Chennai Court April 2008 Judgments

Regional Director, E.S.i. and anr. Vs. Rahimaniya Sago Factory, by Sub ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR116]; (2009)ILLJ344Mad

S. Tamilvanan, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the Order and Decretal Order, dated April 7, 1999 made in E.S.I.O.P. No. 3/1996 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Salem.2. The appellants herein were the respondents before the Trial Court in the E.S.I.O.P. The respondent herein had filed the petition, seeking an order to declare that the sale notification issued by the appellants herein was contrary to law and to declare that the petitioner is not the occupier or employer prior to 1987 and hence, no amount is payable as contribution. The case of the respondent, as petitioner before the Trial Court is that he was running a Sago factory at Attur from 1987. According to the respondent, the factory was under the lease of one Krishnasamy of Sri Ramajayam Sago Factory from the year 1982 to 1987. Though the respondent had remitted contribution for the period from September 16, 1987 to 1995, and no other amount was due and payable by the petitioner, the ...

T. Paramasivam Vs. N. Babu and A. Velu Udayar

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(4)CTC507; (2008)5MLJ68

M. Jaichandren, J.1. The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Villupuram, dated 08.08.2001, made in A.S. No. 101 of 2000, confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, dated 14.08.2000, made in O.S. No. 522 of 1996.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are hereinafter described as plaintiff and the defendants, respectively, as dealt with by the trial Court.3. The second defendant in O.S. No. 522 of 1996 is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein had filed the suit before the District Munsif Court, Villupuram, in O.S. No. 522 of 1996, stating that the first defendant therein was the owner of the suit property. As such, he had executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, on 02.01.1993, for a valid consideration of Rs. 67,000/-. Since 02.01.1993 and 03.01.1993 were holidays, the sale deed was agreed to be registered on ...

Tourist Home Pvt Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director, Mr. P.S. Ramdas, ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)5MLJ207

M. Jaichandren, J.1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 02.12.2004, made in A.S. No. 223 of 2002, on the file of the II Additional Judge (Incharge of III Addl. Judge) City Civil Court at Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 30.04.2002, made in O.S. No. 9046 of 1995, on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, 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 suit in O.S. No. 9046 of 1995.3. The plaintiffs in the suit O.S. No. 9046 of 1995 are the appellants in the present second appeal. The plaintiffs had filed the suit before the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, praying for a judgment and decree, for delivery of possession of the property mentioned in the schedule forming part of the plaint and for costs.4. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the plaint, are as follows:4.1) Originally, one P.G.S.Mani was the Managing Director of the fi...

Lakshmi Shankar Mills (P) Ltd., Vs. the Authorised Officer/Chief Manag ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2008Mad181; [2008]85SCL421(Mad); AIR2008Mad181; 2008(4)AIRKarR285(FB)

ORDERA.P. Shah, C.J.1. Interpretation of the amended provisions of Sections 13 and 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter for brevity's sake referred to as 'the Securitisation Act', is involved in this reference made to the larger Bench. By a common order passed in W.P.Nos. 37148 & 37534 of 2007, the Division Bench has referred the following questions which fall for our determination:(i) Whether even where no stay is prayed for by the Borrower, during pendency of the proceedings under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Secured Creditor can proceed to auction the secured asset even before a declaration envisaged under Section 17(4) of the SARFAESI Act as made by the Debt Recovery Tribunal?(ii) Whether for granting any stay of auction, the Debt Recovery Tribunal can impose any condition relating to deposit?(iii) Whether, even before finalisation of the proceedings under Section 17 of the S...

Mahaveer Metal Industries a Registered Partnership Firm Rep. by Its Pa ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)5MLJ14

ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for acting in contempt of the order of this Court, dated 24.9.2003, made in W.P. No. 6438 of 2003. 2. It has been stated by the petitioner that the lands situated in No. 34 Madhavaram village, bearing Nanja survey No. 1280/1A, measuring 0.05.0 Hares and Survey No. 1318/1A measuring 0.14.5 Hares, belonging to the petitioner had been acquired by the Highways Authority of India, through the respondent Competent Authority, on the basis of the paper publication made, on 3.12.2002. The petitioner had preferred a claim for compensation, on 17.2.2003, and the said claim had not been taken up for enquiry, as required under law and therefore, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 6438 of 2003, praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner, dated 17.2.2003. This Court had directed the res...

Radhammal, Vs. Ramalingam

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)5MLJ45

M. Jaichandren, J.1. The Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 12.12.1994, made in A.S. No. 57 of 1993, on the file of the District Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 21.12.1990, made in O.S. No. 1019 of 1988, on the file of the District Munsif, Cuddalore.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they have been arrayed in the original suit in O.S. No. 1019 of 1988. 3. The defendants in the suit O.S. No. 1019 of 1988 are the appellants in the present second appeal. 4. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit A schedule property is a portion of survey No. 404/14, with an extent of 78 cents in Parvathipuram Village. The entire extent of property had originally belonged to one Rajagopala Chettiar and on his death the defendants, who are his wife and children, have become entitled to the same. Rajagopala Chettiar had borrowed some money from the plaintiff on a promissory note. Since Rajagopala Chettiar had not pai...

Shri Renuga Soft-x Towels, (Spinning and Towels Division) Represented ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(229)ELT359(Mad)

ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 25.1.2008 and consequently, directing the second respondent to admit the application preferred by the petitioners dated 2.4.2007.2. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are set out hereunder:The first respondent issued show cause notice dated 6.1.2006 and corrigendum dated 15.2.2006 and 20.11.2006 proposing a duty demand together with interest besides seeking to initiate penal proceedings under Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 114-A and Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. As against the said demand, petitioners preferred an application before the second respondent in some cases admitting the liability to certain extent and in some cases contending that no due is payable. The first respondent filed counter in those proceedings. The second respondent has posted the matter for admission on 7.1.2008. However,...

Rajendra Kumar Gupta and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]144CompCas319(Mad)

M. Jeyapaul, J.1. The petition is filed seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in FIR No. 696 of 2007 dated November 1, 2007, on the file of the respondent police.2. The sum and substance of the first information report lodged by the de facto complainant with the respondent herein is as follows:The de facto complainant was one among the directors/partners enjoying equal right in respect of hotel business, viz., Picnic Hotels P. Ltd. at Poonamallee High Road, Chennai. Because of some misunderstanding between the brothers, several civil cases are pending on the file of this High Court as well as before the Company Law Board. Rajendra Kumar Gupta and Ashok Kumar Gupta, who are the brothers of the de facto complainant, joined together and created false and fraudulent documents and produced the same before the public authorities and also before the Company Law Board as if the de facto complainant had resigned from the directorship of Picnic Hotels P. Ltd. when actually he had been enjoyi...

S. Karunanethi Vs. State

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4754

ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioner is working as watchman in Prasanna Venkatachalapathy Thirukkoil, Gunaseelam of Trichy District which is coming under the respondent/Police.2. On 14/15-8-2004 in the little hours at 2.10 a.m. the accused was found taking money from the undial in the temple by using bamboo stick covered by cello tape and thereby he had appropriated a sum of Rs. 787/-. He was got red-handed by the complainant, the hereditary trustee of the said temple along with one Subramaniam. A case was registered in Crime No. 314 of 2004 on the file of Vathalai Police Station under Section 381 IPC. Investigation was taken up and a charge-sheet was also lodged under the said Section before the Musiri Judicial Magistrate Court where the complaint was taken on file in C.C. No. 108 of 2004 and the same is pending before the said Court.3. The above said complainant also lodged another complaint against the petitioner alleging the above said occurrence which took place on 15-8-2004 an...

Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Vs. V.G.P. Panneerdas and Co.(P) Ltd.,

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. {Lok Adalat} 1. The only question for decision in the appeal is whether the complainant would be entitled to interest from the date of her paying the amount to the opposite party the said date being 07/09/1990. It is not disputed that the complainant paid Rs.20,390/- to the opposite party on 07/09/1990. The District Forum has rejected the claim for interest to the complainant from 07/09/1990 on the ground that the complainant had given notice to the opposite party for the first time only on 12/06/2004. We do not agree with the reasoning of the District Forum. The opposite party had the benefit of the money right from 07/09/1990 and it will be the height of injustice if the opposite party is allowed to go scot-free without paying interest on the amount from 07/09/1990. 2. The order of the District Forum shall stand modified in that the complainant would be entitled to interest on Rs.20,390/- at 9% per annum from 07/09/1990 till payment. The order of the District Forum sha...