Chennai Court December 2007 Judgments

S.R. Ramalingam Vs. R. Vivekanandan and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)1MLJ180

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 380 of 2001, who is the first defendant in O.S. No. 460 of 2002, both on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Erode, is the revision petitioner.2. The revision is directed against the order of the First Appellate Court, viz., the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, passed in I.A. No. 760 of 2006 in A.S. No. 60 of 2006, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order XLI Rule 3 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to reject the appeal, was dismissed.3. The petitioner has filed suit in O.S. No. 380 of 2001 for declaration that 'A' schedule property is a common property and for mandatory injunction against defendants 1 and 2 to restore 'A' schedule property to its original position and also for permanent injunction against defendants 1 and 2 in respect of 'A' schedule property. The defendants 1, 2, 7, 12, 13 along with other three persons have filed O.S. No. 460 of 2002 against the revision petitioner ...

Natarajan Vs. Manimegalai and K. Balasubramaniam

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(1)CTC385; (2008)1MLJ963

ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This revision has arisen out of the judgment in RCA. No. 1 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Pollachi, which had arisen out of the order in RCOP. No. 18 of 2001 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Munsif), Valparai. RCOP. No. 18 of 2001 was filed by the Transferee of the original land-lady under Section 10(2)(i) & 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control), Act 1960, (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act').2. Originally the deceased K.M.Gopal, an advocate, was in occupation of the petition schedule premises as tenant under the vendor of the sale deed dated 11.6.1993 in favour of the Manimegalai, the petitioner in RCOP. No. 18 of 2001. According to the petitioner / landlady in RCOP. No. 18 of 2001 previous tenant K.M.Gopal was in occupation of the petition schedule building for a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-. After K.M.Gopal, the present respondents 2 & 3 ...

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Environme ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)13VST117(Mad)

P.K. Misra, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajasekar, Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Natarajan for the Respondent.2. The present appeal is filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and the District Forest Officer against the order dated 19.4.2005 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 10971 of 2000. Such writ petition was filed by the present Respondent for issuing writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for quashing the order dated 27.1.2000 in Proceeding No. Proc.L.1049/99 and further directing the second respondent, the District Forest Officer to release the sandalwood purchased by the present respondent in the auction dated 18.12.1998 without demanding demurrage and penal interest and without insisting on payment on sales tax.3. The present Appellant No. 2 had issued notification dated 27.10.1998 notifying about the auction of various classes of sandalwood. The present Respondent who is an exporter of sandalwood products, participated in such auction held on 18.12.1998 and wa...

The Inspector General of Registration and Vs. M. Gandhimathi and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)3MLJ1333

S. Palanivelu, J.1. These appeals are filed against the common order, dated 08.12.2004, passed by a learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 2723 and 2724 of 2004.2. The facts, which led to the filing of these appeals, are as follows:2.1. The properties comprised in T.S. Nos. 12 and 11/2 sprawling to an extent of Ac.4.47.1/2 Cents and Ac.1.49 Cents respectively, situate in Vellithirumutham Village of Srirangam Taluk originally belonged to one Kasi Ramachari, who bequeathed the same and other properties for various charities, by means of a registered Will on 06.04.1927. Thereafter, two of his descendants, by name Krishnan and Rangarajan filed C.S. No. 1544 of 1992 on the Original Side of Principal Bench of this Court at Madras against three other descendants, namely, Ranganayaki, Jayalakshmi and Rajalakshmi, for the reliefs of interpretation of the Will and for permitting them to sell the said properties, subject to the terms and conditions, to be imposed by the Court.2.2. On 04.05.1993, this ...

Kanyakumari Mavatta Meen Pedikkum Thozhilalar Sangam Rep. by Its Presi ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)3MLJ448

P.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. R. Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. These two writ appeals are directed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in review application Nos. 65 and 66 of 2001. The present appellants had filed W.P. Nos. 5075 of 1997 and 17070 of 1998 respectively for quashing G.O.Ms. No. 1509 dated 27.11.1991. The learned Single Judge after hearing the counsel for both parties had allowed the said writ petitions by a common order dated 4.8.2000. Subsequently the Government filed Review Application Nos. 65 and 66 of 2001 against the said order. The learned Single Judge however at that stage allowed the review applications and dismissed the writ petitions. The two appeals are against the said order.3. The connected W.P. No. 23054/2002 was filed by a student in the year 2002 claiming that he should be treated as belonging to 'Most Backward Community' as per G.O...

Ponnusamy Chettiar Vs. the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare and ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)1MLJ1297

ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to call for the records from the office of the first respondent pertaining to the acquisition of the petitioner's lands in S. No. 110/2 measuring 1.50 acres in Valayampattu Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District which is sought to be acquired under a notification under Section 4(1) of Act 31 of 1978 published in the North Arcot Ambedkar District Gazette dated 03.01.1997 and quash the same.2. The land in new Survey No. 110/2 in No. 92, Valayampattu Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, now Vellore District, which presently belongs to the petitioner, his two brothers and five sisters, originally belonged to his mother in whose name the patta stood till about 1986. After his mother's demise intestate, the petitioner, his brothers and sisters inherited the property and are entitled to 1/8th share each and patta stood transferred to the petitioner's individual name in Patta No. 315. There are about 100 coconut trees in the land ...

Central Warehousing Corporation Represented by Its Managing Director V ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)3MLJ382

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. In this appeal, the Central Warehousing Corporation, the appellant herein has put in issue the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 15.10.2003 made in O.P. No.615 of 2002 setting aside the arbitration award dated 17.10.2001 passed by the second respondent herein and directed the appellant to appoint an arbitrator, who is available at Chennai within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order to conduct the arbitration proceedings in Chennai in accordance with law and to pass a speaking order within four months from the date of entering into the reference. In the award, which was impugned in the O.P., the arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs.4,62,912/- towards counter claims in favour of the appellant herein with the direction to adjust the security deposit furnished in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the first respondent. The balance of Rs. 3,62,912/- was directed to be paid by the first respondent, in addition to the arbitration expense...

M.K. Madhivadanan Vs. R. Samarasam

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(2)CTC659

ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 4083 of 2005 on the file of XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the revision petitioner. The said suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioner herein for recovery of sum of Rs. 84,800/- together with interest. Pending suit, the petitioner herein has filed I.A. No. 23828 of 2005 in O.S. No. 4083 of 2005 under Section 8 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the parties to arbitration and to dismiss the suit. The said application was dismissed by the court below on 18.04.2006, hence, the present revision petition has been filed.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the court below failed to note that under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the suit itself is barred and it ought to have referred the dispute to arbitration; that the court below went wrong in holding that the present dispute is with regard to money and it failed to see t...

St. Michael College of Engineering and Technology, Rep. by Its Chairma ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. Sampath, J. (Open Court) The Opposite party in COP No.366/2003 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Madurai is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: He joined the opposite party institution on 30/5/2003. He paid the tuition fees of Rs.25,000/-. After joining the institution, the complainant came to know that the quality of education imparted in the said institution was sub-standard; that there was no proper infrastructure or laboratory and further that he had to travel a long distance from his home. When he was allotted a seat in another Engineering College near his house, he opted to switch over to the other institution. He approached the opposite party on 23/7/2003 and requested them to return his original certificates along with the tuition fees paid by him. The Chairman of the opposite party asked the complainant to come with a requisition letter. After that, the complainant approached the Chairman several times to hand over ...

Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Sharda Motor Industries Ltd. and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)16VST139(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This appeal is filed by the State against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai refusing to condone the delay of 255 days in filing an appeal before it against the order of the Commissioner (Appeal).2. Before the Tribunal it was stated by the appellant that there was a delay in obtaining the advice of the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai and in a similar matter an appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court and that was pending. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the appellant holding that sufficient cause has not been shown by the appellant for condonation of the inordinate delay in filing the appeal and mere pendency of any similar case before any court cannot be a valid reason for condonation of delay. The Tribunal also observed that even after receipt of the advice of the Chief Commissioner, there was a delay of one month.3. The learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that as against the ord...