Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)5MLJ30
ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioners are defendants in the Suits filed by the respondent in O.S. No. 4033 of 2008 and O.S. No. 4322 of 2008, on the file of the XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondent filed two applications in I.A. No. 10113 of 2008 and I.A. No. 13000 of 2008 respectively in the said suits for interim injunctions under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. [Hereinafter referred to as 'Act'].2. The respondent is engaged in the business mainly in quarrying of granite on its own lands and on leasehold lands and also carrying on manufacturing activities arising out of and in the course of quarrying granite and selling the same and also buying and selling of dimensional granite blocks, processed, cut and polished granites. The respondent is the Managing Partner of the establishment who has been given full power to conduct the business of the firm. He filed both the suits praying for declaration, consequential injunction and for permanent injun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)5MLJ281
ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the Clause 54 (b) of the Prospectus issued by the second respondent for admission to P.G.Degree/Diploma/5 years M.Ch (Neuro Surgeons) Courses for the year 2008 - 2009, the selection and admission given to service candidates alone in respect of 16 courses in P.G.Degree/Diploma/M.Ch (Neuro Surgeon) based on Clause 54 (b) of the Prospectus as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to hold fresh Counselling to fill the seats in the said Courses as done in the year 2007 - 2008. 2. The case of the petitioners as put forth by them in their affidavits in support of the writ petitions are set out hereunder:2.1. The petitioners have passed the MBBS Course and their ambition is to join the further course offered by the Colleges under the Director of Medical Education, Tamil Nadu. There are 38 PG Degree/Diploma/5 years M.Ch.Surgery) Courses and in all, there are 914 approved seats for those courses as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2009Mad91; (2009)6MLJ1108
ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and final order passed in H.A.M.O.P. No. 443 of 2005, dated 26.09.2005, on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore and to allow the above Civil Revision Petition.2. The following are the allegations in brief found in the petition filed by the 2nd respondent:Both the petitioners are husband and wife. Their marriage was held on 25.08.1952. They had no children. The Respondent is the sister's husband of the 2nd petitioner. His wife is Pushpavalli. Their marriage took place in 1968. They have three daughters. Among them, the first daughter is one Vijaya. She was born on 13.03.1970. The 2nd and 3rd children Maheswari and Sarada are living with their parents. Pushpavalli died on 27.9.1994. The petitioners decided to adopt the said Vijaya for which the respondent agreed. On 5.7.1970, the adoption took place. It was not for any consideration. The petitioners got the capacity to take Vijaya in adoption an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2009Mad86; (2009)5MLJ376
G. Rajasuria, J.1. This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 26.06.1997, passed by the learned V Addl. City Civil Judge, Madras in O.S. No. 11886 of 1996. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.2. Niggard and bereft of details, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:One R. Rajagopal had seven children, so to say, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7. D1 is the widow of deceased Rajagopal who died in the year 1992 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal heirs. The defendants 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed their written statement. Others remained ex parte. The trial Court framed the relevant issues.3. On the side of the plaintiff P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 was marked. On the side of the defendants D.W.1 was examined and no exhibit was marked.4. Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit for partition o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2009(121)FLR702]
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. This writ petition has been filed, challenging the order of the Central Government dated 2.12.1999. By the impugned order, the first respondent, while exercising the power under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act'), refused to refer the industrial dispute relating to regularization of the petitioner, who was an ex employee of Air India Corporation/second respondent herein. The reason found in the impugned order is as follows:It is reported that the workman remained deployed from time to time during the period from 1982-1988 and never beyond 165 days in any particular year on a works of casual and contingent nature. The dispute has been raised after a lapse of ten years after his last deployment. Hence no ID subsists.(Emphasis added)2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner raised the industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) under Section 2A read with Section 11 of the I....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2010]153CompCas174(Mad); (2009)23VST82(Mad)
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Acting C.J.1. The writ petition was preferred by the petitioners against notice in Rc. No. 5735/95/A3 dated 17th Feb., 2004, issued by the 1st respondent, Commercial Tax Officer (FAC), Ambattur Assessment Circle, whereby it has been informed that the 2nd respondent, M/s. Vinayaka Garments (P) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') who did business are in arrears of Rs. 13,25,868/- for the year 1993-94 to 1995-96 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'TNGST Act') and Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'CST Act') and the petitioners being shareholders are liable to pay tax arrears. They have been asked to clear the entire arrears within a stipulated period.During the pendency of the writ petition, interim order of stay was passed on 19th May, 2004, but at the instance of the 1st respondent, the same was modified by order dated 7th Sept., 2006 and conditional interim order was passed subject to payment of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)23VST283(Mad)
ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petitions, challenging the assessment orders passed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08.2. Heard Mr. P. Rajkumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.C. Mani Bharathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent.3. By an order dated November 27, 2008, the respondent provisionally assessed the total and taxable turnover of the petitioner for the year 2006-07 under Section 25 of the Act at the rate of 12.5 per cent on the sales turnover. Similarly, by another order of the same date, the respondent made a provisional assessment for the year 2007-08, under Section 25, assessing the dealer at the rate of 12.5 per cent on the sales turnover.4. The petitioner has come up with a challenge to these assessment orders on the ground that the occasion to invoke Section 25 did not a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)IVLLJ895Mad
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. In W.P. No. 24987/2006, the petitioner has challenged a charge memo, dated June 27, 2006, issued by the Executive Engineer (Operation and Maintenance), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai.2. In W.P. No. 26857/2008, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated June 12, 2008 of the Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai, first respondent herein and consequently prayed for a direction to the first respondent to consider and include his name in the panel to the post of Foreman Grade I, dated June 26, 2006 and promote him as Foreman Grade-I with all attendant benefits, placing his name just above his junior and for further orders.3. In the latter writ petition, the petitioner has challenged his non-inclusion in the panel to the post of Foreman Grade I, dated June 26, 2006, due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, which is challenged in the former writ petition. As the petitioner's right to be included in the said panel depends u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)6MLJ887
S. Rajeswaran, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 134 of 2006 is the appellant before this Court. She is aggrieved by the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi, dated 02-04-2008 made in A.S. No. 21 of 2007, reversing the judgment dated 29-03-2007, made in O.S. No. 134 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif, Sivakasi.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the suit.3. O.S. No. 134 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff-husband, to pass a judgment and decree declaring that the defendant is not the wife of the plaintiff.4. The case of the plaitniff in O.S. No. 134 of 2006 is that, he is a born CSI Christian and the defendant is a born Hindu. Due to compulsion, a marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant took place on 29-01-1992 at Sivakasi, in S.A.S. Arunachala Nadar Meenambal Kalyana Mandapam. The marriage was conducted by a Hindu person and the marriage was called as Suyamariadhair marriage. The plaintiff printed a separate marriage...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)8MLJ224
ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioner is wife of respondent. Their marriage was solemnised on 5.9.2005 at Bannari Amman Temple. Both of them are registered medical practitioners even at the time of marriage. The petitioner was working at Sathyamangalam Primary Health Centre and also running a private clinic at P.Puliampatti and the respondent was at Chennai and running a clinic at Royapuram. They have no issues.2. In the original petition, the petitioner has graphically narrated the events which took place on the first night itself and on subsequent occasions and as per her version she has been continuously facing much difficulties in having sexual relationship with the respondent and in fact those days during which she lived with him were painful and it constitutes the grounds of cruelty and impotency for seeking the relief of annulling the marriage between them or in the alternative dissolving the same by a decree of divorce.3. In the counter filed in the Original Petition the resp...
Tag this Judgment!