Court : Chennai
1. Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions are common and both writ petitions have been filed by the same writ petitioners they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.2. The prayer in W.P.No.2464 of 2003 is for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent, the Registrar of Companies to strike off the name of the first petitioner company bearing registration No.6168 of 1972 from the register of companies in terms of Section 3(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to "as the Act").3. The prayer in W.P.No.17120 of 2003 is for issuance of writ of issue a writ of Declaration to declare the general circular No.13/2003 dated 25.03.2003, issued by the first respondent herein as ultra vires the provisions of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 265 of the Constitution of India and Section 3(5), 560, 642 and Regulations 75 of Table-A to Schedule-I of the Companies Act, 1956 in so far as the petitioner is concerned.4. Heard Mr.Aravind.P.Datar, Senior ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The defendants 1 to 4 in O.S.No.8 of 2002 on the file of Additional District Judge, Chidambaram are the appellants herein. The plaintiff in the above suit is the respondent in the appeal and the cross objector in Cross Objection No.1 of 2004.2. The averments made by the respondent/cross objector /plaintiff in the plaint can be stated in brief as follows:Respondent/cross objector /plaintiff Selvanathan is the only son of Mahalinga Padayachi. The first appellant is the mother of the respondent/cross objector/plaintiff' and the appellants 2 and 3 are his sisters. Appellant No.4, Gunasekaran is the husband of Appellant No.3 Selvanayagi. The paternal grandfather of the respondent/cross objector/plaintiff was one Veerappa Padayachi. He got 7 acres of land in a partition with his brothers. After the death of Veerappa Padayachi, his son Mahalinga Padayachi was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties along with his only son viz., the respondent/plaintiff and they were treated and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
J U D G M E N T1. Heard.2.This appeal suit is filed under Section 96 of the CPC, challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.43 of 1994 dated 09.12.1998 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Erode.3. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed two suits before the Trial Court. O.S.No.43 of 1994 was filed for specific performance for executing a sale deed in accordance with the agreement dated 05.11.1992, failing which, the Court itself must execute the sale deed. He filed the second suit in O.S.No.117 of 1995 for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant or their men or agents from in any manner causing interference with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.4. Pending the suit, on behalf of the second defendant, the Court appointed a guardian since the second defendant was a minor. Both suits were tried together and dismissed by a common judgment dated 09.12.1998. However, the present appeal is filed only against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.43 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records comprised in impugned communication in Na.Ka.No.29/2011 A, dated 29.7.2011 on the file of the second respondent, quash the same with consequential direction directing the second respondent to grant the compensation as claimed by the petitioner or refer the case to the first respondent for determination of compensation as per section 7(3) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997.ORDER1. This writ petition came to be posted before this court on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.2.The petitioner claiming to be the owner of the land in Survey Nos.35/1 in No.158, Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order dated 29.7.2011 issued by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition for SIPCOT, Irungattukotta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
JUDGMENTB. RAJENDRAN, J1. The writ appellants, aggrieved against the order dated 17.05.2012, have come forward with this Writ Appeal.2. The respondent has filed a writ of mandamus directing the first appellant to consider the respondent's applications dated 11.04.2012 and 18.04.2012 for extension of approval of petition mentioned courses for the academic year 2012-2013 without reference to Clause 3(1)(d) of Chapter II of the Approval Process Handbook (2012-2013), paragraphs 4 and 5 of the notifications vide No.1-MS/2012, dated 31.03.2012 and vide No.2-MS/2012, dated 12.04.2012 issued by the first appellant.3. According to the respondent, they are running the college as per the approval originally granted way back in the year 1999-2000. Thereafter, every year, the approval has to be renewed. Subsequently, the renewal has been done upto 2008. In the year 2009, there was an enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short CBI) in regard to the very approval originally granted stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Revisions filed under Sec.397 r/w Sec.401 Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 6.2.2008 in R.C.No.34 of 2005 and Appeal No.289 of 2003 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Chennai confirming the order passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in C.C.No. 10403 of 1995.Petition filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C against the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Chennai in R.C.No.34 of 2005 confirming the order passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in C.C.No.10403 of 1995.COMMON ORDERG.M. AKBAR ALI, J.1. Criminal Original Petition No.8025 of 2008 and Crl.R.C.Nos.8 and 9 of 2009 came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court. Criminal Revisions were filed at the instance of the accused in CC No.10403 of 1995 and Crl.O.P. was filed at the instance of the private parties.2. During the course of hearing, a question arose before the learned Single Judge as to w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, against the orders dated 04.04.2012 made in RCA No.1 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Erode confirming the orders dated 03.12.2010 made in RCOP No.7 of 2007 on the file of Rent Controller, Principal District Munsif, Erode.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 04.04.2012 passed in RCA No.1 of 2011, by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Erode confirming the order dated 03.12.2010 passed in RCOP No.7 of 2007 by the Rent Controller, Principal District Munsif, Erode, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus:The respondents/landlords filed initially the RCOP invoking Section 10(2)(i) of the Act, on the ground of wilful default in paying rent by the revision petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The Civil Suit is filed for a judgment and decree, directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.36,87,082/- in respect of the Circuit Nos.10000124 and 10000125 installed by the plaintiff together with interest @ 18% from the date of bill till the date of payment in full on the principal sum of Rs.27,30,419/- with costs.2. The following are the contents in the plaint:-2.(a) The plaintiff is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered office at New Delhi and having its other offices at various places and the plaintiff office is situated at Chennai, from whom the defendant availed Dedicated Cable Circuit bearing No.10000124 and 10000125 under the agreement form in the year 2000, that in the said form the defendant had agreed to pay the annual rental at the rates prescribed by the department, that by letter dated 9.5.2001 the defendant requested the plaintiff for shifting the Primary MUX provided at Mylapore Exchange to Haddows Road Ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1985]58CompCas308(Mad); 1985(4)ECC27
Ramanujam, J.1. Since the petitioner in both the writ petitions is the same and the points involved are also the same, they are dealt with together. 2. In Writ Petition No. 891 of 1978, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated February 17, 1978, passed by the respondent in so far as it calls upon the petitioner to repatriate the funds of the petitioner firm held in the Chartered Bank, Singapore. In Writ Petition No. 892 of 1978, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to utilise the funds held in the Chartered Bank at Singapore for the purposes of the firm abroad and forbearing the respondent from taking any action pursuant to its letter dated February 17, 1978. 3. The circumstances under which the impugned order dated February 17, 1978, came to be passed by the respondent can briefly be set out. The petitioner firm has been in existence since 1929. The firm originally consisted of Thiru A.M. M. Murugappa Chett...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1987(30)ELT415(Mad)
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. In this batch of cases, the validity of the orders of detention made under section 3(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 is questioned. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the constitution of the Advisory Board under Section 8(a) of the Act is violative of Article 22(4) of the Constitution and that therefore the continued detention of the detenue for a period more than two months from the date of detention is illegal. Section 8 of the Act dealing with Advisory Board states that :- 'For the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (4), and sub-clause (c) of clause (7), of article 22 of the Constitution, - (a) the Central Government and each State Government shall, whenever necessary, constitute one or more Advisory Boards each of which shall consist of a Chairman and two other persons possessing the qualifications specified in Sub-clause (a) clause (4) of article 22 of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!