Chennai Court July 2009 Judgments
Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. Represented by Its Chairman Vs. Ko ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2009
Reported in: [2009]151CompCas44(Mad); (2009)5MLJ881; [2010]97SCL119(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of the Company Court dated 08.04.2009 made in CP No. 51 of 2007 ordering winding up of the appellant company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and directing to advertise within 14 days a notice in the prescribed form of making of the order of winding up in one issue of Tamil Daily 'Dinamani' and another two issues in the English daily 'Indian Express' and the 'Times of India' (All India Edition) and other peripheral directions.2. The above said winding up order is assailed by the appellant on several grounds. The primal and material ground on which the order of the Company Court is challenged, is that none of the statutory provisions, which are mandatory in nature for ordering winding up of the company, has been not only taken note of, but also followed in this case. Even without admitting the company petition, the winding up order has been passed, which is ex facie an illegal order as it is against the requ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Saravana Constructions Private Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Mad6
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. Application No. 1432 of 2009 has been filed by the Union of India under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, 'the Act') for a direction against the respondent (Construction Company) to furnish security for a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- till the finality in the subject-matter of No. CECZ/STM/MH/01/2002-2003 is reached.2. The Union of India has also filed O.A. No. 287 of 2009 for an injunction restraining the respondent (Construction Company) from drawing any sum, which is subject-matter of E.P. No. 66 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh in the subject-matter of contract No. CEMZ/ARK/28 of 1987-88; till the finality in the subject-matter of No. CECZ/STM/MH/01/ 2002-03 is reached. By order dated 6-4-2009, this Court has granted an order of injunction, which was subsequently continued.3. The respondent in Original Application No. 287 of 2009, which is a Construction Company, has filed Applic...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator, High Court Vs. V. Selvaraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2009
Reported in: [2009]152CompCas177(Mad)
P. Jyothimani, J.1. This application is taken out by the official liquidator to make the respondents who are the ex-directors of the company under liquidation liable for misfeasance under Sections 542 and 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, and also to hold that they are liable jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs. 27,85,940 being the loss caused to the company and also the future claims from the creditors with interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum from the date of winding up, viz., September 15, 2000; and to declare that the respondents are personally liable and that the above liability shall constitute the first charge on the properties and effects in possession of the respondents.2. By an order dated September 15, 2000, passed in C.P. No. 138 of 1998, the official liquidator was appointed as the provisional liquidator for M/s. South Point Enterprises P. Ltd., which, is a company under liquidation. The said company was incorporated in the year 1994 having its regis...
Tag this Judgment!E.R. Kalaivan Vs. the Inspector General of Registration and the Sub-re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Mad18; (2009)6MLJ1009
D. Murugesan, J.1. Writ Appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court made in W.P. No. 36093 of 2007 dated 19.2.2009.2. This writ appeal raises an important question as to whether the Registrar, who is empowered to register the documents under the Indian Registration Act, could register a document unilaterally executed by the vendor cancelling the earlier sale made.3. The facts leading to the above issue arise on the following circumstances:By a registered Document No. 81 of 2001 dated 5.2.2001 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Kalaiyarkoil, the appellant sold an extent of 0.90 cents to one Kannathal, Wife of (late) Ramasamy Konar of Aralikottai Village. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Sub-Registrar for registration of a deed of cancellation dated 6.1.2006 on the ground the sale deed is not supported by consideration. It appears that the Registrar was reluctant to entertain such a document and refused to register the same apparently on the ground that...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Padma Priya Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Principal Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1201
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. The petitioner has come forward with this Petition seeking the relief of issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order in Proceeding Letter No. 55996/B1/08-4 dated 9.4.2009 of the Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare (B1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009, the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and to direct the 1st respondent to accept the Resignation Application either dated 8.12.2008 or dated 13.3.2009 of the petitioner forthwith and relieve her immediately.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and appointed as Temporary Dental Assistant Surgeon vide G.O.(3D) No. 45, Health Department, dated 3.10.1997 and posted as Assistant Surgeon (Dental) to work at the Government Hospital, Illayangudi, Sivagangai District as per the proceedings dated 8.10.1997 of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner subsequently reposted a...
Tag this Judgment!Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Ms. Ramolla Karnan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ321
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The night of second December, 1984, was a black letter day for the Indian people when toxic gas emanated from the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) (owned by a multi national company viz. Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), with whom the plaintiff Company got merged itself during February, 2001) killed as many as 3000 people. Over 200,000 people got severe injuries. The case for its tort liability filed against the said company though reached its finality, the victims of the holocaust are yet to be completely rehabilitated. Speaking about the Bhopal litigation, Dr.Upendra Baxi in his book in 'Inconvenient Forum and Convenient Catastrophe: The Bhopal case' (N.M. Tripathi Pvt. Ltd., Bombay 1986), noted as follows:The Bhopal litigation is unparalleled in the abundance of its ironies. And the cruelest and the most saddening of all these is provided by the fact that all these Herculean endeavours are for the 200,000 odd Bhopal victims who are being further revictimized i...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Pattatharasiamman Textiles, Registered Firm Rep. by Its Partner, P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ470; 2009(41)PTC427(Mad)
M. Venugopal, J.1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 8.6.2001 made in O.S. No. 2 of 1999 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Erode.2. The short facts of the appellant/plaintiff's case are as below:(i) The appellant/plaintiff, a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act as two partners (1) N. Nachimuthu and (2) P.Loganathan. The partnership deed has been duly registered on 18.3.1997. The partners of the appellant/plaintiff firm formed the appellant firm in the name and style of 'Shri Pattathu Amman Textiles' as per their original partnership agreement dated 29.101980. The business has commenced from 20.10.1980. The firm has been registered under the TN General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and also under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.(ii) The appellant/plaintiff is one of the leading manufacturers and merchants of textile itself goes from the textile town of Kumarapalayam for more than 18 years and they are manufacturing handl...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Krishna Saraf
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2009
Reported in: [2010]186TAXMAN1(Mad)
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The revenue filed these appeals against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'C', made in ITA Nos. 2457 & 2172/Mad./2007, dated 30-6-2006.2. In these two appeals, the substantial questions of law which arise for consideration are, (i) whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied? (it) whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue of claim of interest under Section 132B(4)(a) can be considered in a rectification petition under Section 154? and (iii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled for interest under Section 132B(4)(a) when there was no search under Section 132 in the assessee's premises?3. Having heard Mr. J. Narayanaswamy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant revenue, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. B. Maragathamani and ors. Vs. the Member Secretary Chennai Metrop ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ484
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The question raised in this writ petition is as to whether the first respondent C.M.D.A could insist for registered power of attorney when an application is filed through a power of attorney seeking for regularisation of the building plan or not 2. The petitioners 1 to 5 are holders of power of attorney and petitioners 6 to 25 are represented through Power of Attorney viz., the petitioners 1 to 5. The issue relates to the construction of building in Door No. 18/4, New Mahabalipuram Main road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 41. A planning permission was obtained from C.M.D.A on 2.9.1993 for construction of building. There were some deviations in the constructions. Hence a regularisation application was made on 31.10.2000 by one of the occupants. That application came to be rejected by the respondents in their order dated 12.8.2002 on the ground that the applicant should submit 5 sets of revised plan; attested copy of the earlier approved plan; ownership documents, NOC fr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri Krishna Saraf
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2009
Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Mad)576
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The Revenue filed these appeals against the order of the Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'C', made in ITA Nos. 2457 and 2172/Mad/2007, dt. 30th June, 2006.2. In these two appeals, the substantial questions of law which arise for consideration are :(i) whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied ?(ii) whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue of claim of interest under Section 132B(4)(a) can be considered in a rectification petition under Section 154 ?, and(iii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled for interest under Section 132B(4)(a) when there was no search under Section 132 in the assessee's premises ?3. Having heard Mr. J. Narayanaswamy, learned standing counsel for the appellant Revenue, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. To sta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »