Chennai Court November 2008 Judgments

P.V. Premnath Vs. Tvs Motor Co. Ltd.

Court: Company Law Board CLB Chennai

1. This company petition has been filed under section 111(4)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (“the Act”) seeking directions against M/s. TVS Motor Company Limited (“the Company”) to (i) rectify the register of members by incorporating the name of the petitioner in respect of 17,000 shares of Re. 1 each of the Company; and (ii) issue duplicate share certificates in the name of the petitioners in respect of the impugned shares, in support of which Shri R. Murari, learned Counsel, submitted as under: “The petitioner has invoked the provisions of section 111(4)(b) for rectification of the register of members of the first respondent Company, being a public company, which will not however affect the maintainability of the company petition. The courts have held that a petition filed under section 111 in respect of a public company may be treated as filed under section 111A. The Supreme Court held that Courts have to pass final orders in order to do complete justice...

O.1867 Nakalmuthanpatti Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd., a ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. In this case along with three other appeals, Appellants herein are the opposite parties before the District Forum. 2. The opposite parties namely the Society has received the deposits from the complainants wherein it is agreed to refund the deposits with specified rate of interest as set out in the said Fixed Deposit Receipt. However, at the time of disbursement of amounts, the Society is not in a position to pay the amount along with interest as agreed, but however it would pay only interest at the rate of 7.5%. Under the said circumstances, the complainant has approached the District Forum seeking relief as stated therein and the District Forum has allowed the complaint, against which the present appeal is filed. 3. The only issue to be resolved in these appeals are as to the rate of interest payable by the Society to the depositors. 4. A perusal of records discloses that the Society in Ex.B3 has issued a Circular to all the depositors either to c...

S. Sugumar, Proprietor Srisun Trailors, Salem Vs. V. Rajasekar

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The petitioner is the opposite party and the respondent herein is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The above Revision Petition is filed in dismissing the application filed by the opposite party wherein the objection is raised to decide the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue. 3. According to the Petitioner/Opposite Party, the entire cause of action arises only at Salem District and even no amount was received by the opposite party and it was not agreed to deliver the Trailer/Tractor at the premises of the complainant and no cause of action arose at Nagapattinam District. 4. The District Forum has rejected the said contention, against which the present R.P. is filed. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Opposite Party raised the above contentions and also relied upon the unreported judgement rendered by Honble High Court of Delhi in Arbitration Application No.242/2006, dated 04.01.2007 rendered in Rattan Singh Associates (P)...

S. Poongodi, Manonmani Vermi Farm, Thalavamalai Vs. B. Sivamalar

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 complainant is filed before the District Forum under the following circumstances: The complainant has approached the opposite party in pursuance of an attractive advertisement in the Newspaper with regard to the sale of Earthworms for good growth of the crops. When the complainant approached the opposite party, she was also promised that the opposite party would provide free service at the complainants place by giving training for production of worms. Based on the said assurance, the complainant has purchased 40,000 worms for a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the opposite party with the condition that she would deliver the worms at the residence of the complainant within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Karur. It is also further assured that the worms are Australian and African varieties and they would give good result. After the delivery ...

The Christian Hospital Periyakulam Through Its Manager and Another Vs. ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. 1. The appellants are the opposite parties and Respondents are the complainants before the District Forum. 2. The above appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the District Forum wherein the complaint is allowed after holding the opposite parties as exparte. 3. The short ground urged in this appeal is that even though the second opposite party was served on 19.11.2005, the first opposite party was served by Paper Publication, without giving sufficient time for opposite parties to file their version, the complaint ought not to have been allowed. 4. Though we are not able to accept the arguments of Learned Counsel for Appellants/Opposite Parties, considering the issue involved in the matter and the nature of the claim, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity may be given to the Appellants/Opposite Parties by imposing stringent conditions. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in the following terms: (a) The Appellants/Opposite Parties shall pay a sum of R...

C. Sathiyanathan Vs. Veeramuthu

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ1512

ORDERP.R. Shivakumar, J.1. This criminal original petition has been filed invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein in PRC No. 14 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Mettur based on a private complaint preferred by the respondent herein under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present criminal original petition can be stated thus:a) The respondent herein preferred a private complaint against the petitioner herein alleging that the petitioner had committed offences punishable under Sections 464, 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and an offence under the supposed Section 3(1)(viii)(ix)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The following are the allegations found in the complaint.An extent of 0.86.0 hectares of land comprised in Survey No. 11...

Dr. S. Bhuvaneshwar Karthik Vs. the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commissi ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ483

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. In W.P. No. 27108 of 2008, the petitioner has completed his B.D.S. Degree Course in the second respondent University having passed all examinations on 3.4.2008 including internship examinations and the petitioner made repeated attempts to obtain Provisional Certificate, however, the second respondent University has chosen to issue the Provisional Certificate on 26.8.2008, after a legal notice was issued on behalf of the petitioner to the second respondent University. In the meantime, based on the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission dated 8.7.2008, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Surgeon (Dental) on 26.7.2008 which was well within the last date for making application, viz., 27.8.2008. The application of the petitioner came to be rejected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission by the impugned order dated 4.11.2008 on the ground that the petitioner has not registered his name with the Tamil Nadu Dental Council on t...

The Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Rep. by Its General Ma ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ147Mad

V. Dhanapalan, J.1. While W.A. Nos. 36 to 64 of 2007 have been filed by the management, challenging the order of a learned single Judge questioning the reinstatement of the workmen with continuity of service, W.A. Nos. 111 to 126 of 2007 are preferred by the workmen, discontent with a portion of the order in not awarding back wages.2. The management is an engineering establishment in the manufacture of boilers, boiler components, valves, suit blowers etc., necessary for generation of electricity and the workmen were engaged temporarily on daily wage basis and subsequently terminated from service. The workmen raised a demand at the first instance against the management seeking permanent status under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (in short, 'the Act'), which resulted in a reference to the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli, whereupon the Labour Court passed an award, ordering reinstatement without back wages as well as continuity of service. Aggrieved over the order of rei...

Kwick Handling Service Pvt. Ltd., Presently Known as Sikkas Kwick Hand ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009(234)ELT30(Mad)

A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner M/s. Kwick Handling Service Pvt. Ltd. presently known as M/s. Sikkas Kwick Handling Service (P) Ltd. functioning as a licensed Custom House Agent (CHA).2. The relevant facts of the case appear from the judgment of the writ Court. It appears that the CHA admitted two cardboard boxes containing the personal effects as unaccompanied baggage of one Ms. Birgitte Arnak Pedersen at Chennai Port for export to Denmark. The said passenger has a Danish Passport and the said consignment along with the Shipping Bill No. 0625691 dated 03.02.2004 were examined in the presence of one Mr. G. Ramasamy representing the CHA and during such examination it was found that there were six objects, namely three numbers of metal ornaments, two numbers of metal belts and one idol in a glass case, apart from the personal effects of the passenger. Since some of the objects looked very old they were sent for examination by the Department of ...

The Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Vs. S. Ponnaiah

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ363

V. Dhanapalan, J.1. The State, through the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and others have preferred this appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7.8.2008, passed in W.P. No: 5266 of 2008, in and by which, the Writ Petition was allowed by quashing the punishment imposed on the respondent (writ petitioner) and directing the third appellant herein to pass orders granting promotion to the respondent (writ petitioner) from the date of promotion of his junior. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal will be referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. The brief facts, which are necessary for consideration of this appeal, are set out hereunder:(i) The respondent herein has filed the Writ Petition. According to him, he was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 31.8.1989 in the Taluk Office, Palayamkottai, and subsequently promoted as Assistant in the year 1994 and transferred to Radhapuram Taluk Office in the year 2003. After joining at Radhapura...