Chennai Court August 2010 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.
Laurel Aromatics Private Limited. Vs. Contract Point Impex (India) Pri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
1. These company petitions are preferred under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation of the transferor company with the transferee company with effect from 1st April 2009.2. M/s.Laurel Aromatics Private Limited, the petitioner in C.P.No.85 of 2010 is the transferor company. The main objects of the transferor company, as stated in the Memorandum of Association, are narrated in paragraph (5) of the said petition and the Memorandum of Association is enclosed as Annexure (1) to the said petition.3. M/s.Contract Point Impex (India) Private Limited, the petitioner in C.P.No.86 of 2010 is the transferee company. The main objects of the transferee company, as stated in the Memorandum of Association, are narrated in paragraph (5) of the said petition and the Memorandum of Association is enclosed as Annexure (1) to the said petition.4. In the meeting held on 12.2.2010, the Board of Directors of the transferor company, the petitioner in C.P.No.8...
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Rep by Its Managing Director, Vs. T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
1. Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.15,00,600/- in M.C.O.P.No.4898 of 1999 for the death of S.B. Sakthivel, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.2. The respondents, who are the wife and daughters of S.B. Sakthivel, who died in a motor accident filed a petition in MCOP No.4898 of 1999 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (II Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai. against the Manging Director, Metroplitan Transport Corporation (hereinafter called Corporation), claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:On 1.9.99 when the deceased was riding the Bajaj M-80 TN-09-F-6722 on Velachery main Road from south to north, the MTC Bus No.TN-01-N-1849 came rashly and negligently on the said road from opposite direction and hit against the Bajaj M-80 and thereby caused multiple injuries to the deceased and later he succumbed to injuries. Regarding the accident, a criminal case has been registed in Cr.No.477/S2...
Mr.D.Pushpanathan. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Fin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
1. The petitioner's son was employed in a private aided School as a Watchman. He died on 25.08.1998, while he was in service. The petitioner's son got married and however he did not have issues. The petitioner's daughter-in-law filed a suit in O.S.No.200 of 2000 before the District Munsif Court, Arakonam relating to the terminal benefits payable to her husband on his death. In the suit, the petitioner and the fourth respondent herein were shown as defendants. The suit was referred before the Lok Adalat for an amicable settlement.2. Based on the settlement reached before the Lok Adalat, a compromise decree was passed by the District Munsif Court, Arakonam on 03.12.2004 in O.S.No.200 of 2000. The compromise decree is based on the settlement. The terms of the compromise decree area as follows:- VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED3. As per the compromise decree, the daughter in law of the petitioner is receiving family pension. The daughter in law agreed for the payment of DCRG to the petit...
C.Jagadeesan. Vs. Annammal.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 9.8.2006, made in A.S.No.90 of 2005, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ranipet, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 29.11.2004, made in O.S.No.198 of 1994, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholinghur.2. The defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.198 of 1994, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff in the said suit is the respondent herein.3. The suit, in O.S.No.198 of 1994 had been filed on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholinghur, praying for a decree declaring the plaintiffs right and title to the plaint schedule property, marked as `BHGE' in the plaint plan, and for a direction to the defendant to deliver possession of the said property to the plaintiff, and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to demolish the thatched house in the said property, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and servants f...
C. Gnanasekaran. Vs. the Inspector General of Registration, Santhome H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
1. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are as follows:(a) The petitioner in W.P.No.35439 of 2004 is that the petitioner entered into a sale agreement on 18.11.1998 with one Raju and Lakshmi to purchase the land to an extent of 0.04 cents, comprised in Survey No.413/5, Thirukadayur Village, Tranqubar Taluk. The vendor refused to execute the sale deed. Hence the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.11 of 2002 before the Principal Sub Court, Myladuthurai, for specific performance of the agreement. The said suit was decreed on 4.3.2002. After filing execution petition, the learned Subordinate Judge executed the sale deed on 30.3.2004 in terms of the decree and the same was registered as Document No.147/2004 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sembanarkoil. The third respondent returned the document after registration by stating that after due inspection he will return the document and thereafter the registration having been made by not paying the proper market value, ...
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner. Vs. Tvl. Hansa Ci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
1. The State is the petitioner. The challenge is to the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 15.02.2001 in T.A.No.1140 of 1999.2. The short question for consideration is "whether the Desk Top Projector dealt with by the respondent-assessee will fall under Entry 33 of Part D of the First Schedule or Entry 44 of Part B of the First Schedule?"3. The assessment year is 1995-96. The relevant entries, viz. Entry 33 of Part D of the First Schedule and Entry 44 of Part B of the First Schedule were as under: "33. ORIGINAL ENTRY FROM 12.3.1993Cinematographic equipments, including cameras, projectors, over-head projectors, sound-recording and reproducing equipments, parts and accessories thereof and lenses, exposed films, film-strips, are or cinema carbons, cinema slides, paper, paper boards required for use therewith.44. ORIGINAL ENTRY FROM 12.3.1993Television sets of all kinds, car television, television cameras, television monitors, projectors, closed circuit television sets and cam...
Joyce Elizabeth Arokiamary. Vs. the Pondicherry University, Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
1. Pondicherry University is a Central University established as per an Act of Parliament called as the Pondicherry University Act, 1985. The petitioner was appointed as Typist cum Clerk in the said University on 01.09.1987. She was promoted to the post of Junior Grade Stenographer with effect from 01.08.1990. Her service in the post of Junior Grade Stenographer was regularised with effect from 01.08.1990 by order dated 22.10.1991. According to the petitioner, for Junior Grade Stenographer, the next avenue for promotion is to the post of Office Manager. During the year 1997, two Office Managers working in the Pondicherry University were sent on deputation for different departments and thus, there arose two vacancies. As against one such vacancy, with effect from 31.07.1997, the petitioner was duly considered and promoted on ad hoc basis. She continued to work only on ad hoc basis in the said post of Office Manager.2. While so, with effect from 06.11.2000 Revised Recruitment Rules was b...
R.Mothilal. Vs. Ramapushpam, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in R.C.A.Nos.784 to 786 of 2003 confirming the order dated 28.2.2003 passed by the XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai, in RCOP Nos.498 to 500 of 1995, these civil revision petitions are filed by the landlord. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: (i) The revision petitioner herein filed the RCOP Nos.498 to 500 of 1995.498 to 500 of 1995 invoking Section 14(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, on the ground of 'demolition and reconstruction'. The matter was contested by the respondent/tenant. (ii) Before the Rent Controller on the side of the landlord, the landlord examined himself as P.W.1 along with one K.Sankar(Engineer) as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. On the side of the tenants the respective tenants examined themselves as R.W.2, ...
S.Santhana Manikandan. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, and Ors,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
1. The petitioner is a physically challenged person, as he is visually handicapped. He is a Post Graduate in History. He also passed M.Phil.2. The second respondent issued a notification dated 10.11.2008 calling for applications to fill the 16 posts included in the Combined Subordinate Services Examination-I, 2008. 3% reservation for Physically Handicapped person is provided, while filling up of all the posts except Assistant Section Officer (Other than Law and Finance Department) in Secretariat. One of the posts namely, Assistant in Revenue Department, relates to appointments of Assistants in various Districts. The petitioner made an application for 41 posts giving his preferences. The first preference was to the post of Junior Employment Officer (Physically Handicapped) in the Employment and Training Department in the Tamil Nadu General Subordinate Service.3. Based on his application, he was called for written examination. He was successful in the written examination. Thereafter the ...
T. Rengasamy. Vs. the Chairman Tamil Nadu Housing Board, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 15.11.2005, wherein a sum of Rs.75,900/- towards the balance cost as on November, 2005 was demanded with a further direction to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of HIG Plot No.4/1998, Tirur Scheme already allotted to him.2. The case of the petitioner is that the said plot was allotted by Allotment Order dated 31.7.1991 by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board with certain terms and conditions. The petitioner paid the amount, which was demanded as per the original allotment order and also as per the subsequent demand notice dated 4.8.1994. The petitioner also paid interest, for the belated payment of Rs.2394/-, on 2.9.1994. A further sum of Rs.18,084/- was directed to be paid on or before 30.6.2000 towards capitalization as a final cost. The said amount having not been paid, the penal interest and other charges were calculated and a sum of Rs.75,900/- is demanded as per the impugned order. The said order i...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »