Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-04-2010
1. Whether the right to begin as provided under Rule 1 and 2 of Order XVIII of Civil Procedure Code is really a right or is in the nature of a legal obligation of the plaintiff to produce his evidence at the first instance is the substantial question that arises for consideration in these original side appeals.2.These appeals are directed against the Order dated 10 March 2010 in C.S.No.979 and C.S.No.1111/2007 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge directed the appellant being the defendant in C.S.No.979/2007 and the plaintiff in the subsequent suit, to start with the letting in of evidence.3.The parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant in accordance with their status before the trial Court in the suit in C.S.No.979/2007.The facts :-First suit :-4.The suit in C.S.No.979/2007 was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant praying for the following reliefs :-"(a) Declaring that the threats held out by the defendant on September 1 and 3, 2007 that the plaintiff i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-22-2010
1. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal. This writ petition is filed for declaring the recommendations of the 2nd respondent, in their Letter No.DE-3(266)-2010/A1805 dated 10.08.2010 addressed to the 1st respondent, pursuant to an inspection conducted on 02.08.2010 on the petitioner college as biased, malafide, arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in law and consequently direct the 1st respondent to renew the permission for 3rd year BDS course and to allow admissions in fresh batch of students in BDS course for the academic year 2010-11.2. The brief facts relating to this writ petition are as follows :(i) The petitioner College is run by Soosaiya Peter Educational Trust, Chennai, which is a Christian Minority Trust. The Trust owns institutions such as Madha Engineering College, Madha Institute of Management Studies, Madha Institute of Computer Applications, Madha College of Nursing, Madha College of Physiotherapy, Madha College of Education, Madha Dental...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-08-2010
1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, (hereinafter referred to "as the Tribunal") the second respondent herein, in various miscellaneous petitions filed by the petitioner in the Original Revocation Applications pending before the Tribunal. 2. The matter arises under the Patents Act. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition could be briefly set out as hereunder:-The first respondent herein (hereinafter referred to "as the Company") had filed 18 Original Revocation Applications before the Tribunal for revocation of the patent granted in favour of the writ petitioner under Section 64 of the Patents Act. In the said original revocation application, the writ petitioner filed the miscellaneous petitions for dismissal of the original petitions. The case of the writ petitioner was that he is the owner of the various Patents, pursuant to the grant of Patent by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-26-2010
1. This Writ Appeal arises out of the order in W.P.No.14167/1995 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition under which the Appellant has sought for quashing G.O.(Vamayam) No.725 dated 25.09.1995.2. Brief facts are that 3rd Respondent College is a private College which falls within the meaning of Sec.2(8) of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Due to the irregularities committed by the Management, the College was taken over by the Government vide G.O.No.1476 Education dated 16.7.1981 under Sec.30 of the Act. The administration of the College was with the Government till 16.7.1996. The Deputy Director of Collegiate Education was the care taker of the College from 17.7.1981 to till the formation of Vellore region. The Deputy Director of Collegiate Education/Joint Director of Collegiate Education of the region discharged the duties of the Secretary of the Private Aided College in the capa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-11-2010
1. By consent the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner has filed this petition to direct the second respondent to permit any recognised Hospital to operate the petitioner by Dr.V.Pathak pursuant to the representation dated 29.5.2010 and the No Objection Certificate issued by the Authorization Committee to the petitioner dated 23.10.2009.3. (i) According to the petitioner, he is a Senior Lecturer, Pharmacy Department in Annamalai University and he is aged 42 years and in July 2009 he was diagnosed with a kidney problem. As a result, he has been undergoing haemodialysis from 05.08.2009 onwards. As the petitioner's condition is serious, he has to undergo haemodialysis for as many as 3 days a week and the length of haemodialysis keeps increasing. Therefore, he has to undergo kidney transplant and he has obtained necessary approval from the Authorization Committee of Tamil Nadu. He is awaiting the operation to be performed in any recognized hospital by Dr.V.Pathak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-10-2010
1. By consent of the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the first respondent dated 15.05.2010 seeking to quash the same so far as it relates to the reduction in intake of students from 100 to 50 for admission in the academic year 2010 2011 in the petitioner's college and the consequential proceeding of the third respondent dated 29.06.2010.3. The petitioner is the Chairman of the Trust namely RVS Educational Trust, hereinafter referred to as the 'Trust'. He is also the Chairman of RVS Dental College and Hospitals, which was established by the Trust. The 1st and 3rd respondents granted permission to the Trust to establish the Dental College to impart education leading to grant of Degree of Bachelor of Dental Surgery with an intake of 100 students from the academic year 200809. Respondents 1 and 3 duly recommended the same number of intake of students for the academic ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-22-2010
1. This appeal is against the order passed in a petition filed under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appellant was the petitioner in the Original Petition before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam, challenging the award passed by the Arbitrator.2. It is seen from the facts herein that the first respondent herein is the successful bidder as regards the contract given by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The present appellant is the successor-in-interest of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, who originally granted the contract. The contract related to supply of isolators and insulators to Neyveli, Salem and Trichur 400 KV switching stations. After series of discussions, the Neyveli Lignite Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'NLC') issued letter of Intent on 19.7.1988 to the first respondent. A formal agreement was entered into between NLC and the first respondent on 23.2.1989. The duration of the contract was 20 months from the date of Letter of Intent, which me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-21-2010
1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the respondent dated 1.12.2005. The petitioner is a holder of the contract carriage omni bus permit issued by the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry. On 18.6.2005, the vehicle was impounded at Porayar by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Mayiladuthurai, alleging that the vehicle has been used regularly for transporting patients to Vinayaga Mission Hospital. Since the vehicle was seized, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.20224 of 2005 and this Court by an order dated 22.6.2005, directed the respondent to release the vehicle, with a condition that the vehicle should be produced before the respondent as and when required. 3. Thereafter, on 27.6.2005, the respondent issued a show cause notice demanding tax for the State of Tamil Nadu and the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-16-2010
1. The appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge revoking the unconditional leave granted in O.A.No.123 of 2010 vide order dated 21-04-2010. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. The appellant had filed the original suit in respect of a joint development agreement dated 11-06-2008 between the appellant and the respondent in respect of the property which is situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court viz., at Kondappanaickenpatty, Salem. According to this agreement, the appellant is a developer of the property which belongs to the first and second respondent. On 13-10-2009, a Power of Attorney was also executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant. The property was put in possession by the appellant and the appellant has paid certain amounts to the respondent. There were some dispute between the appellant and the respondent which was referred to a Mediator and on mediation, a Memorandum of Understanding was reduced into writing on 16-10-200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-28-2010
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 12.5.2009, made in I.A. No. 671 of 2008, in O.S. No. 295 of 2008, on the file of the Additional District Court, (Fast Track Court, No. III), Dharapuram.2. The petitioners in the civil revision petition are the defendants in the suit, in O.S. No. 295 of 2008. The respondent had filed the suit, in O.S. No. 295 of 2008, on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No. III), Dharapuram, praying for a decree a) to direct the defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs), towards refund of security deposit, with 12% interest per annum, from the date of the suit, till the date of the payment of the said amount; b) to direct the defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 20,921/- (Twenty thousand nine hundred and twenty one) towards balance of stock amount, with 12% interest per annum, from the date of the suit, till the date o...
Tag this Judgment!