Chennai Court October 2008 Judgments

K.A. Duraisamy and P.D. Chockalingam Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu R ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ755

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard Mr. K. Doraisami, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. Kandan Doraisami and Mr.A.Arumugam, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the records.2. Both the writ petitioners challenges the order of the State Government in G.O.Ms. No. 1118, Home (Cinema -II) dated 18.8.1998 and after setting aside the same, they want renewal of the licence granted to the petitioners' video theatres.3. while in the first Writ Petition, notice was ordered on 3.8.1998, the second Writ Petition was admitted on 15.12.2000. Interim orders were also granted in favour of the petitioners and they are still in currency. On the strength of the interim order, the first petitioner is still running the video theatre as per the Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorders and Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1984 (for short 'Tamil Nadu Act 7 of 1984). On notice from this Court, the respondents have filed a counter affi...

Devi Constructions Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)221CTR(Mad)72; 2008[12]STR691; [2009]19STT461; (2008)18VST415(Mad)

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. By consent of parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal even at the admission stage.2. The writ petition is directed against the order of the respondent, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals),Salem, made in Miscellaneous Order No. 33/2008, dated 30.7.2008 which was passed as interim order pending final decision in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of original authority dated 13.11.2007.3. The impugned order has been passed by the respondent/appellate authority by virtue of powers conferred under Proviso-1 to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Under the impugned order, for the purpose of admitting the appeal, the respondent has directed the petitioner to make pre-deposit of entire service tax of Rs. 5,92,029/- along with 50% of penalty amount of Rs. 7,30,429/- i.e., Rs. 3,65,215/- imposed under Section 76 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994; 50% of the penalty amount of Rs. 1,000/-, i.e. Rs. 500/- imposed under S...

B. Ramesh Vs. the Registrar of Co.Operative Societies, V.C. 96, Cheyya ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ355(1)

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petitioner is one and the same in all the writ petitions. W.P No. 17734 of 2008 is filed challenging the order of the first respondent, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 7.12.2007 under which the appeal petition filed by the petitioner dated 15.11.2007 under Section 75(5)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 praying the first respondent to set aside the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 81 of the Act and also to direct the Special Officer of V.C.96, Cheyyar Division Revenue and Rural Development Department Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society to permit the petitioner to continue to execute his function as Secretary and draw his salary, came to be rejected on the basis that enquiry under Section 81 of the Act is pending, that the petitioner can put forth his defence before the Enquiry Officer, and that the petitioner does not come under common cadre and hence, the appeal under Section 75(...

K. Velayutham Vs. Venkata Naicker Trust Rep. by Its Manager Thiru E.V. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009(1)CTC71

P. Jyothimani, J.1. The tenant, who has filed a petition under Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1922 against the respondent/landlord to decide the minimum extent of land necessary for his convenient enjoyment and to fix its price with a direction to the respondent to convey to the petitioner the extent of land for which the price is fixed, having lost his case in both the courts below, has filed the present revision petition.2. The respondent has filed a suit in O.S. No. 316 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif, Erode for a direction to vacate the petitioner herein from the premises comprised in new Door Nos.86 to 89 (Old Door No.82A), New Shandy Road, now E.V.K. Sampath Salai, Erode Town on the ground that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent. 3. The petitioner has filed a written statement in the said suit stating that he has put up the superstructure in the vacant site at his cost and that the rent which was tendered has been refused ...

The Secretary, Agricultural Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. M. Palaniammal

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 complaint is filed before the District Forum under the following circumstances: The complainant has pledged gold weighing 113 grams with the opposite party and received a sum of Rs.26000/- as loan. On 10.5.2002, the complainant has repaid the principal amount alongwith interest of Rs.5,096/-, and again pledged the jewels to obtain a fresh loan for the same sum of Rs.26000/-. Subsequently, when the complainant made an attempt to clear the dues and requested the opposite party for the return of the jewels, she was not permitted to do so. The opposite parties took a stand that one of the employee viz. one Elango, who was an erstwhile secretary of the society, has stolen the cold to the extent of 1,805.900 gms. and a criminal case is lodged and the case is pending on the file of the Criminal Court. The said stand of the opposite party is not in acco...

M/S. Drg Finance and Investments, Rep. by Its Proprietor D. Ramagopal, ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

COMMON ORDER N. KANNADASAN J. 1. The respondents in the appeal are the complainants and the appellants herein are the opposite parties before the District Forum in OP.Nos.314/1999 and 315/1999 respectively. 2. The complainant in OP.No.314/1999 is the mother and the complainant in OP.No.315/99 is her son. 3. The complainants have approached the District Forum by contending that even though they have deposited a sum of R.1 lakh each in receipt No.010 and (deposit by mother) and Receipt No.009 (deposit by the son) respectively, the opposite parties have failed to return the deposits and as such there is deficiency in service. 4. The opposite parties resisted the complaint by contending that the complainants have approached the criminal courts for relief, as against the opposite parties, and as such the complaint is not maintainable. Though the opposite parties have filed version, they remained exparte and the District Forum has passed an order in allowing the complaint as stated ther...

Mrs. Indira Kumar Vs. Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Mumbai and Others

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant is the complainant and the respondents are the opposite parties. 2. The complaint is filed by contending that the complainant being a senior officer in an Insurance company, having approached the opposite parties for installation of a wireless telephone, which was later on installed and even though she was very prompt in payment of all the bills, she was unnecessarily harassed as if there was due on her part. 3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint to the effect that the complainant has not complied with the terms of the contract by approaching the 3rd opposite party, while surrendering the telephone and as such she was directed to pay the subsequent rental amounts treating it as an outstanding bills. 4. The District Forum has allowed the complaint granting relief as stated therein. 5. The appellant is represented by her power of attorney and husband of the complainant. It is submitted on behalf of the complainant that there wa...

Rajshree Sugars and Chemicals Limited Rep. by Its Director and Chief O ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008BusLR908; 2009(1)CTC227; (2008)8MLJ261

V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. $ 700 Billion bail out plan', 'Wall Street vanished', 'Lehman Brothers went belly up', 'Bear Stearns consumed', 'U.S. National Debt Clock runs out of digits' and 'AIG gone up in smoke' are some of the captions which have hit the headlines in recent times. All of those news items have a common denominator, called 'derivatives' and this case is all about derivatives.2. Since this appears to be the first case of its kind in India (subject to correction) where derivatives contracts are challenged as illegal and void and also since the jargon is not too familiar even to P.Ramanatha Iyer (of Law Lexicon) and Black (of Law Dictionary), a brief prelude has become necessary before we plunge into details. PRELUDE ABOUT DERIVATIVES3. 'Derivatives are time bombs and financial weapons of mass destruction' said Warren Buffett, one of the world's greatest investors, who overtook Microsoft Maestro in 2008 to become the richest man in the world and who is known as the 'Sage of ...

Kamala Devi Vs. T.P. Manoharan

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ1334

ORDERV. Periya Karuppiah, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order of dismissal dated 07.03.2008 passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam in I.A. No. 362 of 2007 in O.S. 52 of 2007 the application seeking for an order of re-issuance of Warrant of Commission to inspect the suit property and to measure the same with the assistance of a qualified surveyor. 2. The brief facts of the case put forth by the respective parties before the trial Court are as follows:(a) The suit was filed for bare injunction in respect of the suit Old S. No. 9/1 and New S. No. 9/3 measuring an extent of 12 cents and the application in I.A. No. 248 of 2007 was filed for interim injunction along with application in I.A. No. 249 of 2007 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. On 10.08.2007 Advocate Commissioner was appointed and taking advantage of the delay of 4 days in the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner, the defendant highhandedly remov...

M. Vedapuri Vs. O.M. Raj and Mangalakshmi

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(5)CTC404

ORDERS. Tamilvanan, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 23.08.2004 made in R.C.A. No. 7 of 1998 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalput, confirming the Order and Decretal Order, dated 13.10.1998 made in R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1995 on the file of the Rent Controller / District Munsif, Chengalput.2. The revision petitioner herein is the tenant. The respondents herein have filed the Rent Control Original Petition under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b), 10(2)(iii)(a), 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, seeking an order of eviction of the revision petitioner from the petition mentioned premises. 3. Before the Rent Controller, the first respondent herein was examined as P.W.1. Exs. A.1 to A.9 were marked. On the side of the revision petitioner, he himself was examined as R.W.1, apart from examining R.W.2 and marking Exs.B.1 and B.2. The Advocate Commissioner's p...