Chennai Court August 2009 Judgments
The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Develo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ614Mad
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. Since all these matters are inextricably interconnected with each other, they are heard in common and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the writ petitioners and the respondents in the writ appeals are referred to as the writ petitioners/delinquent employees and the appellants in the writ appeals and the respondents in the writ petitions are referred to as the respondents/department.3. On a perusal of the entire materials placed on record, it is seen that for some alleged misconducts, charges were framed against the writ petitioners by the Department and after conducting an enquiry, all the writ petitioners were found guilty of the respective charges framed against them and by the impugned orders, they all are dismissed from service. Challenging such dismissal orders, the employees have filed writ petitions before this Court.4. In the two writ petitions filed by T. Sivanandan and M. Jagadeesan, the res...
Tag this Judgment!The Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. R. Ramaja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1081
ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.2007 in I.A. No. 1060 of 2007 in O.S. No. 705 of 2007 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore whereby and whereunder the fourth respondent was permitted to represent respondents 1 to 3 in the suit in O.S. No. 705 of 2007.2. The petitioner is the sole defendant in O.S. No. 705 of 2007 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.The Facts in Nutshell:3. The suit was filed by the respondents against the revision petitioner praying for a judgment and decree to restrain the revision petitioner, their men and agents from alienating or encumbering the suit property and for other incidental reliefs.4. In the short cause title as well as long cause title, the fourth respondent has indicated that he was representing respondents 1 to 3. The verification of the plaint was also made by the fourth respondent in his capacity as the authorised agent of respondents 1 to 3 as well as i...
Tag this Judgment!M. Emelda Jothi Vs. M. Prabhakaran and F. Maria John Joseph
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1594
ORDERAruna Jagadeesan, J.1. These Civil Revision Petition are filed against the order dated 22.12.2008 in IA. No. 517 and 516/2007 in OS. No. 40/2004 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, holding that since the suit is restored to file, the order of attachment passed before the dismissal of the suit would automatically get revived and for proper adjudication, the wife of the petitioner/proposed 2nd defendant is a necessary party to be impleaded in order to find out as to whether the transfer effected in the interregnum period of dismissal and restoration of the suit was fraudulent or not.2. The undisputed facts are that the respondents/Plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of money against the petitioner and pending the suit, in IA. No. 110/204, an order of attachment of the suit property was effected by order dated 12.4.2004 under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC. The suit was dismissed for default on 16.3.2005 and the respondents filed an application on 12.4.2005 in IA. No...
Tag this Judgment!Hcl Infosystems Limited Rep. by Its Power Agent Mr. R. Srikanthan Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ349
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The respondent company is a Private Limited Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 was incorporated on 10.4.1997 with the following objects:(a) To trade in any articles, goods, rights possessions of any nature and of any use being industrial, commercial, household, technical and in such process to buy, sell acquire, lease any merchandise, goods or property of any form whatsoever as authorised dealers, stockists, agents, brokers, factors and render all such services in the ordinary course of business to market the goods in a consumable state.(b) To carry on the business of importers, exporters, buyers, sellers, dealers, stockists, suppliers, wholesalers, retailers, jobbers, contractors, storers, lessors, hirer of goods of every description and goods, components, sub-components, consumables, peripherals or products or articles involved in the goods and to act as agents for any products or articles involved in the goods and to act as agents for any such...
Tag this Judgment!Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Rep. by Its Authorised Signatory V. Bhaskaran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2009
Reported in: [2009]152CompCas165(Mad)
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This company petition is filed under Sections 433 (e) & (f) read with Sections 434, 439(1)(b) and 237 of the Companies Act, 1956, for direction to wind up the respondent company, M/s. Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd. (in short, 'the Company').2. The respondent company was incorporated as a private limited company on 10.4.1997 with authorized share capital of Rs. 33 crores consisting of 33 crore equity shares of Re. 1/- each and its main objects are as follows:(a) To trade in any articles, goods, rights possessions of any nature and of any use being industrial, commercial, household, technical and in such process to buy, sell acquire, lease any merchandise, goods or property of any form whatsoever as authorised dealers, stockists, agents, brokers, factors and render all such services in the ordinary course of business to market the goods in a consumable state.(b) To carry on the business of importers, exporters, buyers, sellers, dealers, stockists, suppliers, who...
Tag this Judgment!P.L. Narasimhalu Vs. the Assistant Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2009
Reported in: [2009]152CompCas353(Mad)
ORDERC.S. Karnan, J.1. The petitioner/3rd accused has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in E.O.C.C. No. 35 of 2007 pending on the file of Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences (E.O-II), Egmore, Chennai, Chennai District and quash the same. 2. The prosecution case is that the Respondent/Complainant filed the complaint against 6 accused persons on an alleged offence under Section 159 r/w Section 162 of the Companies Act. The 1st accused is the company namely M/s. Priya Research Laboratories Limited. The Accused No. 2 to 6 are the Directors/Managing Directors/Whole time Directors/Company Secretaries and Officers of the company. The complainant has stated that the Annual General Meeting of the company for the financial year 31.03.2006 should have been held latest by 30.09.2006, and the annual return made up to that date should have been filed with the complainant within 60 days from the said date i.e., on or before 29.11.2006 a...
Tag this Judgment!M. Vijayaraghavan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Gov ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ975
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to call for the records relating to the order of the third respondent in Proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 16670/2000/Pa.I dated 22.11.2000, quash the same and for a consequential direction on the respondents to alter the date of birth of the petitioner from 17.1.1948 to 14.9.1948.2. According to the petitioner, at the time of filing of the Writ Petition, he was working as a Special Grade Forest Ranger at Coimbatore. He claims that his original date of birth is 14.9.1948 and on that basis, he would retire from service on 30.9.2006. Since the petitioner's parents wanted to admit the petitioner in a school at an early date, they had given his date of birth in the School as 17.1.1948 and hence the petitioner would retire from service on 31.1.2006.3. It is his case that he entered service in the Forest Department as Forester in December 1973. He applied for alteration of date of birth within five years of his entry into service when he wa...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sundar Singh Vs. Canara Bank, Rep. by Its Managing Director-cum-dis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ69Mad
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the first respondent dated 2.7.1998 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 14.10.1996, which is in confirmation of the order passed by the third respondent dated 6.4.1995 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full bakwages, increment, promotions and other benefits from the date of dismissal from the service.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:(a) The Petitioner while working as Agricultural Extension Officer in the respondent Bank at Keeranur Branch, was placed under suspension by the order of the third respondent dated 8.11.1993 stating that departmental proceedings were contemplated against him for certain allegations of misconduct. On 9.3.1994 the third respondent served the charge memo containing three charges. Petitioner submitted his explanation through his defence representative. Thereafter oral enquiry ...
Tag this Judgment!Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese Rep. by Its Treasurer Caldwell Higher Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ548
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This judgment shall govern these three appeals in OSA Nos. 357, 358 and 375 of 2008.2. These appeals have arisen from a common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in O.A. Nos. 530 and 531 of 2008 in C.S. No. 475/2008. OSA 375/2008 is brought forth by the defendants, while OSA Nos. 357 and 358/2008 are by the plaintiffs in the suit.3. The plaintiffs filed the said two Original Applications for ad interim injunctions one restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the internal administration and management of the affairs of the first plaintiff Diocese and the other restraining them from in any way preventing the plaintiffs from exercising their right to take disciplinary action in any form, as contemplated under the Constitution of the Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese with the following averments:The plaintiffs came to know that some of the Office Bearers of the first plaintiff Diocese misappropriated and mishandled the funds of the f...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Jayalakshmi and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ300
ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. The petitioners have come up with the present writ petition for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation as contemplated under the Provisions of Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 to the lands comprised in Survey No. 350 in Kammapuram Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.2. The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, are set out here under:2.1. The petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the Agricultural lands comprised in Survey No. 350 in Kammapuram Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District for more than 50 years. Initially, the petitioners were issued with 'B' memo under the Tamil Nadu Encroachment Act and later on, they have been provided with 2C pattas for the said lands by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioners are entitled for patta in terms of Government notification that all those persons who have been in possession and enjoyment of Government Poramboke lands for more than fiv...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »