Chennai Court February 2009 Judgments
M. Sellamuthu and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ673
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned Counsel representing Mr.S.Doraisamy for the petitioners and Mr. M. Vaidyanathan, learned standing Counsel for the respondent Electricity Board and perused the records.2. W.P. No. 40078 of 2005 was filed by one K. Paramasivam and 18 others seeking to challenge the Board Proceedings in B.P. No. 73, Secretarial Branch, dated 26.32002 and the consequential order in letter dated 21.4.2004 issued by the Chief Engineer (Personnel) (third respondent) and for a direction to consider the names of the petitioners in a preferential manner in any temporary appointments on permanent basis in accordance with their qualifications. Notice was ordered in the writ petition on 16.12.2005.3. W.P. No. 4076 of 2006 was filed by one M. Sellamuthu and 41 others challenging the letter dated 03.1.2006 issued by the Chief Engineer (Personnel) wherein and by which it was stated that Ex-Apprentices having Wireman trade and Electrician trade and who have compl...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. Sethurajan Vs. C. Paramasivam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ336
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. As the petitioner has prayed for the early disposal of the Interlocutory Application and by ordering the same, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, no notice is required to be issued to the respondent for issuing direction to the learned Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the learned Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputtur, to dispose of I.A. No. 1853 of 2005 in O.S. No. 657 of 2004 at an early date.3. It is seen from the records that the said suit was filed in the year 2004 seeking a decree declaring the plaintiff's right, title and interest in the suit property and that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and consequently grant permanent injunction restraining the fifth defendant or his servants or his agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule...
Tag this Judgment!P. Muthuswamy Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras and the Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ858
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The writ petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 03.09.1959 in Chennai Corporation and subsequently promoted as Upper Division Clerk. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Cashier and Head Cashier with effect from 17.08.1973. He applied for extra-ordinary leave on medical grounds on 20.01.1992 for one month. According to the writ petitioner, this was not accepted by the Corporation and leave was not sanctioned. He applied for voluntary retirement by giving three months' notice on 01.09.1992 to retire with effect from 01.12.1992. He also applied for earned leave for three months from 01.09.1992 to 30.11.1992. His application for voluntary retirement was also refused. Two Enquiry Officers were appointed to enquire into the charge regarding issue of bogus chalans. The proceedings concluded with an order for recovery of double the sum for which bogus chalans were issued. Against the refusal of leave as well as voluntary retirement, the writ petitioner f...
Tag this Judgment!K. Chandran Vs. Smt. Siriya Pushpam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ383
ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. Inveighing the order dated 24.3.2005 passed in I.A. No. 79 of 2005 in O.S. No. 56 of 2005 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chenglepet, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Though the respondent was served and her name also is found printed in the cause list, nonetheless there is no representation for the respondent.3. The long and short of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the civil revision petition, would run thus:The respondent, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S. No. 56 of 2006 before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpet, seeking the following reliefs:(a) to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the 'B' Schedule mentioned property and to grant consequential relief.(b) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents, servants and any person claiming through them from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 'B' Schedule mentioned pr...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Pharma Ltd. Vs. Glenmark Pharmaceutical Ltd. and the Deputy Regist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC127(Mad)
ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. Inveighing the order dated 11.07.2008, passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai in MP No. 43 of 2008 in O.A./14/2008/TM/CH, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. A 'resume' of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:The first respondent/appellant filed the O.A. 14/2008/TM/CH on the file of Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai seeking the following reliefs:(a) allow the appeal of the appellant, set aside the order dated 05.10.2007 of the respondent No. 2 herein, the learned Deputy Registrar of Trade marks, Chennai passed in Opposition No. MAS-164028 and communicated vide Letter Serial No. TOP/12879 dated 22.10.2007 and allow the Opposition filed by the Appellant against the Respondent No. 1 and thus render justice.(b) The Respondent No. 1 be asked to bear the cost of this proceedings under the provisions of Rule 19 of Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Proce...
Tag this Judgment!V. Rajamanickam Vs. Shanthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ406
ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. Inveighing the order dated 26.11.2007 2.9.2008 passed in I.A. No. 110 of 2008 in O.S. No. 124 of 2008 by the Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. The nitty-gritty, the gist and kernal of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition, would run thus:The respondent, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S. No. 18 of 2005 seeking the following relief:'m) jhth brhj;ij 18 rkghf';fshf gphpj;J mt;thW gphpf;fg;gl;l 18 rkghf';fspy; xd;iw thjpf;F jdp Rthjpdj;Jld; fpilf;Fk; gof;F cj;jput[ gpwg;gpj;Jk;kw;Wk;M) 8. 9 gpujpthjpfs; ve;j fhyj;jpYk; thjpf;Fz;lhd jhth brhj;jpy; bghJtpy; 1-18 ghfk; bghUj;J cs;s ghfj;ij 2 Kjy; 7 gpujpthjpfs; bghWg;ghd flDf;fhf jhth jhf;fy; bra;j gpd; 8. 9 gpujpthjpfs; jhahhpj;j 25/1/2005 njjpapy; Vw;gl;ljhf Twk; Vyk;go 10 Kjy; 16 gpujpthjpfis RthjPdj;jpy; mkh;j;jf;TlhJ vd rhRtj jil cj;jput[ gpwg;gpj;Jk;/@Whereupon the revision petitioner/16th defendant fi...
Tag this Judgment!D. Purushothaman Vs. Kuppa Bai and Seetharaman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ378
ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioner is first defendant in O.S. No. 6 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. The suit is for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from in any way disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.2. The trial started and the plaintiff's side evidence was over. At the time of leading the defendant's evidence, the first respondent/plaintiff filed a petition in I.A. No. 448 of 2008 under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. to amend the plaint.3. In the affidavit it is stated that Devaraj Naidu has no locus standi whatsoever to create a maintenance deed in favour of Chinnammal incorporating the suit properties which had been purchased by Mannar Naidu including other ancestral properties and even based on the maintenance deed Chinnammal became the absolute owner after the advent of the Hindu Successi...
Tag this Judgment!G.D. Subramaniam Vs. the Sub Registrar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: (2009)2MLJ644; 2009CIJ243Madras
ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. Whether, registration of a deed of cancellation, unilaterally executed by the vendor to nullify the earlier sale validly made, is sustainable in law This Court, in this writ petition, is called upon to find a solution to the said interesting question of law.The Facts:The second respondent was, originally the owner of a valuable immovable property in Chennai. The third respondent is his Agent, appointed by means of a registered deed of power of attorney dated 07.07.2006. The petitioner purchased the said property by means of a registered sale deed dated 14.07.2006 for a consideration of Rs. 14,00,000/- from the second respondent through the third respondent. On behalf of the second respondent, the third respondent executed the sale deed and the same was registered at the office of the first respondent as document No. 3503 of 2006. According to the petitioner, he was put in possession of the said property on the same day and from then onwards, he has been in conti...
Tag this Judgment!Pranam Foundations Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: [2009]313ITR286(Mad); [2009]185TAXMAN6(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeals are filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, dated January 12, 2007, made in I.T.SS. A. Nos. 87/Mds/2005 and 98/Mds/2005 for the assessment year April 1, 1990, to September 26, 2000 (block period). The substantial questions of law formulated for entertainment of the appeals are as follows:1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in concluding that the expenses incurred were illegal, not allowable in spite of the admitted position of such expenses incurred in order to complete the construction process including the provision for amenities such as electricity, water connection, sewerage, etc., which are essential and not against public purpose could not be termed as illegal ?2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in rejecting the claim of the appellant on the inclusion of unaccounted portion to the extent of Rs. 27,29,500, in the offer of Rs. 40 lakhs in the block return especially in the context of the seiz...
Tag this Judgment!M. Raja Appar and Ors. Vs. M. Gnanasambandam (deceased by L.R's.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Mad159; (2009)5MLJ210
ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. This is an application taken out by the first defendant in the suit seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11. C.P.C.2. I have heard Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.3. One Mr. A. Muthiah. purchased a property bearing Door No. 10, old No. 16, Singaram Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-17, by a sale deed dated 9-11-1933. He died intestate on 24-2-1961 leaving behind him surviving, (1) his wife Mrs. Parvatham Muthiah (2) 2 sons by name M. Gnanasambandam and M. Raja Appar and (3) 2 daughters by name Mrs. Uma Devi and Mrs. Madhuram Lakshman.4. Mrs. Parvatham Muthiah executed a Will on 8-5-1997 registered as Document No. 63/1997, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, T. Nagar, bequeathing the said property in entirety, to her 2 sons M. Gnanasambandam and M. Raja Appar. Mrs. Parvatham subsequently died on 6-12-2003. One of the daughters namely Uma Devi al...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »