Chennai Court November 2007 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.
Ezhilarasi Vs. Kamala and the Returning Officer (The Commissioner), Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ315
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram sitting as Election Tribunal in I.A. No. 554 of 2007 in Election O.P. No. 100 of 2006 dated 21.7.2007 dismissing the interlocutory application filed by the revision petitioner under Rule 68 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules, 1995 for a direction against the second respondent, the Returning Officer, to bring the ballot papers in sealed covers in respect of the election for the post of President of Pidagam village, Villupuram taluk held on 15.10.2006, to enable the Tribunal to open the same and count the votes. 2. The case of the revision petitioner is that she has filed nomination for the post of President of Pidagam village in the election slated on 15.10.2006 and she was allotted 'lock and key' symbol. She contested for the post of President of Pidagam Panchayat comprising the villages, Pidagam, ...
V. Shanmugam Vs. S. Umamaheswaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2007
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ382
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. This revision petition is listed today for admission and I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.The first defendant in O.S. No. 27 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Judge, Erode is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent herein has filed the said suit for setting aside the sale deed dated 14.10.1998, executed in favour of the petitioner herein pertaining to A-Schedule property and the sale deed dated 09.10.1998 executed in favour of the 4th defendant pertaining to item 1 of B Schedule property and the sale deed dated 13.10.1998 in favour of the 4th defendant in respect of item No. 2 of the B Schedule Property and for damages.2. On earlier occasion, this Court, while disposing of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within a period of six months. The respondent herein had examined six witnesses on his side including PW 6, who is the Bank Official. The petitioner herein has filed I.A. Nos. 770 and...
Sri Raja Rajeswaraswamy Temple Represented by Its Archaka, Kothalanka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2007
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ334
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. The Government of Pondicherry and the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Yanam have filed the miscellaneous petition W.V.M.P. No. 359 of 2007 to vacate the interim order passed on 7.12.2005 in W.P.M.P. No. 40143 of 2005 whereby this Court ordered that there will be an order of injunction of dispossession alone, if not already dispossessed.2. Considering the nature of relief sought for and the short question that arises for consideration, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal and the arguments of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) were heard.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The present writ petition has been filed by the Archaka of the writ petitioner temple challenging the Section 4(1) Notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 1.4.2005 read with Section 6 Declaration issued in G.O.Ms.No.129 dated 17.10.2005. In terms of the G.O.Ms. No. 42 dated 1.4.2005, land to an extent of 01-36-0...
Sri-la-sri Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhi Avargal Adheenakarthar Thiruva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CTC813; (2008)2MLJ342
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard Mr. T. Sudhan Raj, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Rothimanian, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.2. It is submitted that the petitioner/Adheenam is holding vast extent of lands and the income derived from the lands is utilised for the purpose of perpetuation and preservation of its saintly order, maintenance of agamas in temples, chanting of scriptures, daily poojas and conducting festivals etc., and for philanthropic purposes. Though no ceiling had been fixed with regard to the extent of agricultural lands that could be owned by the petitioner/Adheenam, several enactments have been made imposing certain restrictions on the use of such lands. Thus, it was mandated that agricultural lands In excess of 20 standard acres were to be leased out to tenants on yearly basis. The laws had also been enacted providing for the protection of the tenants of such lands and for the constitution of revenue Courts t...
Gkw Limited Vs. Nepc India Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2007
Reported in: [2008]87SCL285(Mad)
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This appeal had arisen out of the order in C.P. No. 372 of 1997 on the file of the original side of this Court. The appellant is the petitioner in C.P. No. 372 of 1997, which was filed under Section 433(e) and (f) and 434 of the Companies Act 1956, to wind up the the respondent-company NEPC India Limited, 36, Wallaja Road, Chennai.2. According to the appellant/petitioner the share capital of the respondent is Rs. 20 crores divided into 2 crores equity shares of Rs. 10/- each and the issued share capital of the respondent is Rs. 16,19,37,000/- divided into 1,61,93,700 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. The objects of the respondent are to generate, accumulate, distribute, supply electricity and other power for the purpose of light, heat, motive power and for all other purposes for which electricity and other energy can be employed. As per the purchase order dated 18.02.1994, the respondent placed an order upon the petitioner for certain quantities of faste...
The Special Tahsildhar, Land Acquisition, Unit-1 Vs. Thaineesraj and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CTC511; (2008)2MLJ1000
G. Rajasuria, J.1. A.S. No. 97 of 2005 has been filed to get set aside the judgment and decree passed in L.A.O.P. No. 15 of 1997 dated 29.01.2003 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur and accordingly, other appeals have also been filed with the prayers respectively. A.S(MD) Nos. 164 to 169 of 2007 have been filed for enhancement of compensation as the Sub Court rejected the prayer for enhancement in toto.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of these batch of appeals would run thus:The publication of the notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act were made as under:Sl. No. A.S. Nos. R.C. No. Date of 4(1) Award No. & Dated Land Value Fixed byNotification the Sub Judge, Thanjavur.(Per Cent)1. 97 to 101/05 5/1991 05.12.1991 5/1994 - 21.07.1994 Rs. 1,176/- 2. 243 to 258/05 20/1991 30.01.1992 17/1994 - 30.11.1994 Rs. 1,176/-3. 131 to 146/05 12/1991 09.06.1992 3/1995 - 05.06.1995 Rs. 1,176/-4. 370 to 383/05 54/1991 03.01.1992 19/1994 - 29.12.1994 Rs. 1,176/...
Subbiah K.C. Vs. Indian Bank and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2007
Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ176Mad
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the order of the second respondent bearing proceedings No. CO:TNY:VG:376:03 dated October 28, 2003 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in the services of the respondent Bank with full back- wages, continuity of service and all other monetary and other attendant benefits.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:(i) The petitioner joined the services of the respondent bank as Clerk-cum-Cashier at Kancheepuram Branch on July 24, 1978 and after serving in various branches in Chennai, he was transferred to South Car Street Branch at Sankarankoil in August 1991 which Branch has since been merged with the Sankarankoil Main Branch. On May 4, 2000, the then Zonal Manager, Trichy and Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and simultaneously placed him under suspension with immediate effect alleging certain ...
Reliance Generators Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. the Sp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST136(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the clarification No. 87 of 2006, dated 24.07.2006 and for a direction to the first respondent to issue clarification afresh, after giving opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and after considering relevant materials.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:The petitioner is carrying on business of supplying, installing, testing and commissioning diesel generators. Their transactions are exclusively with the Government Departments, predominantly Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter called as BSNL), which previously functioned as Department of Telecom (hereinafter called as DoT). The petitioner is an assessee on the files of the second respondent herein. According to them, as per G.O.Ms. No. 68, dated 18.08.2001, in respect of sale of telecom cables to BSNL and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (hereinafter called as MTNL), the rate of tax for sale of Telecom cables to BSNL a...
Maria Joseph Roy Vs. the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling and A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2007
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ143
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. Writ Petition is for a Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from in any manner interferring with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land to an extent of 1480 Sq. Metre in T.S. Nos. 45 and 46, Block 16, Kottur Village Mylapore Triplicane Taluk, Chennai District, in the light of the provisions contained in Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeat Act 20 of 1999.2. The power agent of the petitioner has sworn an affidavit and filed this present Writ Petition. The case of the petitioner is that originally lands in question belonged to one Susai, S/o. J. Thamultusamy Pillai. The petitioner is the grand son of the elder brother of said Susai. The lands in question were settled in his favour by a registered Settlement deed dated 13.01.1972 and as Document No. 53 of 1972. Since then, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property. In the year 1988, he obtained patta from the Tahsildar, Mylapore Taluk. Due to water scarcity, cultivation was ...
Ruchi Soya Industries Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2007
Reported in: (2008)12VST546(Mad)
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J.1. W.P. Nos. 37327 and 37328 of 2003 are preferred against the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal rejecting the original petitions preferred by the petitioner against the assessment order dated May 29, 2003 for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01.2. The petitioner has preferred W.P. No. 29700 of 2004 before this Court for a writ of declaration that the power of the State to levy purchase tax under Section 7A on goods purchased, the sale of which enjoyed exemption under the notification issued under Section 17 and sent on consignment basis to outside the State otherwise by way of sale under Section 7A(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is unconstitutional and beyond the legislative competence of the State under entry 54, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and ultra vires entry 92B of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and void as repugnant to Article 14, violative of Article 301 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »