Chennai Court September 2008 Judgments
Radha Ammal (Died) and ors. Vs. Manthi Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: (2008)8MLJ619
ORDERK. Kannan, J.1. The revision petition is directed against the petition for rejection of documents which had been tendered in evidence at the time of trial by the defendants. The documents are photocopies of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the first defendant who is dead and a 'mortgage receipt'. The objection raised by the plaintiff/respondent before the court below was that the originals are not with the plaintiff as falsely alleged and the photocopies could not have been received in evidence. The Court below accepted the contention of the respondent and allowed the petition for rejecting this documents.2. The relevance of the documents which were sought to be introduced in evidence could be examined by the reference to the contentions raised between the parties. The suit is for specific performance which is resisted by the defendant by stating that it is a fabricated document. The contention of the defendants is to the effect that the first defendant and her s...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Paulraj Vs. the Chairman, Central Board of Trustees Rep. by the S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: (2008)8MLJ609
ORDERK. Kannan, J.I. The crux of the issue:1. The issue involved in these batch of writ petitions is the entitlement to interest for the arrears of salary and financial benefits accruing out of notional promotion from a retrospective date to an officer who is since superannuated.II. The facts in brief:2. The batch of writ petitions arise out of common orders passed on 19.7.2007 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.NO.367 to 371 of 2006. One batch of writ petition has been filed by the applicant before the Tribunal and another batch is filed by the Chairman of the Central Board of Trustees, Central Provident Fund Organization. The parties are referred as petitioner and respondent in the manner that they have been described in W.P. No. 16770 of 2008. Although several reliefs had been adverted to in the batch of O.As,. we are however concerned only with the award of interest with reference to arrears of salary,3. The dispute arose on account of certain proceedings w...
Tag this Judgment!iffco-tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tmt. Sulochana W/O Veerasam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: (2009)1MLJ453
S. Palanivelu, J.1. The allegations found in the Claim Petition are as follows:The first and second applicants are parents of Jalander aged 20 who was working under the first opposite party in a tractor bearing Regn. No. TN 20 M 8535. On 10.06.2005 while in the course of employment at about 12.00 when the tractor was coming from Kanambakkam to Konda Nellore, the vehicle going near Mugutha Chettiar land, the same was driven by the driver by name R. Vasu in a negligent manner and hence a jolt occurred resulting in Jalander falling down from the mud guard seat of the tractor and was run over by the tractor tyre. He was immediately taken to hospital where he was declared dead. He was earning a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as wages per month under the employment of first opposite party. The case was registered in Crime No. 161/2005 under Section 279 and 304A I.P.C., and the charge sheet was laid against the driver of the tractor. The vehicle was insured with the second opposite party which was valid ...
Tag this Judgment!Cambridge Solutions Ltd. (Formerly Known as Scandent Solutions Corpora ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Mad74
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The first defendant M/s.Cambridge Solutions Limited formerly known as M/s.Scandent Solutions Corporation Limited filed this application seeking rejection of the plaint invoking the provision under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The applicant/first defendant would contend that the applicant was to pay Rupees 15 crores to the third respondent M/s.DSQ Software Limited on account of the terms of certain assignment. The said consideration was by way of issuing 15 lakh debentures at Rs. 100/= each. The applicant and the third respondent also entered into an agreement on 1.8.2008. It transpires that the second respondent instituted O.A. No. 505 of 2002 on the file of the fourth respondent for the recovery of Rs. 6,65,75,390/=. A joint compromise memo dated 21st March 2003 was filed before the fourth respondent. The liability of the third respondent was fixed at Rs. 5,31,55,000/=. The second respondent agreed to receive the same in full and final set...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Perumal and ors. Vs. T.G. Thulasi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)CTC545; (2008)8MLJ1064
ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioners are defendants in O.S. No. 97/2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. They were set exparte on 2.1.2004 and they filed application to set aside the exparte decree along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. The respondent/plaintiff remained exparte in the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and thereby filed an application to set aside the exparte order under Order IX Rule 7 C.P.C. The abovesaid applications are pending before that Court. In the meanwhile, the respondent/plaintiff filed E.P., for transmission of the decree from the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu to District Munsif Court, Vandavasi in E.P. No. 5/2006 and the said petition is also pending before that Court.2. The petitioners filed petition under Section 94(e) of C.P.C. for the relief of stay of operation of the decree passed in O.S. No. 97/2004. It was not numbered. But it was given serial number C.R. No. 3...
Tag this Judgment!N. Bhoopathy and ors. Vs. Srinivasa Naicker (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)CTC673
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. This review petition has been filed on the ground that the learned Judge while allowing the second appeal committed an error apparent by restricting the decision to the appealing party alone.2. The seventh respondent, one K. Gajendran is the plaintiff. It is seen from the Court-notice papers that he was originally served on 22-03-2008. The private notice was left unclaimed. As regards the other respondents, the Court-notice has been served on RR 1 to 7 and 9. R8 alone has not been served. R8 is Rajendran, who is the fifth defendant. R8 had not appeared either in the second appeal. It is now sought to be reviewed. Except for the appellant none appeared at the time of the review application, though the matter had been listed several times and therefore, we heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and proceeded to deal with the matter. The facts of the matter are as follows:One Deivanaiammal was the owner of the properties described in a suit O.S. No. 88 of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Soma Nachiappa Chettiar Vs. S.M. Muthuraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)CTC802
A. Selvam, J.1. Challenge in this appeal suit is to the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2000 passed in Original Suit No. 135 of 1997 by the Subordinate Court, Devakottai.2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has been instituted Original Suit No. 135 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai for the relief of specific performance, wherein the present appellant has been shown as sole defendant.3. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff has been enjoying the suit property as a tenant from the year 1970. The suit property is the absolute property of the defendant. In the year 1995, the plaintiff has come to know that the defendant is going to sell the suit property. On 24.05.1995 between the plaintiff and defendant a sale agreement has come into existence in respect of the suit property. The sale consideration has been fixed at Rs. 4,13,600/-. On the date of sale agreement, the defendant has received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff by way of advance. On 06.06...
Tag this Judgment!Jalandhar M. Reddy and ors. and C.V. Sreekumar Vs. Madras Boat Club
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: [2008]146CompCas366(Mad)
M. Jeyapaul, J.1. These applications are filed by the lawn members and rowing members of the Madras Boat Club seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent-club from conducting any general body meeting before registration of the respondent-club and also to appoint a receiver to take charge of the affairs of the respondent-club and manage the same till the process of registration of the respondent is complete.2. As the aforesaid applications are connected with each other, all these applications are taken up for common disposal.3. The applicants/plaintiffs would contend that the respondent/defendant Madras Boat Club was established in the year 1867 with an object to promote and encourage the sport of rowing. Apart from encouraging the sport of rowing, the club is involved in other activities such as social, cultural, entertainment, recreation, etc. Taking advantage of the fact that the respondent-club was not registered and therefore, it is not accountable to any stat...
Tag this Judgment!Anurag JaIn Vs. Authority for Advance Rulings and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Mad)270; [2009]308ITR302(Mad); [2009]183TAXMAN383(Mad)
P. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings (Income-tax) dated March 30, 2005, made in A.A.R. No. 643 of 2004. Anurag Jain In re .2. The petitioner and four others were the shareholders in a private limited company known as M/s. Vision Healthsource India Private Limited, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Out of the paid-up share capital of the company which was Rs. 10,00,000, divided into 1,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each, the petitioner was holding 15,000 shares while the other four shareholders were holding the remaining shares. The company was carrying on business in medical billing which is an information technology enabling industry. The petitioner and the two others were shareholders in a foreign company, namely, M/s. Vision Health Source Inc., incorporated in the USA engaged in out-sourcing business in processing medical bills and medical insurance claims. The petitioner and other two shareholders have al...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Workmen, Rep. by Its Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ50Mad
ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award of the second respondent dated February 18, 1999 in I.D. No. 111/1999 whereby the petitioner was directed to make all badli workers as permanent employees from the date of the award.2. The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as under:Contention in the writ petition(a) The petitioner is a Company engaged in the manufacture and sale of various textile yarns and the Company has got three units at Madurai, Paravai and Manaparai. The workmen of Madurai and Paravai Units raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The dispute was in relation to frequent lay off in respect of badli workers in the mill and it was the contention of the union that lay off should be properly regulated.(b) In respect of the said dispute, conciliation proceedings were taken up before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Madurai in the year 1992 which ultimately ended in failure ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »