Chennai Court September 2006 Judgments
P.T. Prabhakar and Mrs. Nalini Prabhakar Vs. the Member Secretary Chen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC449
ORDERIssue Notice.Mr. A. Ayyam Perumal and Mr. V. Balachandran, learned Counsel accept notice on behalf of respondent No. 4 and 1 and 2.Notice is confined to the question of the direction issued by the Division Bench of the High Court in regard to the demolition of so-called deviation made in the construction.There will be an interim stay of operation of the order of the High Court to the extent it directs the demolition.Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made an application/representation to the Corporation authorities to convince that there is no deviation. The interim order passed by this Court will not come in the way of the Corporation to consider the application/representation uninfluenced the observation made by the High Court.4. By the above order, the Supreme Court after noting the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent herein that the 3rd respondent had made an application/representation to th...
Tag this Judgment!Ennore Port Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Mad73
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This application has been filed to direct the Superintendent of Police CBI (Anti-corruption Bureau) (CBI, ACB). Third Floor, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai 600006 to produce the charge-sheet together with all the annexures filed in C.C. No. 26/ 2003 pending on the file of the Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai to the Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal. Mr. Jagman Singh at No. 15-B Sector 27-A. Chandigarh-160 019, as per the order of The Arbitrators dated 26-4-2006.2. The applicant initiated arbitral proceedings for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,93,92.982/- against the respondent. The brief facts necessitating the filing of the application are as follows:3. The predecessor-in-interest of the applicant namely Chennai Port Trust and the respondent herein entered into a Rock Quarrying and Transportation Contract ('FCPP/CA Contract') namely agreement No. 24 dated 6-6-1996 to quarry and transport rock required for construction of the breakwaters at Innore from Karaikkal to t...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Bagirathi and ors. Vs. S. Manivanna and S. Venkatesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1331
P.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants.2. Plaintiffs are the daughters of one Sundaraja Naicker, whereas the defendants 1 and 2 are the sons and the third defendant is the widow of such Sundaraja Naicker. The suit was filed for partition and injunction. During pendency of the suit, third defendant died. After the death of Defendant No. 3, the plaintiffs claimed 1/8th share each in the property and proportionate mesne profits. Sundaraja Naicker died on 9.8.1975. According to the plaintiffs, the disputed property was purchased by Sundaraja Naicker from out of his own earnings and thus his separate property, and the plaintiffs are entitled to equal share as that of the sons, namely, the defendants 1 and 2. The defendants in their written statement, while not disputing the relationship between the parties, have contended that the property in question was the joint family property of the defendants along with their father and therefore after the death of Sundaraja Naicker, the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Sharp Tools and Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr. Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Mad37; 2007(1)AIRKarR535
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The question raised and referred to this Full Bench for clarification of the legal position is,Whether the objections received from the persons interested on receipt of Form 'B' notice within the period of 15 days stipulated therein has to be considered and Rule 3(b) (now Rule 4(b) has to be followed2. Before proceeding to analyse the issue and answer the question before us, we deem it necessary to refer in brief the factual details in W.P. 17575 of 1995 for better understanding.For the purpose of construction of houses under the Neighbourhood Scheme in Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District, in an extent of 11.14.0 Hectares, on the requisition of the 3rd respondent viz. the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Central Act') was issued in G.O. Ms. No. 647, Housing and Urban Development (LA-II) dated 22-9-1992.The petitioner, which is a partnership firm, and eleven others are the...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dhanabackiam W/O. Kuppan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ65
P.K. Misra, J.1. The Insurer has filed this appeal against the decision of the learned single Judge in C.M.A. No. 42 of 2001. Such C.M.A., filed by the claimants was directed against the award dated 15.2.2000 in MCOP. No. 289 of 1993. The claim application was filed by the parents of the deceased.2. On 28.8.1992, the son of the claimants was travelling in a lorry bearing Registration No. TN-31-W-0149 belonging to present Respondent No. 2. Such vehicle was insured with the present appellant. The claimants, who filed the claim application, claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. The owner remained ex parte. The contention of the Insurance Company was that the deceased was travelling in the lorry and was an unauthorised passenger and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal held that a sum of Rs. 66,000/- was payable as compensation to the parents of the deceased. The Tribunal by relying upon the decision reported in : AIR1999SC589...
Tag this Judgment!P.P.M. Thangaiah Nadar Firm, Rep. by Its Partner, T.P. Prakasam and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ177; 2006(5)CTC97; (2007)2MLJ685
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. W.P. No. 2705 of 1999 has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent passed in G.O.Ms. No. 1834 (Law and Order P) Department, dated 6.11.1998 and quash the same in so far as the fixation of the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs only and directing the respondents to sanction and pay a sum of Rs. 1,84,42,775/- as ascertained by the Enquiry Commission headed by Thiru V.K. Thirunavukarasu, District Judge in his report dated 25.6.1997 forthwith with interest.W.P. No. 6163 of 1999 has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent passed in G.O.Ms. No. 1834 (Law and Order P) Department, dated 6.11.1998 and quash the same in so far as it restricts the compensation to Rs. 2 lakhs only and directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 85,74,000/- to the first petitioner as compensation as recommended by the On...
Tag this Judgment!The Senior Manager, Canara Bank Vs. a Pukraj S/O. D. Anraj and A. Hali ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: (2007)1CompLJ256(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. Defendant No. 1 in C.S. No. 837 of 2004 has filed these appeals against the common order dated 22.11.2005 in O.A. No. 888 of 2004 and Appln. No. 4236 of 2004.2. The plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 has filed the suit for declaration that the alleged equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds said to have been created by the plaintiff on 3.10.2000 in favour of the first defendant in respect of the suit property to secure the loan availed by the second defendant from the first defendant as illegal, null and void, and for injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit property and mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to handover the possession of the three rooms sealed by them on 14.9.2004. The disputed property has been described in the schedule.3. The substance of the claim of the plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 is to the effect that the disputed property has fallen to the share of the plaintiff in a partition t...
Tag this Judgment!Village Connection Rep. by Its Partner, R.K. Soundhar Rajan and Volume ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Mad47; (2007)1MLJ77
P.K. Misra, J.1. These three appeals have been filed by the plaintiff against the common order passed by the learned single Judge arising out of C.S. Nos. 526 of 1997, 386 and 402 of 1998. The present respondent was the defendant No. 2 in C.S. No. 526 of 1997 and Defendant No. 1 in C.S. Nos. 386 and 402 of 1998. The suits were filed claiming different amounts from the defendants 1 to 4 jointly and severally.2. The basic allegations in the plaint in each case were to the effect that the plaintiff is an exporter of cotton fabrics and was having regular transaction with third defendant organisation based in Kathmandu, Nepal. The plaintiff was making supply of various cotton fabrics. Consignments were made to the third defendant under separate invoices as per the terms of the contract. The first and second defendants, who are the transporters, are supposed to deliver the goods to the third defendant only after the third defendant makes the payment to the fourth defendant bank, by whom the ...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniswami Vs. Ramayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC543
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No. 125 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam. The fifth Defendant in the suit is the appellant herein.2. The short facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this Appeal are as follows:2(a) The first Defendant is the mother of the plaintiff. The second Defendant is the brother of the plaintiff and the third Defendant is the wife of the second Defendant. The fourth and fifth Defendants are the children of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. The plaint schedule item No. 1 and 2 are at Vellala Palayam vllage. The plaintiff's father Ramasamy Gounder had purchased the plaint schedule item properties on 21.2.1975 in his name as well as in the name of minor 5th Defendant. The plaint schedule item No. 2 property was purchased by Ramasamy Gounder on 20.4.1959 and also on 28.10.1968. The above said deeds were taken by Ramasamy Gounder out of his own income. The plain...
Tag this Judgment!K. Marappan Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: [2006]134CompCas204(Mad); 2006(4)CTC689; 2006(4)KLT667; (2006)4MLJ641
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. A five-Judge Bench of this Court in M. Thanikkachalam v. Madhuranthagam Agricultural Co-operative Society : (2001)ILLJ285Mad , has held that no writ will lie against a co-operative society, since it is not an instrumentality of the 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 2. While hearing the present writ appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition against a co-operative society, the Division Bench {Markandey Katju, C.J. (as he then was) and F.M.I.K.J.} doubting the five-Judge Bench decision, by order dated 9.8.2005, referred the following question to be decided by a Larger Bench.Whether the decision of the five-Judge Bench of this Court in M. Thanikkachalam v. Madhuranthakam Agricultural Co-operative Society : (2001)ILLJ285Mad , holding that no Writ will lie against a co-operative society is correct in law?Pursuant to the said order, the above question was referred to a Full Bench consi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »