Chennai Court March 2011 Judgments
K.Santhanalakshmi Vs. Saravanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
O R D E R1. The fourth defendant in O.S.No.140 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Ranipet, who is also the fourth respondent in I.A.No.315 of 2009, has filed the above Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order of exparte injunction granted therein and to struck off the plaint in O.S.No.140 of 2009.2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition, are set out below:-Under a Registered Sale Deed, dated 01.11.1995, executed by Sallammal, Elumalai, Saravanan, Saraswathy and Sumathi, the fifth respondent herein, purchased the suit property for a valuable consideration. By a notice dated 18.11.1996 issued by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, they claimed the suit property as joint family property and they have got a share in the property and the sale deed executed on their behalf by their father Elumalai in favour of the fifth respondent herein is not legal and binding on them as they wer...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Green Peace Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chennai Metropolitan Develo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to entertain, consider and grant the approval to the demolition and reconstruction, planning permit and building approval for the new construction comprised in T.S.No.13 part, 28/1 part, 29 part, and 30 part of Kodambakkam village, bearing Block Nos.M-45, M-46, M-47 S.V.Lingam Salai, K.K. Nagar, Chennai-600 078 measuring an extent of 5 grounds 2257 square feet without insisting the No Objection Certificate from the third respondent or any other Authority so long as the proposed new construction is in accordance with the Development Rules.2. Mr.C.Kathiravan, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the first respondent; Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the second respondent and Mr.A.Vijayakumar, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the third respondent. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. Petitioner is the promoter engag...
Tag this Judgment!M/Manivannan, S/O.Manivasagam, Rep.by His Power Agent, M.Karunanidhi V ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chennai (South) alleging deficiency against the opposite party to return the original title deeds, to issue a certificate declaring closure of Loan Account No.1073703, to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for financial loss, hardship and mental agony and to pay further sum of Rs.25,000/- towards costs. The District Forum, dismissed the complaint against the opposite party. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai (South) dated 29.05.08 in C.C. No.661/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 01.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant/appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Engineering Head Office, Customer Support Passenger Car, Business ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chennai (South) alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to replace the vehicle to provide a new vehicle, to direct the 3rd opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- spent on the vehicle for repair, service, spares and other connected expenses with 12% interest per day from 20.5.05 till date of realization of this amount, to pay Rs.9,00,000/- for physical and mental agony by the complainant and to pay cost. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai(South) dated 12.11.2007 in C.C.No.523/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 02.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- COMMON...
Tag this Judgment!Pugazendhi Thangaraj Vs. the Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
ORDER1. The short question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the order of the respondent Commissioner of Police, Chennai City in denying the request made by the petitioner for conducting a "signature campaign" with reference to an appeal to the Government of India to remove the ban on "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam" (LTTE) in a public place, by the exercise of his power under Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act is justified? 2.The petitioner is a freelance journalist and a film director. He had started an organization called "Karuthurimaikkalam", a forum for right of expression in the year 2008. According to the petitioner, "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam" (for short LTTE) was prohibited under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short UAPA). The petitioner finds the said ban was repugnant to democracy and wanted to send a join representation to the Governor of Tamil Nadu expressing the opinion of general public. Therefore, ...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
ORDER1. The petitioner-Syndicate Bank, after being aggrieved by the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, in I.D.No.86/02 directing reinstatement of one Smt.E.Amutha as permanent employee with effect from 09.12.2000 with continuity of service, backwages and other benefits, filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness of the said order.2. The petitioner-Syndicate Bank is having a branch office at Annan Nagar, Chennai. One Smt.E.Amudha's husband C.Elumalai belonging to the 2nd respondent union, while serving as Attender, was terminated from service in April'1991 on the ground that he voluntarily left the service of the bank. Subsequently, he died on 30.10.1996. Later on, the petitioner-Bank, after negotiation with the 2nd respondent Union, provided employment to Smt.E.Amudha, wife of C.Elumalai, as part time sweeper at Anna Nagar branch, Chennai. Since then, she was continuously working as Sweepe...
Tag this Judgment!M.Devasenapathy Vs. M/S. S.G.S.India Pvt.Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
J U D G M E N T1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge made in Arbitration O.P.No.195/2009 dated 6.1.2010.2. The gist of the case is as follows:The appellant herein is the owner of the building and land. He entered into an agreement of lease with the first respondent herein initially for a period of three years. The agreement provided for putting up additional building by the lessee/first respondent . In terms of the agreement, the first respondent had made payment to the appellant's father periodically. The lease agreement was made in the year 1992 and it was followed by further memorandum of agreement entered into more than once. In terms of the memorandum of agreement entered into, a sum of Rs.50,50,000/- was given by the first respondent and the appellant entered into lease agreement for 30 years commencing from 5.2.1995 and all the title deeds were handed over to the first respondent. An additional amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was also paid to th...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Hydroair Tectonics (Pcd) Ltd Vs. M/S.Sirupooluvapatti Common Efflu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellant against the dismissal of a common order of the applications filed in O.A.Nos.1107 and 1108 of 2010, seeking the invocation of powers under Section 9(d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Facts in brief:-2.The appellant has been involved in the business of providing water treatment solutions. The first respondent is a Company promoted by 24 Dying Units located in and around Tirupur, for the purpose of establishing a Common Effluent Treatment Plant in order to treat and purify the Effluent water.3.A Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the appellant and the first respondent on 25.07.2005 for the supply, erection and commissioning of Reverse Osmosis System. Thereafter, the Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.07.2005, was modified by a subsequent Memorandum of Understanding dated 11.01.2006. The subsequent Memorandum of Understanding dated 11.01.2006 also provides for an arbitration...
Tag this Judgment!Subramaniam and ors. Vs. Chandra and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioners 1 to 4 in the Criminal Revision Case were prosecuted before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet in C.C.No.386/2004 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C., 406 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial ended in a judgment of acquittal dated 14.03.2007 and the petitioners herein were held not guilty of any one of the offences with which they stood charged.2. Aggrieved by and challenging the judgment of acquittal, the de-facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1 in the trial court, preferred a Revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C before the Sessions Court, Coimbatore in Crl.R.P.No.78/2007. Along with the Revision Petition, she also filed a miscellaneous petition in Crl.M.P.No.363/2007 praying for an order permitting her to adduce additional evidence. She also produced six documents along with the said miscellaneous petition purporting to be the documentary evidence in proof of which oral evidence was also prop...
Tag this Judgment!Rajamanickam Vs. Balasubramanian and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
O R D E R1. This Revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.09.2005 in E.A.No.69 of 2001 in E.P.No.14 of 2001 in O.S.No.110 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Nannilam.2. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.110 of 1997, for partition, claiming 1/3rd share in the suit property. The respondents herein are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. Despite service of suit summons, the defendants failed to appear before the trial Court they were set exparte and an exparte preliminary decree was passed on 13.10.1997. Thereupon, the petitioner filed I.A.No.54 of 1998, to pass a final decree. In the mean time, the second respondent filed I.A.No.532 of 1998, to set aside the exparte preliminary decree dated 13.10.1997, and the said application was allowed. Subsequently, the second respondent/second defendant fil...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »