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.
Spices Valley Estate Ltd., Rep. by Its Authorised Signatory Vs. Tc For ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: (2007)3CompLJ148(Mad); (2007)4MLJ643
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the first defendant/company, as against the dismissal of the I.A., filed by it under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC to reject the Plaint. 2. According to the revision petitioner/first defendant they filed the said application for rejection of the Plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the ground that there is no cause of action which arose to institute the suit before the City Civil Court at Chennai and therefore there is no territorial jurisdiction for the court to entertain the said suit. The respondent/plaintiff resisted the said application on the ground that the entire cause of action happened only in Chennai and therefore the suit filed before the City Civil Court, Chennai is well maintainable. 3. The learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, on a consideration of the averments and the submissions of the learned Counsels, dismissed the said application after finding from the perusal of the plaint that there ex...
Chenrayar Perumal Temple, Represented by Its Managing Trustee, R. Hari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC84; (2007)5MLJ1235
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Act 31 of 1978) is challenged on the ground that after the report was submitted to the District Collector, no order as contemplated under Section 4(3)(a) of the Act was passed by the District Collector. On the contrary, the same was passed by the Personal Assistant to the District Collector. Relying on Jainabi v. The State of Tamil Nadu 2006(5) CTC 163, the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is challenged.2. Para 6(3)(e) of the counter-affidavit, which is relevant to decide the present case reads as follows:6(e) The Personal Assistant to the Collector is empowered to pass orders on behalf of the Collector, Salem, so there is no violation of the procedure contemplated under Section 4(3)(a) and (b) of the Act.and confirms the contention of the petitioner that the District Collector has not passed the order as contemplated under Section 4(3)(a) of the Act.3. The District Collector has to exercise t...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›