Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1998)2MLJ370
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the first defendant in O.S. No. 100 of 1997, on the file of Sub Court, Palani. Two plaintiffs, who are respondents herein, filed the said suit, to direct the first defendant to surrender possession of the property to the plaintiffs, and directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 being the value of firewood and seized timber to the plaintiffs, with interest at 18% per annum from date of suit till payment, and also to direct an enquiry into the past and future mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12, C.P.C, and to grant permanent injunction restraining the first defendant and his man from putting up any further construction in the suit property, and also award costs of the suit, and grant such further reliefs.2. Facts narrated in the plaint may briefly be stated thus : First plaintiff is the son of late N.R.S. Ramasamy Chettiar. Between himself and his father, there was a partition on 22.5.1964...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2000(1)CTC334
ORDER1. Defendants 14 to 16 in O.S. No, 710 of 1996, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Erode, are the revision petitioners.2. First respondent herein filed the suit for partition claiming 8/5.6 shares and also for putting her in exclusive possession of the same, she also prayed for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 14 to 16, their men and agents from demolishing the suit property, and for directing the defendants to pay costs of the suit.3. In the body of plaint, it is alleged that plaintiff and first defendant are daughters of one Gurunatha Mudaliar, who died 35 years ago. Apart from plaintiff and first defendant, defendant 8 to 10. One Mariappan and one Duraisami are also the children of Gurunatha Mudaliar. Mariappan died and his widow is 2nd defendant, and defendants 3 to 7 are their children. The legal heirs of Duraisami are defendants 11 and 12. It is alleged that the property is the self-acquisition of plaintiff's father. On the date of death of Guru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(2)CTC111; (1998)IIMLJ156
ORDER1. The present revision has been preferred against the fair and decretal order dated 31.3.1997 in E.A.No.827 of 1997 in E.P.No.1721 of 1996 in O.S.No.5485 of 1994 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The respondent is the owner of the premises bearing door No.71, Mulla Sahab Street, Chennai. He let out the house and premises, being flat situated in the left hand side in the ground floor of the said premises bearing door No.71 to the petitioner herein on a monthly rent of Rs.1800 for residential purpose on and from 1.9.1989.2. The respondent instituted O.S.No.5485 of 1994 for recovery of possession and for recovery of Rs.18,000 being arrears of rent due for the period commencing from May, 1993 to February, 1994. The suit was presented on 10.3.1994. The petitioner herein, though served with the suit summons, absented himself and the trial Court passed an ex parte decree on 12th October, 1995, directing the defendant in the suit to pay Rs.18,000, together ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1957)2MLJ406
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. Under the scheme formulated by the Government to relieve unemployment among the educated classes, Local Boards were encouraged to establish schools in villages which would provide employment for teachers. One of the schools so established was at Kunnangalpalayam in Palladam taluk in Coimbatore District. The sanctioned strength of that school was one teacher. On 13th March, 1955, the President of the District Board, Coimbatore, appointed the petitioner to that post, and the petitioner took charge of his post on 18th March,1955.2. On 15th June, 1955 the Junior Deputy Inspector of Schools, Palladam, inspected the school. He recorded certain irregularities and recommended the removal of the petitioner from his office. Apparently the District Education Officer was also of the same view. On receipt of the report and recommendations of the Educational authorities the President of the District Board issued his order dated 2nd August, 1955, the relevant portion of which r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(1)CTC375
ORDER1. This Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.100 of 1997, on the file of Sub Court, Palni. Two plaintiffs, who are respondents herein, filed the said suit, to direct the first defendant to surrender possession of the property to the plaintiff's and directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 being the value of firewood and sized timber to the plaintiffs, with interest at 18% per annum from date of suit till payment, and also to direct an enquiry into the past and future mesne profits under Or.20, Rule 12, C.P.C., and to grant permanent injunction restraining the first defendant and his men from putting up any further construction in the suit property, and also award costs of the suit, and grant such further reliefs.2. Facts narrated in the plaint may briefly be stated thus:-First plaintiff is the son of late N.R.S. Ramasamy Chettiar. Between himself and his father, there was a partition on 22.5.1964. Plaint schedule propert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
O R D E R1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the fourth respondent labour Court, dated 30.12.2005, made in C.C.P.No.18 of 2002, and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to compute and pay the money value of the performance award to the petitioner, along with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum.2. The petitioner had stated that he had joined in service, as a Grade D employee, under the respondents 1 to 3, on 14.5.1975. At the time of the filing of the claim petition on the file of the fourth respondent labour Court, he was holding the post of Assistant Officer (MTCE) (NE-9). His wife, D.Kamalavathi, was also employed in Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited, which was originally a Government of India undertaking. In the year 2000, due to the disinvestment, the Tata Company had taken control of the said Company. While so, there was some misunderstanding between the petitioner and his wife, d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1992)1MLJ121
Lakshmanan, J.1. The plaintiff above named filed C.S. No. 339 of 1989 with the following prayers:(a) direct the arbitration agreement bearing No. 81/CN/84, dated 6.11.1984, Agreement No. 16/CN/84, dated 15.2.1984 and No. 82/CN/ 84, dated 6.11.1984 filed into this Hon'ble Court;(b) direct the first defendant to refer the dispute to arbitration in terms of the agreement;(c) costs of this application be provided;(d) such further or other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.His case in short:Plaintiff entered into three agreements with the defendants Railway Administration for carrying out certain work as detailed in paragraph 3 of his plaint and in pursuance of these agreements, the plaintiff was executing the works and was submitting periodically the Bills. The work was completed and final bills were also submitted. The plaintiff firm did not receive the full amount claimed. Later it was found that in respect of agreement No. 16/CN/84, dated 15.2.1984, a sum of Rs. 3,29,812 was re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2005]124CompCas399(Mad); (2005)6CompLJ490(Mad); 2005(1)CTC249; (2005)1MLJ269; [2005]60SCL604(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of all the parties, the Appeals themselves have (been) taken up for disposal. M/s. Dove Investments Private Limited, Mumbai-21; M/s. Max worth Investments Private Limited, Chennai-34; and Mr. P.N. Mohan, partner of M/s. Sandhya Priya Investments, Chennai-41 -respondents 2 to 4 in Company Petition N.13/111A/S.R.B of 2003 on the file of Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench, Chennai, aggrieved by the order dated 23.8.2004, directing M/s. Sterling Holiday Resorts-first respondent therein to register transfer of 22,93,000 shares in the name of the M/s. Gujarath Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., petitioner therein within 30 days of receipt of the said order, have preferred C.M.A. No. 3188 of 2004 under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956. Questioning the very same order, M/s. Sterling Holiday Resorts, first respondent therein filed C.M.A. No. 3223/2004. Since both the appeals arise against the very same order of the Company Law Board, the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1995Mad277
ORDER1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this revision petition against the dismissal of his I. A. No. 91 of 1993 for amending his plaint in O.S. No. 197 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli. The said suit is for a declaration that the suit document dated 17-2-1989 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the second defendant and one Diravia Thevar is only a mortgage deed and not a sale deed as it purports to be and for consequential injunction. The suit was filed on 16-9-1990and while P.W. 1 was being examined at the trial of the suit, the above said I.A. No. 91 of 1993 was filed in Feb. 1993. As per the original plaint, though the above said document purported to be a sale deed it is only a mortgage deed but now by the proposed amendment the plaintiff wants to plead that the said document is a void document and hence he wants to have an alternative prayer for a declaration that the said deed is void. For seeking this alternative prayer, the relevant allegations in the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1963Mad149; [1962]32CompCas381(Mad)
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Baiakrishna Aiyar J. directing the deletion of the first respondent's name from the list of contributories, the question raised in the appeal being whether the existence of a mortgage (English mortgage) over the call money precludes the liquidator from including the name of the shareholder who is in arrears in respect of such money in the list of contributories. The facts giving rise to this appeal have been set out in our judgment in O. S. A. No. 23 of 1957. But we shall, however, recapitulate such of the facts as are necessary for the purpose of the present appeal.2. The Link industries Ltd., which is now under liquidation, was incorporated in 1946. On 13-8-1947, the company issued 50,009 shares of the nominal value of Rs. 10 each. The respondent subscribed for 36,555 shares and paid to the company at the time of the application and allotment of a sum of Rs. 5 for each share. The balance of share money was payable un...
Tag this Judgment!