Chennai Court August 2009 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
P. Pichaiya Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ1143
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner, who was a Secondary Grade Teacher Training qualified person, was appointed as Grade II Tamil Pandit, on 23.10.1967 and served as Grade II Tamil Pandit till 5.7.1971, in Government High School, Koilur, Vellore District. During the period of his service, as a Grade II Tamil Pandit, he was ousted from service, during the months when there was summer vacation, from 1967 to 1971. He was posted as a Secondary Grade Teacher, on a regular basis, from 6.7.1971 to 4.12.1989, in the Government High School, in Tiruvannamalai District. Based on his additional qualifications and seniority, he was promoted as Tamil Pandit Grade I, equal to B.T. Assistant i.e., School Assistant, on 5.12.1969. The petitioner is serving as a Tamil pandit Grade I in the Government Boys Higher secondary sch...
In Re: Convansys (India) P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2009
Reported in: [2009]152CompCas148(Mad)
P. Jyothimani, J.1. These company petitions are preferred under Sections 391 - 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation of the transferor companies, the petitioners in C.P. Nos. 152 and 153 of 2009 with the transferee company, the petitioner in C.P. No. 154 of 2009, with effect from April 1, 2009. The scheme of amalgamation is annexed as annexure C in each of the petitions.2. The petitioner in C.P. No. 152 of 2009 is the first transferor company; the petitioner in C.P. No. 153 of 2009 is the second transferor company and the petitioner in C.P. No. 154 of 2009 is the transferee company.3. A perusal of the records show that the petitioners have complied with the prescribed procedure. The chartered accountant's certificate stating that the transferor and the transferee companies have no secured creditors is annexed as annexure 'G' in each of the petitions. The copy of the resolution of the board of directors of the transferor and the transferee companies ...
Sree Jayalakshmi Brick Industries Represented by Its Proprietor Rama B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ522
D. Hariparanthaman, J.1. The writ petitioner purchased the land comprised in Survey Nos. 141/1, 141/2A, 142/1 and 142/2 measuring an extent of 1.88 acres, 0.92 acres, 2.77 acres, 0.98 acres and 2.92 acres respectively, in all an extent of 9.97 acres in Ayanambakkam Village, Poonamallee Taluk, during 1980 by way of two sale deeds dated 04.09.1980 from one Thiru. A.L. Sreeramulu and three others.2. The vendors manufactured bricks at the said lands in the name and style of M/s. Sree Jayalakshmi Brick Works. According to the petitioner, he continued the manufacturing of bricks in the changed name viz., M/s. Sree Jayalakshmi Brick Industries.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he sought exemption from the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by making an application under Section 21 of the Act. According to him, he did not receive any orders on his application.4. While so, according to the...
Gem Granites (P) Ltd. Rep. by Its Director Mr. S.R. Asaithambi Vs. Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1197
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The proceedings of the first respondent in G.O.(D) No. 152 Industries (MMB2) Department, dated 19.05.2009, pertaining to the petitioner's leased patta land quarry measuring 4.05.0 hectares, comprised in Survey No. 483/2, situate in Nadanthai Village of Paramathi-Velur Taluk, Namakkal District, are under challenge in this Writ Petition.2. Petitioner was granted granite quarry lease in respect of his above leasehold patta land vide the G.O.3(D) No. 9 Industries (MMB.II) Department, dated 17.01.1994, by the first respondent for a period of ten years, which commenced from 21.02.1994. Since the said lease was to expire on 20.02.2004, the petitioner, by an application, dated 19.02.2003, to the first respondent, sought for renewal of the said lease. However, as the said application remained unattended to for quite a long time, the petitioner moved a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 1696 of 2004 before this Court and, on 13.02.2008, the said Writ Petition was disposed of with...
G. Krishnamoorthy and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ85
ORDERD. Hariparanthaman, J.1. The writ petition is preferred by the land owners against the order dated 01.11.2000 passed in T.R.P. No. 187 of 1999 by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, confirming the order dated 25.10.1989 of the Competent Authority, the third respondent herein, under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order dated 07.09.1990 of the Appellate Authority, the second respondent herein.2. Tmt. Kalpana Krishnamoorthy owned urban land in Kottivakkam. She is the wife of the first petitioner and mother of the petitioners 2 to 5. She did not file the return under Section 7(1) of the Act. Hence, a notice dated 17.05.1982 under Section 7(2) was issued to her by the third respondent, the Competent Authority, seeking her to file return.3. Thereafter, a draft statement under Section 9(1) was prepared by the Competent Authority regarding the vacant land held by the land owner in excess of ceil...
Rajeswari Ammal Vs. Arunachalam,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ337
M.M. Sundresh, J.1. The appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in the suit. The suit has been filed in O.S. No. 23 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Thanjavur seeking for the relief of declaration that the sale deed executed on 07.10.1983 is void and illegal and to set aside the same with the alternative plea to direct the third defendant to re-convey the suit property on receiving the amount as mentioned in the plaint, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the sale deed dated 07.10.1983 is genuine and valid.2. The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is extracted hereunder:The suit property belongs to the plaintiff. The first defendant is the father of the defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff has requested the first defendant for a loan. Since the defendants have insisted security for the grant of loan, the plaintiff agreed to execute a mortgage for a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. Even though, the mortgage has been executed for a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, a sum of Rs. 65,000/- alone was pai...
S. Umapathy Vs. the Chairman and R. Kasi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ1155
ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. The Petitioner, during the year 1995 was working as a Driver Grade (1) in Tuticorin Port Trust. The next avenue of promotion is to the post of driver Grade I (B). During the year 1995, one vacancy in the post of Driver Grade I (B) arose. Selection process was taken up by the 1st respondent to promote from Driver Grade I to fill up the said post. During that year, the petitioner's seniority was at No. 5, whereas the seniority of the 2nd respondent, who was also then working as Driver Grade I was at No. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of promoting the petitioner as against the said vacancy in the post of Driver Grade I (B), the second respondent was promoted. It appears that the petitioner was also promoted as Driver Grade I (B) in the year 1996. In the post of Driver Grade I (B) the, petitioner was kept as Junior to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same. Therefore, he has come forward with this writ petition, seeking a Man...
The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2009
Reported in: (2010)27VST358(Mad)
ORDERB. Rajendran, J.1. The State Government has come forward with this revision as against the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 18.11.1998.2. The assessee, who is a dealer in G.I. Pipes had submitted its return for the assessment year 1994-95. There was a dispute in regard to the stock variation of Rs. 3,72,162/-, which was noticed at the time of inspection by the authorities on 21.01.1995 and the corresponding levy of tax, surcharge and additional sales tax were in dispute. The assessee also disputed the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,06,517/- under Section 12(3) of the Act, which was levied by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved against the order levying penalty and additional sales tax, the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in Appeal No. 610/94. The Appellate Authority by an order dated 02.04.1997 has deleted the equal addition made on turnover to the tune of Rs. 3,59,251/- and ultimately, the taxable turnover of the a...
R. Chamundeeswari and ors. Vs. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ1056
S. Palanivelu, J.1. The following have been stated in the claim petition:On 25.9.2002 at about 1.00 p.m. when the deceased was walking from west to east on Perambur High Road (Opposite to Friends Bakery), the driver of the respondent bus bearing Registration No. TN-01-N-3560 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in the same direction, knocked down the deceased, ran over him and he died on the spot. The bus further proceeded in a rash manner, hit a scooterist, ran over him and he also died. A case in Cr. No. 231/P3/2002 was registered with G.3 Kilpauk Police Station. The deceased was aged about 52 years who was employed as a driver in Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Perambur Depot and was earning Rs. 8,700/- per month including daily collection batta and annual bonus. The said accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent's bus driver. The first claimant is wife, 2nd and 3rd cliamants are their children and 4th and 5th claimants are parents of ...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Textool Company Limited, Ga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ953
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2003 made in O.S. No. 186 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional Sub Judge, Coimbatore.2. The brief facts in a nutshell are as follows:The appellants are plaintiffs in the suit. The respondent is the defendant. The first appellant is the Insurance Company, a subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India, carrying on the business of General Insurance. The second appellant is the company incorporated under the Companies Act. The second appellant placed an order with the consignor M/s Hindustan Hydraulics Private Limited, G.T.Road, Suranussi, Jalandhar for purchase of C.N.C. Press Brake Type EHP-260 43/37 machinery with accessories. As per the consignor's invoice dated 14.03.1995, the total value of consignment is Rs. 69,28,698.92 and the same was sent to the second appellant consignee. The said consignment was entrusted to the above respondent public carrier in L.R. No. 17937 dated 14.03.199...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »