Chennai Court October 2008 Judgments

Veeran Vs. Veeravarmalle and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad64; (2009)2MLJ213

ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Judge of the Family Court at Puducherry, dated 07.03.2007 made in I.A. No. 59 of 2007 in O.S. No. 14 of 2006.2. The first defendant in the above referred suit is the petitioner herein, plaintiff thereon is the first respondent and the second defendant being the second respondent in this revision.3. The first respondent herein had laid the suit against the petitioner and the second respondent herein before the Family Court at Puducherry for declaration that she is the legitimate child born to her parents, viz., the petitioner and the second respondent herein. In the said suit, the first respondent has taken out in application in I.A. No. 59 of 2007 for directing the petitioner herein to cause appearance and admission with the petition specified institute for the purpose of D.N.A. examination and test or any other medical examination and test and to further direct the said institute to cause the said te...

Sivakumar the Branch Manager Indian Bank, Chennai Vs. Mrs. S. Sulochna

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant herein is the opposite party and the Respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The District Forum has allowed the complaint based on the records available, since the opposite party has remained exparte. Against the said order, present appeal is filed. 3. The learned counsel for appellant / opposite party has raised several contentions. However, without going into the merits of the said contentions, considering the fact that the appellant / opposite party remained exparte and in order to give one more opportunity, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration. 4. The appeal is disposed of in the following terms: A) The order of the District Forum is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh disposal. B) The opposite party shall file version within a period of two weeks from the date of the first hearing and the pleadings shall be completed thereafter and...

Alfine Knit Private Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)21VST359(Mad)

ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. The writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the respondent in PDL. 178/2007/A2 and to quash the impugned proceedings dated April 12, 2007 insofar as the petitioner is concerned and to further direct the respondent to issue fresh certificate of registration to the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 from January 1, 2007.2. The petitioner is an exporter of ready-made garments and a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act). In order to introduce the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act), the State Government repealed the TNGST Act with effect from January 1, 2007. Those dealers who are registered under the TNGST Act were given Tax Payer Identification Number (TIN) by the State Government through its web site assigned to the dealers and they were permitted to file returns under the provisions of the TNVAT Act. However, as per the provisions of the TNVAT Rules, e...

Padmanabhan A. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Labour and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ414Mad; (2009)2MLJ560

ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the orders of the 1st respondent in P.G.A. No. 38/2005 on December 26, 2005 and to direct the 2nd respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 59,466/- as gratuity.2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:(i) 2nd respondent is a commercial establishment acting as an agent for other manufacturers Petitioner joined the services of the 2nd respondent in 1957 and was deputed to the holding company and he was working as a salesman in charge of sale of CO2. Petitioner was in constant touch with dealers and he was overseeing the maintenance of records relating to cylinders in the CO2 department of Nellikupam Factory.(ii) In March 1990, certain discrepancies relating to receipt of empty cylinders from A.B. Doraiswamy & Co., Pondichery delivered on November 30, 1988 in the cylinder ledger account came to be noticed. It was also noticed that there were manipulation of entries in the cylinder led...

John Roase Vs. State by Inspector of Police

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ2354

R. Regupathi, J.1. The appellant/accused is the husband of the deceased and out of the wedlock, he begot through her four children. He was a fisherman and was also selling fish with PW 4 Anil and both of them became friends. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.8.1999 at 10.00 p.m., the accused, on seeing the deceased in a compromising position with PW4, with an intention to kill her, beat her with an umbrella on the forehead, threw grinding stone on the breast and flank and caused injuries on the private part by forcibly poking with the sharp edge of the umbrella and thereby, caused the death of the deceased. Charged in that regard, the accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil in Sessions Case No. 102 of 2000.The prosecution in its endeavour to establish its case against the accused, examined PWs. 1 to 15. marked Exs. P1 to P17 and produced M.Os. 1 to 4. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in by the defence. On conclu...

T. Balan Vs. Unicentre Agencies and Engg. (P.) Ltd.

Court: Company Law Board CLB Chennai

1. The petitioners collectively holding 50 per cent of the issued and paid up capital of M/s. Unicentre Agencies and Engineering Private Limited (“the Company”) aggrieved on account of certain acts of oppression and mis-management in the affairs of the Company, at the hands of the respondents 2 to 5, have invoked the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board under sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 (“the Act”), claiming the following reliefs: (a) to pass appropriate orders for the management, regulation and conduct of the affairs of the Company; (b) to supersede the present Board of directors of the Company and appoint an administrator to manage, regulate and conduct the affairs of the Company. (c) to surcharge the respondents 2 to 5 in accordance with Schedule XI of the Act on account of misappropriation and misapplication of the Company’s funds; and (d) to restore in favour of the Company the immovable properties located at Gummidipundi (&#...

The Commissioner, Sivakasi Municipality, Sivakasi Vs. P.i.T. Thyyagara ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. {Open Court } 1. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The complainant has approached the District Forum by alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party to the effect that he was made to run from pillar to post to get a copy of the survey extract. Even though, the complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs.4 lakhs, a sum of Rs.1000/- towards compensation and further sum of Rs.1000/- was ordered as cost. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no deficiency on the part of the appellant/opposite party and the opposite party has merely called upon the complainant to explain the reasons for which copy of the extract is required and since the complainant has not sent any reply, there was delay on the part of the complainant in furnishing the copy of the extract. According to the learned counsel, the District Forum has not considered the reasoning adduced by the appellant/oppo...

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Prabha Beverages Private Ltd. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ208Mad

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The writ petition is filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tirunelveli, challenging the order of the second respondent - Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, dated 27.8.1998, in setting aside the order passed by the petitioner, dated 09.3.1998 made under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'EPF Act').2. The first respondent was a registered Company under the Companies Act, 1956 and they took up a franchise agreement with M/s. Parle (Exports) Private Limited for the purpose of manufacturing soft drinks, such as, Thumps up, Limca, Gold Spot etc. By the said franchise agreement, the first respondent took Essence from M/s. Parle (Exports) Private Limited and bottled the drinks and distributed the same with its own employees and expertise. All over India, there are 62 such establishments like the first respondent. The first respondent employed initially 37 employees. Subsequently, it was...

V.L. Ramanathan Vs. Salem Nagarathar Sangam Rep. by Its President M.S. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(5)CTC792; (2009)1MLJ1174

ORDERS. Tamilvanan, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the Order and Decretal order, dated 05.04.2007 passed in O.S. No. 816 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem.2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents herein are the defendants 1 to 4 in the suit. The suit was filed seeking a decree, directing the respondents 2 to 4 to render true and proper accounts of the first respondent Sangam, to appoint a Commissioner to carryout the direction to be given by the court below in rendition of accounts and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents 2 to 4 herein from transferring the properties of the first respondent Sangam to any trust and for other consequential relief.3. It is seen that the suit was taken on file by the court below, then, the respondents herein, as defendants filed their written statement and subsequently, the following issues were framed for the disposal of the suit:1. Whether the first defendan...

P. Balamurugan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary, ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ1337

ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to write 6th semester examination for B.E. (CSE) scheduled to be held from 29.4.2008 and arrear examination to be held from 22.5.2008 by issuing the hall ticket and to conduct practical examinations for the 6th semester in B.E. (CSE) and also to permit the petitioner to continue his fourth year studies in the fourth respondent college.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a regular student of B.E. (CSE) course in the fourth respondent Engineering College and in the past four semesters, he has obtained 65 percentage of marks and for the 6th semester, he was having sufficient attendance. On 15.2.2008, the college bus of the fourth respondent was allegedly driven by the driver in a negligent manner and one of the petitioner's classmate suffered multiple fractures and he was admitted in the hospital. Since the petitioner was on the spot, ...