Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2002)3MLJ398
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the courts below are the appellants.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiffs for themselves and also representing the public worshippers filed a suit for declaration that the lease in favour of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant under a document dated 20.10.1987 is null and void and a consequential injunction. The suit property is a Public Religious Trust belongs to Sri Vyasaraja Mutt, which is having the main office at Sosalai in Karnataka State(hereinafter referred to as 'the Mutt'). This Mutt is essentially a religious institution of the Madhwa Community. Vyasaraja, a saint and Philosopher, founder of the Mutt had many disciples. They were living in various places in South India preaching Madwa Philosophy and wherever they attained Mukthi, their mortal remains were interned and Samadhis were constructed and the people offer worship at the Samadhi and there were religious functions as well performed in those place...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1999)1MLJ276
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Landlord in R.C.O.P. No. 1530 of 1986, on the file of 14th Judge, Court of Small Cause, Madras, is the revision petitioner.2. The revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, complaining to this Court the injustice done to the petitioner, and how the lower Court passed the impugned Order in a callous manner.3. Eviction petition was filed by petitioner herein as R.C.O.P. No. 1530 of 1986 on various grounds. It was hotly contested, and finally an order of eviction was passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 2759 of 1993 dated 28.10.1995. This Court, while passing the Order of eviction, directed the respondent therein to file an affidavit of undertaking within four weeks from that date, agreeing to vacate the premises in question, and in case they filed such an undertaking within the stipulated time, they will be given three months time to vacate and handover possession. Respondents therein did not file such an undertaking. Naturally, the decree-h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioner is a registered company. They have come forward to file the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the first respondent State made in G.O.Ms. No. 88, Industries (MIE-1) Department, dated 30.7.2009 and after setting aside the same in respect of Survey Nos. 405/3, 405/4 and 405/5, consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to continue the land acquisition proceedings and pass such further orders.3. It is the case of the petitioner that they were promoting an Industrial Park pursuant to the Government order in G.O.(2D) No. 88, Industries, dated 11.6.1997. The company had established the Industrial Park in an area about 1400 acres on the Eastern side of National Highway No. 45 near Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District. Steps were taken by the company to acquire lands in various villages including Veerapuram, Paranur, Thenmelpakkam, Rajakulipettai, Hanumanthai, Kunnavakkam and Anjur villages as well as patta lands in s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
This habeas corpus petition is filed by the wife of the detenu by name Ahamed Ibrahim Abdul Jaleel, who is detained under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act, 1974') and confined in the Central Prison, Madurai, pursuant to the order of detention dated 4.11.2010, which was executed on 22.8.2011. 2. The detention order was passed on the ground that the detenu indulged in smuggling of gold when he came from Columbo by Jet Lite Flight No.S2 542, which arrived at the Anna International Airport, Chennai on 10.7.2010. The Immigration Authoriites of the Airport intercepted the detenu on the ground that he brought 699 grams of gold worth Rs.12,83,713/-. The detenu was arrested on 10.7.2010 at 13.00 hours for the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. He was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-II, Egmore, C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :10. 04.2013 Coram THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.No.914 of 2006 S.Velankanni .. Petitioner .. Vs .. 1.Chitradevi Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dharmapuri. 2.Gunavathi Judicial Magistrate I, Dharmapuri. 3.Deputy Superintendent of Sub-Jail for Women, Sub-Jail for Women, Dharmapuri. 4.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai. .. Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Ms.Sudha Ramalingam For Respondents : Mr.R.Ravichandran, AGP for R1, R3 and R4 Mr.V.R.Sivakumar for R2 O R D E R The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 4 to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:04. 12-2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN O.P.No.409 of 2008 Mr.A.Chandrasekaran ...Petitioner Vs 1.M/s.Yoha Securities Limited, T.Nagar, Chennai-17. 2.Mr.M.V.Badrinath, Sole Arbitrator, National Stock Exchange of India Limited Chenna-4. ...Respondents Petition under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the arbitration award dated 5.11.2007 in AM.No.CM/C00592007 passed by the second respondent with costs. For Petitioner : Mr.Ramakrishnan Viraraghavan For Respondent-1 : Mr.K.G.Vasudevan ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside an arbitration award passed by the second respondent - Arbitrator.2. The petitioner opened a trading account with the first respondent and started operations from December 2003. It appears that by the end of 2003-2004, the petitioner was holding huge stocks traded through the first responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayers: Review Application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC to review the order, dated 17.12.2012, passed by this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.1160 of 2009. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records in I.D.No.489/2004 dated 25.07.2008 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal.) Common Order 1. As the facts involved in both the Review Application and the Writ Petition are one and the same, both the Petitions are taken up for disposal by a common order. 2. The Management of the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries filed the above Writ Petition seeking to quash the Award dated 25.07.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.489 of 2004. This Court, by an order dated 23.01.2009, granted an order of interim stay of the operation of the order passed in I.D.No.489 of 2004. While so, 13 members o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1987(11)ECC244
Sathiadev, J.1. Action was initiated by respondent against appellant and its Proprietor Mr. C.T. Rajagopal under Section 12(2) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 read with notification No. 6(8) EF. 11/52 dated 22-4-1952 claiming that during June and August 1972 they had effected shipments of bicycle chains, spare parts, etc., to Kualalampur and Singapore declaring the said shipment under GR I forms for a total value of 37,620.94, but did not realise the sale preceeds in the prescribed manner within the prescribed period. When the premises of appellant was searched on 20-9-1973, it resulted in certain documents being seized and a statement was recorded from the proprietor, who disclosed how the transaction with four firms in those places were entered into and dealt with and in what manner the guarantees were secured for these transactions from Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (hereinafter referred to as E.C.G.C) and finally about entire cost of exports received from E.C.G.C, be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1953)ILLJ326Mad
1. This is an appeal by the Minakshi Mills, Ltd., Madurai, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the, judgment of Subba Rao, J., dismissing an application made by the appellant for the issue of a writ of certiorarai to call for the records and proceedings relating to appeal No. 119 of 1951 before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, and to quash its decision in the said appeal, dated 6 September 1951.2. The facts and events which led up to that application are as follows; On 7 December 1949 the Government of Madras by its order Ms. No. 5793, referred the industrial dispute which had arisen between the workers and the managements of the Minakshi Mills, Ltd., Madurai, in respect of matters mentioned in the annexure to that order for adjudication to the industrial tribunal having its place of sitting at Madurai. The matters mentioned in the annexure included the payment of full wages for the third Shift from 1 April 1949, introduction of the system of three eight-hour shifts wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1965]16STC671(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The petitioners in these cases are dealers in groundnut oil. They sold groundnut oil to Hindustan Lever Limited, which in its turn utilised the oil for the manufacture of vanaspati. The exact quantum of the turnover of such sales is not of importance, for only a question of interpretation of a provision of the Sales Tax Act is called for and that question arises in the following manner : Under Section 3 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, every dealer whose total turnover for a year is not less than Rs. 10,000, shall pay a tax for each year at the rate of 2 per cent. on his taxable turnover. It would be sufficient to state the general liability of the dealer in such broad terms. The First Schedule lists out a number of goods, and Sub-section (2) of Section 3 states that in the case of goods mentioned in the First Schedule, the tax shall be payable at the rate and only at the point specified therein on the turnover relating to such goods, whatever may be the quan...
Tag this Judgment!