Chennai Court July 2008 Judgments
Mrs. Vasanthi Thiagarajan, Principal, Sishya School Vs. R. Nageswaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
Reported in: (2008)7MLJ287
ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The revision petitioner is the respondent in C.O.P. No. 27 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharmapuri @ Krishnagiri. Since he did not appear before the said Forum, he was set exparte and on 11.05.2007 an exparte order was passed against him directing to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant to compensate his mental agony and unrest and also a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of the proceeding within six weeks. The revision petitioner thereafter, filed an application to set aside the exparte decree along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 83 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte order. The above said Forum returned the applications stating that there is no power vested with the Forum to set aside the exparte order under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is preferred.2. Mr. V.R. Shanmugan...
Tag this Judgment!Ceebros Property Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vanisri and A. Karunakaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR272(Madras)
M. Chockalingam, J.1. Challenge is made to a common order of the learned Single Judge made in Application Nos. 290 and 291 of 2004, the first one is for stay of all further proceedings in C.S. No. 859 of 2003 and the second one is for referring the matter to arbitration, in C.S. No. 859 of 2003, a suit for recovery of money against two defendants found therein. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side, perused the materials available and in particular the order under challenge.3. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 12.50 lakhs from the first defendant and Rs. 6.25 lakhs from the second defendant along with interest on Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs respectively, alleging that the plaintiff entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the first defendant, who is the owner of the land bearing Door No. 106, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai, along with 5 other adjoining owners for joint development of their properties; that following the ...
Tag this Judgment!Singer India Limited Vs. Christ Church Rep. by the Secretary of the Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: (2008)8MLJ727
ORDERS. Tamilvanan, J.1. This Revision has been preferred by the petitioner herein against the order, dated 10.03.2004 passed in I.A. No. 23689 of 2003 in O.S. No. 1497 of 1996 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.2. It is an admitted fact that the respondent herein had filed a suit against the petitioner / defendant, seeking delivery of possession of the schedule mentioned property of the plaint and also for damages at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month for use and occupation of the premises. 3. The trial court, by its Judgment, dated 16.11.2000 decreed the suit with regard to delivery of possession and also permitted the respondent / plaintiff to seek the relief of mesne profits / damages, under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by which, the appeal in A.S. No. 42 of 2002 has been preferred and the same is pending, admittedly before the Division Bench of this Court.4. As per the order, dated 04.12.2003, passed in C.M.P. No. 1655...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Inspector General of Registra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Mad34
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 28.7.2005 made in W.P. No. 4802 of 2000.2. The appellant herein is a Government of India Enterprise, falling under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and engaged in refining, marketing, distribution or petroleum products through various outlets throughout the breadth and length of the country. The case of the appellant/petitioner is that their predecessors-in-interest viz. Caltex (India) Limited, had taken on lease a vacant land measuring 9600 sq.ft. in Old Door No. 31/4, A.L. Plant Road, Guindy, Chennai-32 from one Mr. M.L. Loganatha Mudaliar on 1.5.1957 for a period of five years on a monthly rental of Rs. 100/- and the said document was registered on 23.5.1957. The said document contains a clause for renewal for further three terms of five years each and before expiry of the first lease period itself, the said Loganatha Mudaliar sold the propert...
Tag this Judgment!irene Isabella Vs. Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Udagamanda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Mad3; (2009)2MLJ1030
ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed for declaration declaring the possession notice dated 22.8.2007 and the sale notice published on 17.11.2007 in the daily Indian Express on the file of the first respondent is ultra vires, unconstitutional and illegal.2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is set out hereunder:(a) The petitioner stood as a guarantor for the facilities availed by one M/s. Hotel Sri Navayuga and she has also mortgaged her property as a collateral security towards the loan availed by the said borrower. However, as the account had turned to NPA, the first respondent had issued a demand notice dated 09.07.2003 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as SARFAESI Act). Subsequent to the said notice, the respondent Bank had filed a suit in O.S. No. 108 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Judge, Nilgiris. A preliminary dec...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cestat, South Zonal Bench and Sunpa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(159)ECC292; 2008(230)ELT209(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Department has come up on appeal against Final Order No. 1139/2007, dated, 7th September, 2007 made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT'), Southern Regional Bench, Chennai # 600 006.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The Second Respondent is a manufacturer of polypropylene bags and tubing, thereof which is classified under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and having its factory located at R.S. Nos. 91/6, 91/7, 91/12, Pondy-Cuddalore Main Road, Kirumampakkam, Pondicherry until 31st March, 2004. With effect from 1st April, 2004, the Second Respondent shifted its factory to C-52, PIPDIC Industrial Estate, Mettupalayam and got itself registered with the Appellant Authorities. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry issued a Show Cause Notice dated, 4th April, 2005 calling upon the Second Respondent to show cause as to why (i) an amount of Rs. 6,62,971 (Rupees six lacs sixty two ...
Tag this Judgment!Uc Mas Mental Arithmetic (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Banu Arjun and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR218(Madras)
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This appeal challenges an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing Application No. 4740 of 2003 filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 seeking to refer the parties to arbitration.2. The appellant/plaintiff sought the reliefs mentioned in the plaint, alleging that the plaintiff is a registered company, incorporated under the Companies Act, having its office in Madras in the stated address. It is also registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and it has got exclusive right and the copyright in respect of the syllabus issued by UC MAS. In or about August 2000, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 approached the plaintiff with a proposal to take a franchise centre in UC MAS. Accordingly, a franchise agreement was entered into on 28.08.2000, which would be operative for a period of three years. Prior to this agreement, the first defendant wanted to become a course instructor in UC MAS, and as such, there was a course instructor agreement entered i...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Pandian Vs. Komala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Mad51
ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.06.2006 in O.S. No. 488 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif, Ponneri, in and by which the document No. 1 produced by the revision petitioner was rejected by the learned District Munsif, Ponneri on the ground that certified copy of power of attorney cannot be admitted in evidence.2. The suit in O.S. No. 488 of 1996 has been preferred by the revision petitioner against the respondent before the trial Court praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent, her men and agents and servants from alienating the plots in the suit property to any person in any manner and for awarding cost.3. The factual matrix necessary for disposal of the civil revision petition are as under:(i) The respondent, being the original owner of the suit property, entered into an agreement with the revision petitioner to develop the property and to sell it to third parties by plotting out the same ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Selvaraj Vs. E. Mohanraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4032
ORDERP.R. Shivakumar, J.1. Heard both sides and perused the records.2. This contempt petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying for an order punishing the respondent herein for the alleged act of Contempt of Court.3. Admittedly, the respondent herein was the landlord and the petitioner herein was the tenant in respect of building bearing Door No. 30, Jani Basha Street, Pudupakkam, Royapettah, Chennai-14. In fact, the petitioner became a tenant under the predecessor in title of the respondent herein. After having purchased the property from the erstwhile landlord, the respondent filed R.C.O.P. No. 1472/1996 on the file of the XI Judge, Small Causes Court for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction and also for own occupation. The Rent Controller passed an order on 16-2-1997 allowing the eviction petition and directing the petitioner herein to vacate and hand over possession.4. As against the said order, the petitioner had filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Pay and Accounts Officer Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Mad)197; [2009]316ITR197(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. These appeals are filed against the order of the Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench dt. 4th April, 2007 in ITA Nos. 17 to 20/Mad/2004. The relevant assessment year is 2000-01. The common substantial questions of law formulated in these appeals are as follows:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has ascertained its discretion in refusing to condone the delay in filing appeal in a proper legal perspective?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed a legal error in not appreciating and applying the decision of the Supreme Court in : 2005(183)ELT337(SC) rendered in identical circumstance?3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly applied the test of liberal and pragmatic approach as to the sufficiency of cause involving red tapism in the matter of condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act?2. As the issue involved in these appeals is one and the same, the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »