Chennai Court December 2006 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.
Ananthi Vs. Ponnammal @ Vijayalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC660
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The unsuccessful Defendant before the courts below is the appellant in this second appeal.2. The Plaintiff, who is the respondent herein, filed the suit in O.S. No. 4087 of 1999 before the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for partition and the said suit was decreed. As against the same, the appeal filed by the Appellant herein in A.S. No. 214 of 2004 before the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this second appeal has been filed by the Defendant.3. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this second appeal are as follows:The appellant is the daughter of one Sankara Subbu. The respondent claims that she is the adopted daughter of the said Sankara Subbu. It is stated by the respondent that after the demise of the said Sankara Subbu, his wife Rajammal executed a Settlement deed in favour of the respondent herein. The case of the Appellant is the respondent is not the adopted daughter of her pare...
Dr. Alice George and the Rural Unit for Health and Social Affairs Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Mad130; 2007(1)CTC496
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by the defendants whose defence plea was rejected by both the Courts below in a suit for recovery of damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the respondent/plaintiff.2. When the matter came up for consideration, notice was ordered. The respondent/plaintiff appears through her Counsel.3. The plaintiff originally filed the suit for damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- alleging that she has three children; that taking into consideration the family circumstances, she decided to undergo family planning operation with the third child a girl, which was born in 1987; that all the children were born in the second defendant's hospital, and thus, they were aware of the plaintiff's health and family circumstances; that on their instructions and on consultation with the the staff of the second defendant including the first defendant, she gave her consent to undergo the family planning operation immediately after the third child was delivered; that she came forward to...
K. Chakarabani Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and the Panruti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ517
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the writ petitioner is a Cashier working under the second respondent Co-operative Society. He was suspended from service pending enquiry by an order dated 29.8.1985 and finally dismissed on 18.9.1997. He approached the first respondent Labour Court with petitions claiming certain amounts for three different periods, which, according to him, are payable on account of his prolonged suspension. His petitions were taken on file in C.P. Nos. 117 of 1995, 115 of 1996 and 43 of 1997 and notice was ordered to the second respondent Society. The first respondent Labour Court, after hearing the parties, passed a common order dated 23.02.1999, which is under challenge before this Court.2. I have heard the arguments of Mr. N. Thiagarajan, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner workman and Ms. P. Selvi, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent Society and have perused the records.3. The Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowan...
Mrs. T. Ponnalagi Vs. Rm. Ramachandran,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2006
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ254
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. The sister of respondents 1 to 3 herein has filed the above application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act to revoke the order dated 7.10.2004 in O.P.No. 451/2004 granting Letters of Administration in favour of the 1st respondent.2. The brief facts as culled out from the application are as under:The applicant herein along with the other two sisters and respondents 1 to 3 herein are the children of late RM. Ramasamy Ambalam who is the elder brother of RM. Solai Pillai. The said RM. Solai Pillai died intestate on 18.8.2003. His wife Sarojini predeceased him and they did not have any issues. The applicant and her two sisters and respondents 1 to 3 herein are the class-II heirs coming under Entry IV of the Hindu Succession Act and all of them are entitled to succeed to the properties left behind by the late Solai Pillai in equal share. 3. After the death of the said RM. Solai Pillai, the applicant sent a notice dated 6.9.2003 to the respondents for whic...
The Dhanlakshmi Bank Limited, Rep. by Its Authorised Officer, Mr. P. R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC612
ORDERR. Regupathi, J.1. This petition has been filed to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore to take the complaint of the petitioner on file.2. The petitioner is Dhanlakshmi Bank Limited. The respondents have borrowed loan from the petitioner-Bank by executing certain documents. Notice has been issued as per Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thereafter, an application has been moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, under Section 14 of the Act to initiate the proceedings against the respondents. Section 14 of the Act reads as follows:Section 14: Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset: (1)Where the possession of any secured asset is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured cr...
Zonal General Manager, Ircon International Ltd. (A Government of India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2006
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ344
P. Sathasivam, J.1. M/s. Ircon International Limited (a Government of India Undertaking), Chennai, aggrieved by the Common Order, dated 09.09.2005, made in O.P. Nos. 107 & 108 of 2004 and Application Nos. 2651 & 2652 of 2004, filed for setting aside the award of the Arbitrator/second respondent, dated 06.10.2003, made under A.C.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2001, filed the above Original Second Appeals on various grounds.2. Brief facts are narrated here-under:The appellant herein - IRCON, being the successful tenderer, entered into a contract with SIPCOT (not a party to the present proceedings) for construction of Internal Road for the Industrial Complex at Irungattukottai, Sriperumpudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu. The contract was entered into between them on 10.07.1997 for a value of Rs. 13,06,60,587/-.The appellant in turn entered into a contract with the 1st respondent herein (the claimant) in respect of C1 and C2 packages for laying of Roads including WBM (Water Bound Macadam). Ope...
V. Lakshminarayanan Vs. the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC68
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 02.08.2002 made in W.P. No. 11491 of 2001, in and by which, the learned Judge, after finding that there is no merit in the writ petition, dismissed the same.2. The writ petitioner is the appellant. For convenience, let us refer the parties as arrayed in the writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder. According to him, he retired from the services of the 1st respondent bank as Head Clerk on 28.02.2003 on attaining the age of 58 years. At the time of retirement, he was drawing a salary of Rs. 7417/- inclusive of all allowances and his basic pay was Rs. 3220/- per month. The 2nd respondent, in their meeting held on 10.03.1993, rightly sanctioned him a monthly pension of Rs. 1949/- with effect from 01.03.1993 and he was getting the same regularly. While so, a Settlement under Section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the Indian Banks Associati...
Shanmuga Metals Vs. Regional Director and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2006
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR291]; (2007)IIILLJ85Mad
P.R. Shivakumar, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 against the order of the learned Principal District Judge (E.S.I. Court), Tirunelveli, dated December 24, 1998 passed in E.S.I.O.P. No. 7 of 1996.The petitioner in the said E.S.I.O.P. is the appellant herein. The appeal has arisen under the following circumstances:(i) M/s. Shanmuga Metals, is a proprietary concern running a Metal Rolling Mill at No. 368, Mangalakudieruppu Street, Thatchanallur, Tirunelveli District. Brass sheets are manufactured in the abovesaid rolling mill. The said rolling mill was originally run by a Private Limited Company called 'Nellai Metal Rolling Mill Private Limited'. Subsequently, the said rolling mill was purchased by three persons, S. Velayutha Nadar, Shanmuga Nadar and Ponniah Nadar in the year 1975. Thereafter, from April 11, 1988 the said rolling mill was run in the name of Murugan Metal Rolling Mills. On October 28, 1989 the said concern was purc...
N.S.R. Elkemet (P) Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director, Mr. N.R. Rames ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2006
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ777Mad
ORDERS. Tamilvanan, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 27.09.2005, made in C.M.P. No. 414 of 2005 in E.I.O.P.S.R. No. 7672 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Labour Judge at Chennai.2. As per the impugned order, dated 27.09.2005, the E.S.I. Court / Principal Labour Court, Chennai, dismissed the C.M.P. No. 414 of 2005, in E.I.O.P.S.R. No. 7672 of 2005, on the ground of non compliance of the earlier order passed by the court below, similarly, I.A. No. 414 of 2005, filed under Section 78 of E.S.I Act was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, stating that the petitioner / company is not covered under Section 29 of E.S.I. Act, since the employees were less than 20.3. The learned Counsel further contended that the petitioner had paid the entire amount, though the company fell within the ambit of Section 2(9) of E.S.I. Act. Subsequently, after filing of the Civil Revision Pe...
Pepsi Co. India Holding Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Unit Manager Vs. Ananda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC166; (2007)1MLJ286
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the second defendant in the suit in O.S.No. 36 of 2005, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The first respondent M/s. Ananda Agencies rep.by its proprietor has filed a suit in O.S.No. 36 of 2005 against the second respondent Sri Balaji Marketing and the petitioner herein as defendants 1 and 2 respectively for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling the PEPSI COKE products in Thiruthuraipoondi Town which is under the exclusive right of agency of the plaintiff and also for a direction against the second defendant who is the petitioner herein to supply the products, Pending suit, the first respondent also filed I.A.No. 172 of 2005 praying for an order of interim injunction and the Trial Court has granted an exparte injunction on 15.34.2005, The petitioner being the second defendant and the second respondent in I.A. has filed I.A.No. 180 of 2005 to vacate the order of interim injunction granted...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »