Chennai Court March 2008 Judgments

Kannammal and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary t ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)5MysLJ573

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petition is filed against the letter of the first respondent, the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 18.06.2007, by which considering the representation of the petitioners dated 20.12.2006 in the light of the order of this Court dated 07.03.2007 made in W.P. No. 8173 of 2007, the claim of exemption from land acquisition proceedings in respect of the properties comprised in Survey No. 12/3 to the extent of 3.26 acres of lands was rejected on the basis that the lands acquired are still required for the public purpose.2. The petitioners are the owners of the lands to the extent of 3.26 acres, comprised in S.F. No. 12/3 situated at Krishnarayapuram Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District. The lands were acquired by the first respondent, by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (Central Act) (in short, 'the Act') published on 07.03.1983 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act on...

J. Parthiban and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2008Mad203; (2008)3MLJ657

ORDERA.P. Shah, C.J.1. These writ petitions involving similar questions of law and fact were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The challenge in all these petitions is to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) (hereinafter referred to as 'the T.N.Acquisition Act') for the expansion of the Chennai Airport. It appears that in the year 2005, the Airports Authority of India wanted to expand the existing Chennai Airport to meet the rapid development in air traffic and air transport. The Airports Authority of India is forced to develop the Chennai Airport as an international hub and to extend the runway to sustain the developing economic growth. The Minister of State for Civil Aviation, Government of India by a letter dated 21.4.2005 requested the State Government to provide land for expansion of the existing Chennai Airport. On 21....

Prof.i.Elangovan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Court: Chennai

O R D E R THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 1. These petitions raise identical question of law and are concerned with the interpretation of Section 33 of the The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) and other related provisions of the Act. Accordingly, these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner, who is a Professor and Head of English Department, Vellore College, and a Member of the Academic Council and a Syndicate Member of the Thiruvalluvar University, Vellore, has filed these petitions in public interest questioning the validity of the Notification/Advertisement No.135 dated 15.11.2007 and Notification/Advertisement No.142 dated 6.12.2007 issued by the second respondent-The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC for short) principally on the ground that the TNPSC has not followed the rule of 3% reservation as provided under Secti...

D. Venkata Subramaniam, Senior Deputy General Manager (P) Chennai Vs. ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH J. {Open Court} The complainant in COP No.274/2005 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) is the appellant herein. The complaint relates to refund of air fare and compensation from the opposite party Airlines. The case of the complainant was as follows:- He was a frequent flyer by Air Deccan for his corporate official visits and also on his family travels. He had booked a flight ticket to Hyderabad and from Hyderabad to Chennai on 11/1/2005. It was booked on 7/1/2005. The flight was originally scheduled to leave Hyderabad at 21.00 Hrs on 11/1/2005. However, on enquiry over phone he was informed by the staff of the opposite party that the flight was delayed by 45 minutes and the revised departure time was 21.45 Hrs on the same day. Since the departure time was rescheduled, the complainant went to check-in counter at 21.25 Hrs. He was informed by the staff at the counter that he was to have reported 30 minutes before the scheduled depar...

V.S.C.K. Financiers, Coimbatore and Others Vs. N. Balasubramanian and ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. {Open Court} These appeals involve a common question. The opposite parties are one and the same in all these matters though the complainants are different. The appeals are disposed of by the following order. The complainants in the individual complaints had filed Execution Petitions against the opposite parties for execution of the orders passed in the complaint filed by them in COP Nos.41, 42, 43 and 44 of 2003. The Opposite parties were directed to pay the respective complainants various amounts and since the opposite parties did not comply with the order in the main complaints, execution was levied by the respective complainants. 2. The opposite parties contended that they were not able to mobilise the amounts to be deposited for filing the appeals within the stipulated time and hence the appeals were rejected ; that the Government had made attachment against all their properties to protect the interest of the deposit holders as there were cases filed before the TNPID...

Akshaya Textiles Limited Vs. the Tahsildar and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]143CompCas66(Mad)

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent dated 16-08-2004 under which the respondent has directed the writ petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. 15,82,446/-. In the impugned order, the first respondent has directed to make payment failing which action will be taken in attaching the movable and immovable properties of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner which was a Company registered under the Companies Act running the textile mill became sick and was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. By an order dated 30-08-2001, the BIFR has directed winding up of the Company and the same is forwarded to the High Court for necessary action. The appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed on 23-05-2002, as against which the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 19611 of 2002 by which there was an order of interim stay regarding th...

Pandiyan Graphites India Ltd. and anr. Vs. T.V.S. Finance and Services ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR621(Madras)

Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is by the borrower availing finance facility from the first respondent herein, against the award passed by the arbitrator, the second respondent herein in respect of the hire purchase agreement dated 18.03.1995 marked as Exhibit C-2.2. The facts leading to the filing of the proceedings invoking arbitration clause under the agreement are as follows:(a) The petitioner, a company, availed of hire purchase finance facility from the first respondent herein for a sum of Rs. 14,26,680. The parties herein entered into a hire purchase agreement on 18.03.1995 whereby, the first respondent company let on hire machinery described in the schedule annexed to the agreement dated 18.03.1995. In terms of the hire purchase agreement, the first petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs. 39,630 every month towards the monthly re-payment which spread over to a period of 36 months from 18.03.1995. The second peti...

V. Balachandran Vs. M/S.Reachus, “best Labels Mens Wear” Coi ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J.{Open Court} The complainant in COP No.39/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, is the appellant herein. The grievance of the complainant was that he had purchased a readymade shirt from the opposite party ; that the shirt developed defects ; he showed the same to the opposite party ; that the opposite party admitted that there was a weaving defect since the threads being spread away and promised to replace the same with a new one ; that a week thereafter the opposite party returned the same defective shirt and refused to replace it compelling the complainant to issue a lawyers notice and file the complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to pay the price of the shirt in a sum of Rs.695/-, Rs.1,000/- towards travelling expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.300/- towards his lawyers fees. 2. The defence set up by the opposite party was that on the date the complainant brought the shirt to them t...

V. Kanna and V. Krishnan Vs. the District Collector and the Special Ta ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)4MLJ745

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.2. The writ petition is filed challenging the notification issued by the District Collector under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 15.12.1997 in respect of the lands comprised in S. Nos. 102/2, 102/3, 102/5A and 102/6 situate in Kilvanniyanur village, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.3. Even though the petitioners have also raised the points relating to the non-following of the procedure under Section 4(2) of the Act, the learned Counsel for the petitioners restrict his arguments relating to Section 4(1) notification. It is also relevant to point out that before the issuance of notice under Section 4(2) by the second respondent, there was a family arrangement between the brothers and that has culminated into a registered d...

D. Mathialagan Vs. N. Mathivanan, Managing Director, Erode and Another

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. 1. The complainant in C.O.P. No. 88 of 2003 on the file of the District Forum, Erode is the appellant herein. 2. His case was as follows: - The complainant and his wife applied for a loan to the second opposite party for construction of a house by the first opposite party. The loan papers were signed by the complainant and his wife. They also gave a promissory note and mortgaged the undivided share of land with OP2. The first opposite party, however, never started any construction work even after the stipulated time as agreed to. The second opposite party sanctioned full loan amount of Rs.5 lakhs directly to Matrix Housing Private Limited, the Managing Director of which Company was the first opposite party in one cheque without verifying the progress in the building. After several letter correspondences OP1 assured the complainant that he would complete the flat soon. This was not done. The complainant wrote a letter to OP2 to recover the loan from OP1. There was default...