Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2011Mad66(FB)
1. These two appeals have been filed against the order passed in W.P.Nos.17555 of 2008 and 27291 of 2008. 2. In W.P.No. 17555 of 2008, the facts of the case are that the writ petitioner (respondents 2 and 3) claims to be the owner of Plot No.223, measuring 2500 sq.ft. comprised in survey Nos.98/5, 98/2A/2 and 98/2B/3, Kakkalur Village, Tiruvallur Taluk and District. The said property allegedly purchased by the writ petitioner by means of registered sale deed dated 13th Nov., 1996, from the 2nd respondent/appellant. She claims that the entire sale consideration was paid and she was also put in possession. However, the 2nd respondent/appellant unilaterally executed the cancellation deed on 27th Aug., 2007, which was registered by the 1st respondent, being Document No.16826/07. The 2nd respondent/appellant denied the allegation and stated that the writ petitioner was not in possession of the property and the appellant continued to be in possession of the same. It was also contended that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The petitioners in these petitions have challenged the common impugned order of the 3rd respondent, who had issued the corrigendum PPO No.08/14/A/Rev/0500 of 2000 (in T.A.No.128 of 2010) and corrigendum PPO No.08/14/A/Rev/0499 of 2000 (in T.A.No.129 of 2010) cancelling PPO.No.08/14/A/Rev/1853 of 1999 and PPO.No.08.14/A/Rev/2251 of 1999 respectively have approached the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh for restoration of their pension as per PPO.No.08/14/A/Rev/1853 of 1999 and PPO.No.08.14/A/Rev/2251 of 1999 respectively. 2. The affidavit to the petition in T.A.No.128 of 2010 runs as follows. The petitioner in T.A.No.128 of 2010 joined Indian Air Force on 25.12.1964 as a Commissioned Officer and took premature retirement with effect from 02.10.1989 at the time when he was holding the rank of Wing Commander. The premature retirement of the petitioner was approved by the Government in the public interest and thereafter, he was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
COMMON 1. These appeals arise out of the order of learned single Judge in A.Nos.4337 and 4810 of 2010 whereby the learned single Judge declined to pass an order of arrest of Vessel MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy holding that claim of supply of necessaries do not constitute a "maritime lien".2. Plaintiff is an Import and Export Company and they are also engaged in the business of Clearing and Forwarding Agency which includes supply of various necessaries to Vessel in Dock. Case of Plaintiff is that Defendant in the course of business would lie anchored in the Indian Ports at various places at various points of time, particularly in Chennai and Tuticorin Ports. When the ship is so anchored, the Plaintiff would supply various necessaries to the Defendant at the request of the Master of the Vessel. Plaintiff would raise invoices and as such, maintaining a running Account with the Defendant. It is averred that Plaintiff has been supplying necessaries to the Defendant for several years and an outstand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent, viz., Tamil Nadu State Election Commission, represented by its Secretary, dated 3.1.2011, by which the first respondent by exercising the suo moto powers conferred under Rule 139 of the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats, Third Grade Municipalities, Municipalities and Corporations (Elections) Rules, 2006 (for brevity, the Election Rules, 2006) has cancelled the proceedings of the Assistant Returning Officer publishing the list of validly nominated candidates in Form-6 on 30.12.2010 in respect of election of Councillor for Ward No.45 of Madurai City Municipal Corporation and directed to revise the same in accordance with the rule provisions.2.1. The petitioner's husband was elected as a Ward Councillor of Ward No.45 of the Madurai Corporation and he died on 2.6.2010. In order to fill up the casual vacancy, the first respondent has issued a notification on 16.12.2010 publishing the programme of election for the said War...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. Pending suit for a declaration that the final order dated 1.11.2010 passed by the Superior Court of Cobb County, State of Georgia, USA in Civil Action File No. 10-1-8238-48, to the extent that it deals with issues of custody of the minor child Rhea Immaculate Arul, aged about 4 years is inconclusive, unenforceable, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and the minor child and for consequential decrees of permanent injunction, the plaintiff, who is the mother of the minor child, came up with 3 applications, viz., (i) O.A.No.191 of 2011 seeking an interim order of injunction restraining the respondent father from in any manner seeking to enforce the said order of the Superior Court of Cobb County, State of Georgia, in so far as the custody of the minor child is concerned (ii) O.A.No.192 of 2011, seeking an interim order of injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner publishing any defamatory or derogatory material, lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
W.P.Nos.24476 to 24478 of 2009 relate to the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. The assessee herein has come before this Court, challenging the notice of reassessment dated 19.03.2009 for the above-said assessment years issued by the first respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The petitioner herein is a company and an assessee on the file of the first respondent herein. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of non-ferrous metals and telephone cables. The petitioner states that it obtained the licence for its industrial undertaking, at Chinchpada Unit (CCR Refinery) at Silvassa in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar, Haveli from the Chief Inspector of Factories of Silvassa on 07.06.1996 in Form No.4, as prescribed under the Factories Act, 1948 to manufacture copper. As is evident from the Director's report, forming part of the balance sheet and profit and loss account for the assessment year 1999-2000, the petitioner is stated to hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
COMMON JUDGMENT1. These two appeals are focussed by the defendants as against the common judgment and decrees dated 30.11.2005 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, [Fast Track Court No.I] Chennai in O.S.Nos.12891 and 12960 of 1996 respectively.2. The parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two appeals would run thus:The plaintiffs filed two suits, relating to one big property, by citing almost each half of it in the suits with the following prayer:O.S.No.12891 of 1996:- to pass judgment and decree as against the defendants -a] declaring that the sale deed executed by the defendants 1 to 17 to and in favour of 18th defendant under registered document No.1028/95 dated 01.09.1995 of the suit property belong to the Chetpet Subbadramma Trust, bearing Old Door No.34 and New No.48, now comb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
WP 21933/2011:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned notification issued by the first respondent in GSR No.218(E) published in Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II-Section 3-Sub-section (i) dated 16.3.2011 in so far as it relates to item No.(i), i.e., Gatifloxacin formulation of systemic use in human by any route including oral and injectable and direct the respondents to review the prohibition after giving an opportunity to the petitioner.WP 25442/2011:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned notification issued by the first respondent in GSR No.218(E) published in Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II-Section 3-Sub-section (i) No.139, dated 16.3.2011 and to quash the same in so far as it relates to ite...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer in W.P.No.17182 of 2011:Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ in the nature of declaration declaring the cancellation deed registered by the first respondent in Doc.No.1925 of 2008 dated 19.08.2008 and consequential settlement deed registered as Doc.No.2371 of 2010 dated 24.09.2010 as illegal, void and against the provisions of the registration Act.Prayer in W.P.No.5046 of 2012:Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ in the nature of declaration declaring the cancellation deed registered by the first respondent in Doc.No.1926 of 2008 dated 19.08.2008 and consequential settlement deed registered as Doc.No.2371 of 2010 dated 24.09.2010 as illegal, void and against the provisions of the registration Act.K.SHARMA,J.COMMON ORDER1. As the common question of law and facts are involved in these two writ petitions, these are being disposed of by common order. For the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee in D.No.803 of 2010, dated 23.04.2010 and to set-aside the same.ORDER1. The history of the case are as follows:-The second respondent herein / defacto complainant, viz., Mr.S.R.Y.Ankineedu Prasad lodged a complaint against the revision petitioner herein viz., Rajendra Raja, S/o.Bakthavatchala Raja, before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Suburban Police Station, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai-6, stating that he is the Chairman of Amaravathi Cranes and Structural Private Limited. The said company had purchased barren lands measuring about 167.41 acres vide patta No.9, comprised in Survey Nos.489 to 514 etc., in Morai Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District for individual purpose, in the year 1965. From the year 2001 onwards, the revision petitioner herein, viz., Rajendra Raja and ten others are claiming ownership of the lands creating for...
Tag this Judgment!