No. 53 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Erode. Civil Revision Petition No. 208 of 2006 is filed by the revision petitioner against the order dated 25.01.2006 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Erode, granting exparte ad-interim injunction in I.A. No. 121 of 2006 in O.S. No. 53 of 2006 filed by the respondent.2. The respondent is a resident of No. 85, Nasiyanur Road, Narayanavalasu, Erode-11. According to the respondent / plaintiff, the revision petitioner / first defendant was running a Food Processing Industry and since it is causing pollution, nuisance and health hazard, it should be declared that the revision petitioner is not entitled to run the industry manufacturing Masala Powder causing air and noise pollution to the plaintiff and his family at his house situated in the residential area. He also filed I.A. No. 121 of 2006 for grant of ad-interim in...
Tag this Judgment!Mariasusai Vs. A. Francis and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC501; (2007)1MLJ715
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 21.11.2005 passed in O.S. No. 70 of 2004 by the Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris, Uthagamandalam, holding that the plaint Document No. 1 in O.S. No. 70 of 2004 is a bond and is liable to Stamp Duty. 2. The revision petitioner / plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 70 of 2004 claiming a sum of Rs. 3,04,930/- together with interest from the defendant. Along with the plaint, an agreement dated 11.6.2000 was filed by him, which is an agreement executed by the defendant to the plaintiff. A written statement was filed by the respondent herein disputing the liability to pay Stamp duty. The only objection raised by them with reference to the instrument was that it is an inquiet and incomplete instrument that has been fabricated and created for the purpose of this case and that the agreement was not signed by any parties and there is no mutuality of mind. It is also stated that it is inadmissible in evidence an...
Tag this Judgment!Kamireddi Sattiaraju and Kamireddi Mangayamma (Died) Vs. Kandamuri Boo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ499
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. Since the second appellant died during the pendency of this Appeal, the first appellant being the sole legal representative of the deceased first appellant, the Appeal is being pursued by the first appellant alone.2. The respondent/plaintiff laid the suit for specific performance based on an agreement dated 23.8.1980 executed by the appellants/defendants for sale of the plaint schedule properties in favour of the respondent. Ex. A-1 is the agreement dated 23.8.1980. 3. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that Ex. A-1 agreement was not intended to be acted upon. The respondent/plaintiff preferred First Appeal in A.S. No. 214 of 1984 on the file of this Court. By judgment and decree dated 13.11.1995, a learned single Judge of this Court held that by virtue of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, the appellants are precluded from raising a plea contrary to the terms of the agreement and therefore, the judgment and de...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramalingham Vs. the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2006
Reported in: (2007)ILLJ264Mad
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. The writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of the second respondent in Ku.No.727/6807/cha11/TPTC/97, dated 16.11.1998 and the proceedings of the first respondent in Letter No.727/6807/Cha11/TPTC/97, dated 23.4.2002 and quash the same and consequently to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner as Chief Cook with due seniority and all attendant terminal and service benefits.The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Cook in the respondent Corporation, on 17.6.1989. Thereafter, he was promoted as the Chief Cook and posted at Vandavasi Bus Depot Canteen. While so, on 6.11.1997, charges were framed against the petitioner for absence from work for the periods from 5.10.1997 to 31.10.1997 and from 21.10.1997 to 31.10.1997, without prior permission. Another charge memo was issued, on ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Natarajan S/O. Chinnathangagounder and Chinnathanga Gounder Vs. G.N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC326
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the courts below dated 30.04.1999 in R.C.A. No. 2 of 1997 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Court), Tirupathur (arising out of R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Ambur) ordering eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 2.1. The shop bearing Door No. 46-A in Broad Bazar, Ambur Town belongs to Late Natesa Chettiyar. The said premises was originally let out to the Second Petitioner for doing business in puffed rice. Due to old age, his son viz., the First Petitioner is carrying on the business in the said premises and paying the monthly rent of Rs. 65/-. Natesa Chettiyar filed a Petition under Section under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (in short 'Act') stating that the building is aged more than 80 ye...
Tag this Judgment!Uti Bank Ltd. Vs. the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Ii D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(115)ECC323; 2007LC323(Madras); [2007(2)JCR13(Mad)]; 2007[6]STR82; AIR2007Mad118(FB); 2007(1)LW50
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The Following question is referred to Full Bench for decision:Whether the Crown's debts, for which there is no priority or charge is created under the statute, should have precedence over the secured creditors2. Brief facts:The petitioner, UTI Bank Ltd., has approached this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai II Division and the second respondent - Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India from bringing the property situated at Plot No. 55, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 600 058 into auction for any alleged dues payable by the debtor company, namely M/s.Sumeet Research and Holdings Private Limited, since the said property has already been taken possession by the petitioner in pursuance to its statutory rights under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act 54 of 2002) (in short'SARFAESI Act')...
Tag this Judgment!Poppat Jamal and Sons Rep. by Its Managing Partner Mahmud Jamal Vs. N. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC251; (2007)2MLJ379
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. As against the dismissal of the Interlocutory Application filed by the first defendant to reject the Plaint, the present CRP has been filed.2. Inspite of private notice, the respondents/plaintiffs have not taken steps to appear either in person or through advocates. 3. The respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 2154 of 2005 on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the plaintiffs the alleged sale deed dated 15.2.1943 by the third parties in favour of the first defendant is not binding on the true owners as it is a sham and nominal transaction which illegal sale deed was subsequently set aside by this Court in O.A. No. 553 of 1943 which was filed by the plaintiffs' predecessors in title. According to the plaintiffs, by stating all the illegalities and the High Court's allowing the ...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Sabharwal and R.P. Billimoria Vs. Mahalakshmi Real Estates and In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1875
ORDERR. Regupathi, J.1. The petitioners are A-5 and A-6 in C.C. Nos. 4307, 4308 and 4309 of 2004 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Egmore, Chennai for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the respondent/complainant.2. The cheques in question in ail these cases were issued during 2004. After observing formalities, the cases have been taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that there are no specific allegations and averments in the complaint against the petitioners. The petitioners have resigned from the first accused company on 01.10.1999 and 15.10.1999 respectively and during the course of the issuance of the cheques, the petitioners were no more the Directors of the Company.4. That a statutory notice has been given on 21.01.2004 for which a reply has been given on 06.02.2004, denying the allegation that the petitioners are Directors of the Compan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »