Chennai Court March 2011 Judgments
Perim Janardhana Rao and ors. Vs. M.Balaji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
(The judgement of the Court was delivered by V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH.,J)1. This appeal has been directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in O.A.No.1203 of 2010 and Application No.6505 of 2010 in C.S.No.941 of 2010.2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff / applicant is as follows:(i) The plaintiff/applicant has has been doing real estate business since 2002. The first defendant had approached the plaintiff/applicant to purchase the lands at Bangalore in order to sell the same and to make profit. Earlier, the first defendant purchased 50% of 3 acres of land in Giddanahalli Village, Bangalore Rural District and had sold the same and gained huge profit. The first defendant again approached the plaintiff/applicant to purchase some more lands and had entered into agreements in respect of the land at Bidaraguppe Village, Anekal Taluk measuring an extent of 5 acres 22 = guntas for which the plaintiff paid heave advance to the land owners. The first defendant requested t...
Tag this Judgment!Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
COMMON ORDER1. Both these writ petitions came to be posted before this court on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order, dated 15.3.2011.2.These two writ petitions were filed seeking to challenge the Government Orders issued by the first respondent State of Tamil Nadu in G.O.(Ms.)No.274, Transport (D1) Department, dated 11.10.2010 and the consequent G.O.(Ms.)No.276, Transport (D1) Department, dated 12.10.2010 insofar as bifurcating the Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd. is concerned. 3.By the impugned order, dated 11.10.2010, bifurcation order was issued. By a further order, dated 12.10.2010, it was indicated that the Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd. will be divided as North Zone having headquarters at Anna Nagar Depot and will be called as Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai-North) Ltd. and the other one functioning in the Southern Zone will be called as the Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai-South) Ltd. Likewise...
Tag this Judgment!Nahima Begum and anr. Vs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
ORDER1. The petitioners have filed Application No.6248 of 2010 in O.P.No.172 of 2004 for impleading themselves in the said original petition, which was filed by N.Selvarajolou Chetty Trust seeking permission to sell the trust property at the price fixed by the Court, after issuing public advertisement. The property of the trust is to an extent of 2312 sq.ft. comprised in Survey No.4130/2 and 4131 in O.S.No.3081, bearing Old No.34, New No.36, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.2. Pursuant to the advertisement issued as per the direction of this Court in the said original petition, it appears that four offers were received. The highest bidder one Ravi has offered ` 1 Crore and as the same was accepted, this Court directed him to pay the said amount in two instalments, but he committed default. It was in those circumstances the petitioners, who got impleaded in the original petition, have offered to purchase the property for ` 1 crore and the Court accepted their offer and on 18.11.2010, the p...
Tag this Judgment!M. Jayachandran Vs. the Management, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
O R D E R1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the second respondent dated 31.12.2008 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:(a) The first respondent is the subsidiary of the third respondent, which is a Government of India Undertaking. Initially the first respondent was under the control of the third respondent. The third respondent has five Units at Hyderabad, Rishikesh, Gurgaon, Mursafarpur and Chennai. It is engaged in the manufacture of drugs, hospital equipments, surgical instrument, etc. (b) The Chennai Unit commenced its operations during the year 1965. It had employees strength of about 1200. Gradually the said strength was reduced and many employees opted for voluntary retirement. (c) The petitioner joined in the services of the first respondent in the year 1979 as S...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Kamala Vs. M/S. Aparna Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Direc ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
(Prayer: This complaint coming before us for hearing finally on 11.03.2011, upon perusing the material documents, and upon hearing the counsels for both the parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Commission made the following order. A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL The complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 1. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties praying for the direction of jointly and severally convey 3/56 undivided share in the land in favour of complainant by the opposite parties, to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for the construction of extra two flats towards the loss suffered by the complainant, to construct compound wall staircase and complete the construction, wood work or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and direct the opposite parties to get the assessments in Corporation C.M.W.S.S.B., T.N.E.B. and other Government authorities and public records in the name of complainan...
Tag this Judgment!Areva T and D India Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
ORDER1. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of an interim order before this court pending hearing of his stay application as well as an application to waive pre-deposit pending before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short CESTAT)? 2.In the writ petition, when it came up on 24.11.2010, notice was taken by the Central Government Standing Counsel. An interim stay was granted for a period of two weeks. Subsequently, it was extended from time to time. The respondent has filed a vacate stay application in M.P.No.1 of 2011 together with supporting counter affidavit, dated 14.12.2010. 3.Heard the arguments of Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Ravichandra Babu, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 4.By the impugned order, dated 29.10.2010, the petitioner was informed that the petitioner has filed an appeal arising ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulzar Begum Vs. Lok Adalat and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the award dated 21.03.2009 passed by the Lok Adalat on the file of the I Additional Family Court, Chennai, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the same with a prayer to remand back the M.C.No.478 of 2004 to the I Additional Family Court for further and expeditious proceedings.2. Mr.T.Mohan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-Gulzar Begum is the legally wedded wife of the 2nd respondent/Syed Akbar Ali and the marriage between them was solemnized on 18.06.1987. Though they had marital life only for about four years in their matrimonial home at No.18, Yasin Khan Street, Issa Pallavaram, Chennai 600 043, yet during that period, the petitioner/wife was subjected to various acts of violence, torture, abuse and harassment by the 2nd respondent/husband. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/wife was deprived of e...
Tag this Judgment!N.C.Alexander Importer and Exporter Vs. the Chief Commissioner of Cust ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
O R D E R1. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that this Court had been passing a number of orders, in similar facts and circumstances, as in the present writ petition, directing the respondents to release the goods in question, on the petitioner paying 30% of the differential duty and on his furnishing a personal bond for the balance amount. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on one of such orders, dated 1.3.2011, made in W.P.No.4981 of 2011.2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that this Court may be pleased to pass a similar order, as in the other similar writ petitions, as there are no changes in the facts and circumstances of the present case.3. He had also submitted that, when other similarly placed importers of apples are not suspected of undervaluing their goods, it is improper for the respondents to suspect the bona fides of the business transactions of the petitioner, w...
Tag this Judgment!S.V.Matha Prasad Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner-S.V.Matha Prasad seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing R2/Chief Controller, Department of Explosives, Chennai, and R3/Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Chennai, to cancel the licence, if any, already renewed to run the Petrol Bunk of R-1 and not to renew the same in future; directing the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, to cancel the NOC granted to the first respondent/Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) for running the Petrol Bunk in the premises situated in D.S. No.852 (Old No.98) Anna Salai, next to P ORR & Sons; and also directing the first respondent to stop running of retail distribution as Distributor of Petrol and carrying on any business in the said premises and hand over possession thereof to the petitioner.2. Certain vital facts, relevant for better appreciation of the present litigation, are briefly outlined below:-Late Mr.S.V.Ramakrishnan Mudaliar, father of the petitioner herein, had leased out the property situ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Besant Raj International Limited Vs. M/S.Vishwa Bharathi Textiles ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2011
1. This appeal arises out of the order in Company Petition No.115 of 2002 dismissing the Petition filed under Sec.433(e), 434 and 439 of Companies Act and declining to pass an order winding up the Respondent Company M/s.Vishwabharathi Textiles Limited.2. Appellant-M/s.Besant Raj International Limited is the Management Consultancy Company providing services to Indian Companies. Respondent requested the Appellant to organise and arrange for funds from Foreign Banks for their business purposes to an extent of 8 Millions US dollars. After negotiations, Appellant agreed to do so and given terms of agreement. As per the letter dated 04.02.2000, it was indicated that the professional fee payable to the Appellant would be 2% of the funds to be arranged apart from Rs.1,00,000/- as non-refundable retainer fee and Rs.1,00,000/- towards the expenses for preparation of the business plan. Respondent accepted the offer and sent Rs.2,00,000/- under letter dated 05.02.2000 stating that they had agreed ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »