Chennai Court June 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.
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Commissioner and Secretary to Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ367
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 08.08.1994 made in W.P. No. 6647 of 1987, in and by which, the learned single Judge quashed the acquisition proceedings on the simple ground that no notice was served on the petitioner and notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued in the name of his vendor.2. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. It is not in dispute that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 24.11.1982. It is the stand of the respondent/writ petitioner that he along with others purchased the property from his vendor on various dates viz., on 5.06.1981, 17.06.1981 and 06.07.1981. It is also his claim that on 30.08.1982, by an order of the Deputy Tahsildar, Salem, revenue records we...
Mrs. Zeenath Ariff, Vs. the District Collector and the Special Tahsild ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ947
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 26.06.2000 made inWP. No. 17574 of 1999, in and by which the learned Judge, following the earlier orders of this Court and in view of the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act) and finding that no notice under Section 4(2) of Tamil Nadu Act (Act 31/78) (in short 'the Act') was issued, dismissed the said writ petition.2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents.3. It is not in dispute that in order to provide house sites to Adi Draviders of Rasulasamudram Village, Government of Tamil Nadu initiated acquisition proceedings and issued 4(1) notification and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government gazettee Part II Section 2 at page No. 19 on 18.05.1988. The same was followed by an enquiry under Section 5-A and declaration under Section 6 of the Act. It is also not in...
Arputham Cine Release, Rep. by Its Proprietor Tmt. Usha Vs. Raja theat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad344; (2006)3MLJ795
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. 1st defendant in the suit is the Revision Petitioner herein.2. A suit in O.S. No. 308/2002 was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner/1st defendant and two others praying for a decree and judgment for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,73,012.81 together with subsequent interest at 12% per annum.3. The Revision Petitioner as 1st respondent filed a written statement resisting the suit claim and in paragraph 8 of the written statement it was specifically pleaded by the Revision Petitioner that the Sub-Court at Kallakurichi has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the entire cause of action arose at Pondicherry only. It was further averred in the same paragraph that as per a specific clause in the schedule of exhibition of contract, all disputes arising out of the agreement shall be settled in and considered within the jurisdiction of courts at Chennai city. The Revision Petitioner has filed I.A. No. 11 0/2004 under Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(a) of Code of Ci...
The Association of Educational Institutes for Hotel Management and Cat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ391
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. These two Writ Appeals are directed against the order dated 14.11.20 00 of the learned Single Judge made in W.P. No. 10271 of 1999 challenging the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 154, Higher Education (J-1) Department dated 15.04.1999 and W.P. No. 4156 of 2000 challenging the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 12, Higher Education Department dated 18.01.2000. Both these Government Orders were issued in respect of regulation of tuition fees in unaided self-financing polytechnics and revision of fees for diploma course in unaided Hotel Management and Catering Technology institutions.2. In this judgment, for the sake of convenience, we shall refer the parties as per their rank before the learned single Judge.3. The learned single Judge, after finding that the fixation of the fees cannot be on the basis of the admission made for each institution, held that it can be fixed only on the basis of sanctioned strength of the institutions. It was further held that merely becaus...
K. Swaminathan Vs. the General Manager, Tamil Nadu Government Transpor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ994
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 20.04.2006 made in Writ Petition No. 9685 of 2006, the writ petitioner K. Swaminathan, Conductor of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Erode District has filed the above appeal.2. Even at the admission stage, the respondents are represented by a counsel.3. The Learned Counsel for the appellant by pointing out the reasoning of the learned Judge, particularly in para 4 of the order dated 20.04.2006, contended that since the impugned transfer order was passed as a vindictive measure, which is evident from the file produced before the learned Judge, the order cannot be sustained. He also contended that the appellant joined Nambiyur Branch in the year 2004 and several persons, who joined and working at Nambiyur Branch have not been transferred. He further pointed out that nearly 20 vacancies are there in Nambiyur Branch itself and there is no necessity to pass the impugned order of transfer.4. On the other han...
Karuppannan Ambalam Vs. the Tahsildar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ996
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 1.8.2002 passed in W.P. No. 9981 of 1994 in and by which while dismissing the Writ Petition, as requested by the petitioner, granted three months time to vacate and hand over vacant possession to the respondents.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.3. Initially, one Durairaj alias Chinnadaikkan Ambalam and Karuppannan Ambalam filed the Writ Petition No. 9981 of 1994, challenging the order dated 9.4.1994 passed by the Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition) Adi Dravidar Welfare, Madurai Taluk and prayed for quashing of the said notice insofr as it relates to 35 cents out of 0.30.5 hectare belonging to the petitioners in S.F. No. 394/B-1 ( New S.F. No. 119/2B-1), Kallanthiri II Bit, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District.4. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Adi Dravidar Welf...
A.C. Abraham Kingsley Vs. Shanthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC46; (2006)3MLJ829
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. The petitioner has filed these Revision Petitions under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the common judgment dated 5.10.2005 made in R.C.A.Nos.R.C.A.Nos.922, 924, 926, 928 and 930 of 2005, on the file of the VII Small Causes Court, Chennai (Appellate Authority) to set aside the same and confirm the common order dated 1.7.2005 made in M.P.Nos.375, 376, 377, 378 and 268 of 2005 in R.C.O.P.Nos.62,63,64,65 and 67 of 2005, on the file of the XII Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2. As the dispute involved and the issues raised in all the above Revision Petitions are one and the same, I am disposing off these petitions by this common order. In fact, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority himself passed a common judgment which is assailed before this Court in these Revision Petitions.3. The landlord is the revision petitioner in all these Revision Petitions. He filed five eviction petit...
Shree Annapoorna, Shree Gowrishankar Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: (2008)17VST325(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The learned Government Advocate takes notice.2. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent herein in his proceedings in TNGST No. 1941761/1999-2000 dated March 28, 2006 and quash the same and further direct the respondent not to levy purchase tax on the turmeric powder, chillies, coriander and tamarind purchased by the petitioner for own consumption inasmuch as the petitioner's total turnover is below Rs. 300 crores.3. What is put in issue is the notice calling upon the dealers to file objection. On a perusal of the same it is seen that for the assessment year 1999-2000, it is proposed to levy a turnover of Rs. 22,15,210 and Rs. 8,03,111 for tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. That notice is now put in issue in the present writ petition on the ground that as per Section 8, the goods which are enumerated in the Third Sched...
Sulochana Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Backwa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ998
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 6.09.2000 made in W.P. No. 18961 of 1993, the writ petitioner/appellant has filed the present appeal.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.3. It is seen that questioning the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for the purpose of providing house sites to the Backward Class people, the petitioner has filed the writ petition even at the stage of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Before the learned Judge, it was contended that though the petitioner is the owner of the land and the same was correctly mentioned in the revenue records and patta has been issued in her favour, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act has been issued in the name of her husband. It is also contended that apart from publishing the 4(1) notification i...
The Correspondent, Avila Convent Matriculation Higher Secondary School ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ707
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 24.03.2000 made in W.P. No. 17335 of 1992, in and by which the learned single Judge has directed the management to pay pension to the writ petitioner.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. Though the third respondent-writ petitioner ha been duly served notice from this Court in this appeal, he has not chosen to contest the same by engaging a counsel.3. The writ petition was filed by the third respondent herein, husband of one M.R. Vasanthika, who served as a Secondary Grade Tamil Pandit in the third appellant-school from 12.06.1978 to 09.09.1991. It is also seen that in view of the death of Vasanthika in a road accident, the writ petitioner-her husband and her minor son, her legal heir, prayed for his education and other benefits. It is further seen that based on the last drawn pay, the grat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »