Chennai Court April 2008 Judgments
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Rep. by Managing Director Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ600
P.K. Misra, J.1. M/s Cheran Roadways Corporation Limited, now named as Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 23.2.2004 passed by the the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 1 2384 of 1996, where under the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition filed by present respondent No. 1 , remanded the matter to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration.2. The background facts may be noticed in brief. The present respondent No. 1 , which is a Transport Operator, had applied for renewal of permit and the same was allowed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'STAT') by proceedings dated 1.11.1980. This Court, in the revision filed by the appellant, remitted the matter to the STAT for fresh disposal and specifically directed that till the disposal of such appeal, the Transport Operator would be permitted to carry on the operation. However, the present respondent No. 1 had filed the ...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Abdul Rasheed Vs. the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Rep. by Its Managi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MhLj1496
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The respondents called for application for the sale of 11,245 sq.ft. of land in site No. 2B at Sowripalayam Non-Housing Scheme situate at Coimbatore. As per the notification, the sale has to be conducted in the form of sealed tender cum open auction in April,2005. The upset price was fixed at Rs. 46,10,500/- and every tenderer was directed to deposit 2% of the upset price as Earnest Money Deposit. There is a further condition that when the tenders are opened, the highest bid will be treated as upset price and public auction will be conducted. It is also a condition that only persons who presented the tender forms are permitted to participate in the public auction. The person who would offer highest price in public auction will be confirmed to be the highest bidder and on such confirmation, 15% of the highest bid amount has to be deposited on the very same day apart from the earnest money deposit. After getting the Board's approval, confirmation will be sent to ...
Tag this Judgment!Tmt. Rohini Lingam Vs. State Represented by the Secretary to Governmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ822
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petitioner is the wife of Lingam @ Muthulingam. According to the petitioner, her husband was implicated as an accused in Nesamony Nagar Police Station in Crime No. 27/94 for an alleged offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code in respect of an occurrence stated to have happened on 07.04.1994. Along with him, there were other accused and the petitioner's husband was arrested and remanded to judicial custody during 1996 pending investigation. He was confined in the Sub Jail, Nagercoil as trial prisoner in Cell No. 8. The application for bail filed for the petitioner's husband was dismissed and therefore, he was in the Sub Jail, Nagercoil pending investigation. 2. According to the petitioner the respondents 1 to 3 are the persons responsible in having overall control over the Sub Jail. On 09.04.1996, at about 3.10 am the husband of the petitioner, who was detained in the Cell, was murdered in the Sub Jail, Nagercoil and the crime was registered in Ne...
Tag this Judgment!Reserve Bank of India Vs. Integrated Finance Company Ltd. a Company In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CTC705; (2008)5MLJ980
P.K. Misra, J.1. Company Petition No. 160 of 2005 was filed under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by M/s. Integrated Finance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), a private company incorporated under the Companies Act, for getting approval of the Scheme of arrangement/compromise between the said company and some of the creditors, namely, the deposit holders and bond holders.1.1 The Company is a non-banking finance company incorporated under the Act and engaged in the business of hire purchase and lease. Expressing its inability to carry on its business on account of various factors, the Company presented a Scheme under Section 391 of the Act for an arrangement / compromise with the class of creditors, namely, the bond holders and deposit holders.1.2 The salient features of the Scheme as contained in such petition are to the following effect:4. PAYMENTS TO FIXED DEPOSIT HOLDERS/BOND HOLDERS 4.1 The Company would settle ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhandapani and Karunaiammal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ1416
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. In these writ petitions notifications issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act) (in short, 'the Act') in G.O.Ms. No. 638 Housing and Urban Development [L.A.3(2)] Department dated 18.07.1995 is challenged by the petitioners in respect of their lands to an extent of 1.72 and 2.58 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 295/1, 296/2 and 296/5 and 296/2B, 296/5B, 295/1 and 296/5 in Kalapatti village, Coimbatore District.2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are the owners of the above said extent of lands and after purchase, they have been in possession of the said lands. Land acquisition proceedings under the Act has been initiated by the respondents to acquire lands to an extent of 14.00.5 hectares in Kalapatti Village for the purpose of construction of houses under Neighbourhood Scheme. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued in G.O.Ms. No. 190 dated 25.02.1994, however, it was published after four months in the Tamil Na...
Tag this Judgment!Sugavaneswara Spinning Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. S. Arunachalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2008
Reported in: [2008]143CompCas676(Mad); (2008)5MLJ155; [2008]88SCL31(Mad)
S. Tamilvanan, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench at Chennai, in C.A. No. 82 of 2007 in C.P. No. 9 of 2005 (S. Arunachalam v. Sugavaneswara Spinning Mills P. Ltd. [2008] 142 Comp Cas 611), this civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred.2. It is not in dispute that the respondents herein had originally approached the Company Law Board in C.P. No. 9 of 2005 with allegations of 'oppression and mismanagement' by the appellants Under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. As per Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, the shareholders are entitled to approach the Company Law Board, complaining of acts of oppression and mismanagement by the majority shareholders.3. According to the respondents herein, their rights as shareholders of the company are being affected by the actions of the appellants group. The Company Law Board, with a view to protecting status quo, pending the company petition, passed an interlocutory order on...
Tag this Judgment!Falcon Tyres Limited, Rep. by Its Chief Executive Officer Vs. Tvs Sric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2008
Reported in: LC2008(3)221
P.K. Misra, J.1. The plaintiff / respondent filed C.S. No. 254 of 2005 against the present appellant for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant (present appellant) from in any way selling its Zebra 101 / Challenger 101 or any other tyre with the same tread pattern as the plaintiff's Dragon tyre and also for a further direction to furnish accounts from the date of launching of such products and further claiming Rs. 10,01,000/- as damages. During pendency of such suit, the plaintiff filed O.A. No. 284 of 2006 for passing an order of interim injunction.2. Learned single Judge had initially granted an ex-parte order of ad-interim injunction. Thereafter, the present appellant filed Appln. No. 2042 of 2006 arising out of O.A. No. 284 of 2006 in C.S. No. 254 of 2006 for vacating such ad-interim injunction. By order dated 31.7.2006, the learned single Judge, while dismissing such Appln. No. 2042 of 2006, made the ad-interim order of injunction absolute, resulting in filing of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sivakasi Region Tax Payers Association Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. the S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ1425
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. W.P. No. 16636 of 1995 has been filed by Sivakasi Region Tax Payers Association for issuing a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for quashing G.O.Ms. No. 867 dated 13.9.1995 and for a further direction to remove the encroachments in Siru Kulam Kanmai situated at Sivakasi Town in Survey No. 579.W.P. No. 22274 of 2007 has been filed by the very same Association for issuing a writ of Certiorari for quashing G.O.Ms. No. 854 Revenue Department dated 30.12.2006.2. The relevant portion of G.O.Ms. No. 867 dated 13.9.1995, impugned in W.P. No. 16636 of 1995, is extracted hereunder:5. The Government considered the report submitted by the Commissioner for Land Administration. In the Siru Kulam Kanmai Poramboke, out of the 138 encroachments, 93 are residences, 36 are industries and 9 other encroachers. The above encroachments are near the banks of the Kanmai and they are there for the past 25 years. In this 102 encroachers were given Electricity connections, 2 encroachers were g...
Tag this Judgment!Lalitha, Vs. V. Arjunan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ901
M. Jaichandren, J.1. The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 25.08.2006, made in A.S. No. 575 of 2005, on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 21.02.2005, made in O.S. No. 552 of 2002, on the file of the VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the appeal are referred to as they have been arrayed in the original suit in O.S. No. 552 of 2002. 3. Originally, one V. Arumuga Naicker was the defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 552 of 2002. During the pendency of the appeal in A.S. No. 575 of 2005, the said Arumuga Naicker had died. Hence, the present appellants in the second appeal were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased Arumuga Naicker by an order, dated 23.03.2006.4. The legal representatives of the deceased V. Arumuga Naicker, namely, the defendant in the suit O.S. No. 552 of 2002 are the appellants in the present second a...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Thillaiamman Devasthanam Represented by Its Executive Officer Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ1025(NULL)
M. Jaichandren, J.1. The Second Appeals have been filed against the common judgment and decree, dated 11.8.1995, made in A.S. Nos. 39 and 40 of 1995, on the file of the District Court, South Arcot Vallalar District, Cuddalore, confirming the common judgment and decree, dated 31.8.1994, on the file of the Sub-Court, Chidambram, made in O.S. No. 94 of 1989 and O.S. No. 30 of 1990. 2. Since both the second appeals are relating to the same issues and are based on common facts, they are taken up together and a common Judgment is passed.3. The defendant in the suits O.S. No. 94 of 1989 and O.S. No. 30 of 1990, is the appellant herein.4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the suit in O.S. No. 94 of 1989, are as follows:The defendant temple is one of the important shrines in Chidambaram Town and the plaintiffs' father Ponnambalam Pillai was the Sthanikam Mirasi holder of the temple and his right was upheld in O.S. No. 73 of 1943, in which the defendant and The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »