Chennai Court December 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.
Eastern Trading Company, Vs. Kalpana Lamps and Components Ltd. and S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2007
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ680
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge dated 11.4.2001 made in O.P. No. 565 of 1999, confirming the award passed by the Arbitrator, thereby rejecting the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioners in O.P. No. 565 of 1999 are the appellants before this Court.2. The respondents herein are engaged in the business of selling lamps and tube-lights. The appellants were acting as sole distributors of the respondents herein since 1979 for the areas of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. It is an admitted fact that there was no written agreement between the parties enumerating the terms of distributorship and the terms of their arrangement was to be seen from the trade practice and the conduct of the parties. It is stated that in 1995, there was a change in the management of the respondent company and the Anchor Group of Companies took over the control of the first respondent herein. Differences arose...
A. Chandra Bose, Vs. the Executive Engineer, Distribution, Tamilnadu E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2007
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ886
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The question involved in these matters being common, they are being decided by this common order.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions are, as under:(a) The petitioners, namely, A. Chandra Bose, S. Raju and D. Michael were working as watchmen in the office of the Junior Engineer, Nanguneri Rural, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, which is under the control of the respondent. Pursuant to the direction of the Superintending Engineer, Tirunelveli Electricity Distribution Circle, by way of telegram, to terminate the services of the Security Guards employed on contract basis in Office/Stores on 30.04.1993 and to make local management in their place, the respondent passed an order dated 28.04.1993, temporarily diverting the petitioners to the substores at Vaniankulam with effect from 30.04.1993 till the joining of the regular Security for watch and ward duty.(b) According to the petitioners, they were served the copy of the order dated 28.04.1993 o...
L.R. Seetharaman Vs. V.S. Muthusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)CTC659
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. This revision is preferred by the complainant challenging the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore for the enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the judgment of conviction dated 27.4.2003 in C.C. No. 949/97 convicting the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposing only a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, two months simple imprisonment.2. Mr. R. Asokan, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the order under challenge in this revision is presently for the limited purpose for enhancement of the sentence as the learned Magistrate awarded only a very meagre sentence in spite of the fact that the cheque amount involved in this matter is Rs. 1,50,000/- under the cheque-Ex. P.1 dated 18.4.97. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the responde...
The Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras, Represented by Its Deputy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(232)ELT22(Mad)
S. Tamilvanan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1991 made in O.S. No. 1228 of 1990 on the file of the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows::It is not in dispute that the first respondent herein/first defendant was a Steamer agent of the ship viz., 'Indian Goodwill', which arrived at the Madras Port on 17.03.1986. A consignment of 'One Steal Flat' under mark 'GOEL STEEL CO MADRAS' was landed against line No. 101 of the manifest. The second respondent herein/second defendant was the consignee of the imported goods and carrying on business at Chennai.3. It is seen that the appellant herein/plaintiff had given notice to both the respondents for clearance of the consignment. It is also not in dispute that even after receipt of the notice, the second respondent/second defendant, the consignee did not take steps to clear the goods from the Madras Port Trust. Hence, an application was...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by Divisional Manager and Vs. Ass ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2007
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ771
S. Tamilvanan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.1995 passed in O.S. No. 9 of 1991 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ranipet.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The appellants herein were the plaintiffs in the suit, before the trial Court. The second appellant herein had entrusted a consignment of 50 barrels of DIOCTYL MALEATE, Chemicals, weighing 10 metric tonnes, with the respondent herein for safe carriage by road, from Ranipet to Bombay to deliver the same to M/s. PDI Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., at Bombay. The respondent herein had accepted the consignment for safe carriage and issued Goods Consignment Note dated 30.12.1988, which is marked as Ex. A2. The second appellant had also insured the consignment with the first appellant/United India Insurance Company Limited against the loss/damage in transit. A copy of the policy dated 09.05.1988 was marked as Ex. A1. The aforesaid consignment was carried by the respondent in the truck bear...
Haji M.A. Ahmed Sadakathullah Maraicair Vs. A. Mohideen Abdul Khader a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)CTC208; (2008)1MLJ454
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. The third plaintiff in O.S. No. 60 of 1981 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam had challenged the order passed in in I.A. No. 314 of 2003 in I.A. No. 87 of 2002 in O.S. No. 60 of 1981. I.A. No. 314 of 2003 in I.A. No. 87 of 2002 in O.S. No. 60 of 1981 was filed by the 4th plaintiff in O.S. No. 60 of 1981. The plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S. No. 60 of 1981 for partition of the plaint schedule properties. After passing of the preliminary decree, final decree proceeding was initiated by the plaintiffs in I.A. No. 87 of 2002 in O.S. No. 60 of 1981. While the said final decree proceeding is pending before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, the 4th plaintiff alone had filed I.A. No. 314 of 2003 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend his share in the preliminary decree as 12/60 instead of 10/60 on the ground that his mother/4th defendant died, after passing of the preliminary decree in whose favour a preliminary...
Kasim Maraikkayar and Kannuvappa @ Abubakkar Vs. Haji Kathija Beevi Tr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Mad91; 2008(1)CTC190; (2008)2MLJ392
ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This is a revision preferred by the respondents in I.A. No. 4 of 2007 in Wakf O.P. No. 2 of 2007 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.2. The respondents herein preferred Wafk O.P. No. 2 of 2007 before the court below for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property scheduled in the original petition. According to the petitioners in the original petition the petition schedule property belongs to Haji Katheeja Beevi trust. The founder trustee Haji Katheeja Beevi constituted a trust comprising herself and her husband Haji Abubucker as trustees till their life time and thereafter nominated their son Vanjoor Maricair and their daughter Lathifa Beevi as joint trustees. After the demise of the founder trustee and her husband, Vanjoor Maricair and Lathifa Beevi assumed charge as trustees and they were administering the trust. However Vanjoor Maricair started...
Pro Musicals Represented by Its Proprietor, SudhIn Mark Prabhakar Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(124)ECC169; 2008(150)LC169(Madras); 2008(227)ELT182(Mad)
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Challenge is made to a show cause notice issued by the first respondent in F. No. CIU/ii-01/06/42 dated 15.1.2007, and also a direction to release the detained goods unconditionally as required under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act 1962, is sought for by the petitioner.2. The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.3. The case of the petitioner in short is that they are engaged in the import and trading of Digital Audio and music production equipments. They imported the musical equipments through the Chennai Airport and had cleared it for home consumption after paying the necessary duty. They sent a part of the legally imported duty paid goods having a market value of Rs. 2,26,000/-, to the dealer Sudeep Audio at Mumbai to be exhibited in the exhibition 'Palm India Expo 2006' organised by M/s. Infocast Systems Pvt. Ltd. The goods were sent with a delivery challan dated 19.5.2006. The first responde...
Mustafa Vs. Sulaiman Vayala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ175
ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The Civil Revision Petitioner herein is the complainant in Dispute No. 6 of 2000 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry.2. The revision petitioner/complainant has filed a complaint under Section 18 read with Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondent/opposite party inter-alia stating that the respondent/opposite party did the construction work without any care and diligence and the work was given to him since the respondent/opposite party is an architect and thinking that he is an expert builder. On verification it was found that the construction was substandard and that money was spent like anything etc.3. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner/complainant that RCC roof of the first floor is leaking on all sides and the scene is very pathetic and from the sight itself, it will be revealed that the intention of the respondent/opposite party was to spindle money from the revision petiti...
P.S. Nandakumar, Vs. Makkal Samuga Nala Sangam Rep. by Its Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ447
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in O.S. No. 240 of 2007, on the file of District Munsif, Ponneri.2. The defendants 1 to 3 in the suit have filed the present revision. The first respondent has filed the above said suit against the revision petitioners as defendants 1 to 3 and the District Collector, Tiruvallur and the Tahsildar, Ponneri as defendants 4 and 5, for declaration that the suit property belonged to the Village Chavadi, which is gramanatham land and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 4 and 5, viz., the District Collector, Tiruvallur and the Tahsildar, Ponneri to cancel the patta bearing No. 783 standing in the name of the revision petitioners and for permanent injunction against the revision petitioners.3. The schedule of property in the suit relates to the lands comprised in Survey No. 423/2 measuring an extent of 0.15 cents, which is stated to be gramanatham chavadi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »