Chennai Court February 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.
D. Jagadeesan Vs. Bank of Baroda, Rep. by Its Executive Director and A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)2LLJ562Mad
ORDERM.E.N. Patrudu, J.1. The petitioner, the former Senior Manager of the first respondent Bank is questioning the legality and correctness of the Order of the Executive Director of the Bank. 2. The Executive Director, the first respondent herein, confirmed the Order of the second respondent the General Manager, who is the Disciplinary Authority and thereby the Order of dismissal of the petitioner is confirmed.3. The Order of dismissal is based on an allegation of misappropriation of the bank money to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. There are some more charges.4. At the outset, this Court would like to clarify the law in relation to the limits of the jurisdiction of High Court in entertaining a plea for writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution is well settled. In order to justify the writ of certiorari, it must be show that the impugned order suffers from en error apparent on the face of the record. It is clear that the error must be an error of law and not error of fact, bec...
T. Govindarajan, Vs. T. Soundarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ901
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the Order made in E.P. No. 27/2005 in O.S. No. 20/2004, ordering attachment of Petition mentioned property.2. In brief background facts are as follows:Petitioners and Respondent are brothers. Respondent filed partition suit in O.S. No. 109/1993 before Sub Court, Nagapattinam, which ended in compromise. Pursuant to the compromise, parties have entered into a Vardamanam dated 02.12.1996, as per which, Respondent is to be paid Rs. 6,00,000/- in lieu of his share. Since the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- was not paid for executing the terms of Vardamanam, Respondent filed O.S. No. 487/2000 before Sub Court, Thiruvarur, which was decreed on 23.11.2004. 3. As against the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 20/2004, Petitioners have filed A.S. No. 294/2005 before the High Court. In the appeal, the High Court has granted interim stay on condition that Judgment-Debtors should deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the credit of O.S. No. 20/20...
S.K. Palani Rajan Vs. Rajeswari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2007
Reported in: [2007]289ITR61(Mad)
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Authorities, fixing the fair rent at Rs. 2,634/-. 2. The demised premises is a non-residential shop portion in Luz Church Road, Mylapore, Chennai. The Revision Petitioner is a Tenant in the non-residential premises - Mangalore tiled portion, measuring an extent of 264 sq.ft. The Petitioner has been paying the monthly rent at Rs. 700/-. Seeking fixation of fair rent at Rs. 5,341/-, the Respondent / Landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 1562 of 2003 on the file of XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. The Respondent / Landlord has also filed Petitions against other Tenants for fixation of fair rent. Fixing the land value at Rs. 22,00,000/- per ground, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 2,634/-. Aggrieved by the same, the Revision Petitioner / Tenant has filed an Appeal in R.C.A. No. 961 of 2004 on the file of VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. The fair rent fixed ...
Axles India Workers' Union, rep. by Its Secretary Vs. the Government o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2007
Reported in: (2007)2LLJ506Mad
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petition is filed for a declaration that the settlement entered under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, dated 17.05.2006 before the third respondent between 4th and 5th respondents, is binding only on the members of the 5th respondent union and not on the petitioner union. 2. According to the petitioner union, the petitioner union is representing the workmen employment in the 4th respondent management in factory at Sreeperumpudur with membership of 61 workmen and 18 workmen in Gumidipundi out of the total number of workmen numbering 170. The 4th respondent management has transferred 23 workers on 12.09.2001 working in Sreeperumpudur factory to Gumidipundi factory, at the time, when the 4th respondent was not having factory at Gumidipundi at all and the transfer was only for victimization. When the 4th respondent management has withdrawn 'on duty permission' granted to workmen, which was protested, they have announced a scheme for voluntary ...
The Management of Institute of Road Transport Technology Vs. S. Arumug ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2007
Reported in: (2007)2LLJ312Mad
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order in W.P.No.6465 of 1998 dated 29.7.2003 allowing the writ petition filed by the workmen, by setting aside the award of the Labour Court.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal are as follows.(a) Respondents 1 to 5 herein along with 15 other persons were employed in the appellant management as Security Guards. The appellant is a Engineering College at Erode, established by the Transport Corporation fully owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu.(b) According to the respondents 1 to 5, they have to do shift duties and initially they were paid Rs. 20/- per shift, which was later on increased to Rs. 25/- per shift and thereafter to Rs. 30/- per shift. The wages were calculated and paid by the appellant management directly, depending on the number of shifts in which each Security Guard worked.(c) The case of the respondents 1 to 5 is that at a later point of time, the appellant created documents to s...
Madurai Saurashtra Sabha Rep. by Its Honorary Secretary R.V. Seshachar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC11
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, dated 28.11.2000, made in W.P. No. 20762 of 1993, Madurai Sourashtra Sabha through its Honorary Secretary has filed the above Appeal.2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the learned single Judge.3. According to the petitioner, Madurai Sourashtra Sabha, which consists of members belonging only to Sourashtra community, is being administered for the objects of managing educational institutions, reading rooms and library enabling the members of the community to receive general and technical education. The said Sabha is also managing a Temple known as Madurai Sri Prasanna Venkatesa Perumal Temple (in short 'Temple') and conducting the religious festivals connected therewith. All the accounts of the Sabha relating to income and expenditure of the Temple, which has no independent income, are being periodically audited and reports are submitted to the authorities functioning under the Indian Com...
K.P. Balaji and K.P. Chakrapani Vs. M. Seshadri and S. Kalavathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2007
Reported in: (2007)1MysLJ394
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of dismissal dated 10.11.2003 passed in I.A. No. 487 of 2003 in O.S. No. 426 of 1996 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Hosur.2. The plaintiffs are the revision petitioners and the present revision petitions are filed challenging the order of the Sub-Court, Hosur, dated 10.11.2003 made in I.A. No. 487 of 2003 in O.S. No. 426 of 1996. An interim application was filed by the petitioners pending the suit for the purpose of considering the objections raised by them with regard to the admissibility of the alleged sale receipt dated 30.5.1990 produced by the defendant during the trial. 3. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for passing a decree for the cancellation of the suit sale deeds dated 11.12.1995 and to declare them as sham and nominal by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and also for declaration of the titles of the plaintiffs with reference to the suit items and for a specific p...
S. Amutha Vs. C. Manivanna Bhupathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad164; 2007(2)CTC97; I(2008)DMC573; (2007)1MLJ916
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of dismissal dated 13.4.2006 passed in I.A. No. 98 of 2006 in H.M.O.P. No. 76 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Erode.2. This is a case of an husband and wife fighting over the matrimonial cause relating to the dissolution of their marriage before the trial Court and have put their child on a burner unmindful of its future consequences. This is not a case where the King Solomon's rule can be applied and ask the child to be cut by a sword to find out the real mother. But in this case, the real father and the mother are fighting and the child is called as a witness to speak about the truth or otherwise of the averments made in the pleadings filed by them before the trial Court. The father has brought the minor son and had put him on the witness stand to speak against his mother and the mother has objected to the same. The trial Court has brushed aside the objection of the mother (the revisio...
Tvl. Swamiji Mills Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: (2007)8VST677(Mad)
Dharma Rao Elipe, J.1. The above writ appeal was filed by the writ petitioner against the order of the learned single Judge dated 3.11.2006 in W.P.(MD) No. 7970 of 2006, wherein the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that no explanation was offered for the delay in filing the writ petition and the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case on merits and that the petitioner instead of filing petition under Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, stated to have made representations and the receipt of the said representations was disputed by the Department.2. The writ petitioner is the manufacturer of Cotton Yard and an assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner submitted his accounts to the second respondent for final assessment purpose and based on the revised statements filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 1996-97, his accounts was checked by the second respondent and the second respondent issued a Pr...
industrial Development Bank of India Limited by Deputy General Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad173; [2007]139CompCas68(Mad); (2007)5CompLJ139(Mad); 2007(2)CTC397; [2007]78SCL113(Mad)
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. Admit. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. By consent, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 8.9.2006 in Writ Petition No. 11009 of 2006.3. The brief facts leading to the appeal are as follows:The appellant-IDBI had sanctioned financial assistance aggregating Rs. 400 lakhs (since reduced to Rs. 394 lakhs) to the respondent for setting up a new unit for manufacture of texturised and draw twisted polyester filament yarn with an installed capacity of 600 tpa, in Uruvaiyaru, Villianur Panchayat in Puducherry and for the said purpose, the respondent had executed loan and security documents. As the respondent defaulted in repayment of the principal amount of the loan and in payment of interest and other charges in terms of the relevant loan agreements entered into with the appellant, the appellant filed recovery application against the respondent and others bef...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »