Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-07-2016
..... of limitation can be regarded as being suspended because a party is prevented under certain circumstances from taking action in pursuance of his rights. the limitation act is a consolidating and amending statute relating to the limitation of suits, appeals and certain types of applications to courts and must, therefore, be regarded as an exhaustive code. ..... bench judgment in p.s.sathappan case (cited supra), the hon'ble supreme court, in iridium india telecom ltd. vs. motorola inc. [2005 (1) ctc 304 (sc)], held that letters patent will prevail over cpc as the non-obstante clause used in section 129 cpc is not merely declaratory but indicative of parliament's intention to prevent ..... court in p.s. sathappan (dead) by l.rs. vs. andhra bank limited and others [(2005) 1 mlj 105 (sc), wherein, in paragraph 32 of the judgment, it has been observed in the following words:- a letters patent is a special law for the concerned high court. civil procedure code is a general law applicable to all courts .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-12-2016
..... provides for handing over possession on the execution of the sale deed and as per sections 22 and 28 of the specific relief act, 1963, the possession can be obtained at any stage by amending the prayer, though initially possession was not sought for and as per the judgment of hon'ble supreme court reported in babu lal ..... outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court, i.e. in kancheepuram district, this court holds that this court has no territorial jurisdiction under clause 12 of the letters patent to entertain and try the suits. therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the suits are simpliciter for specific performance to enforce the contract ..... counsel appearing for the respondent. according to me, the facts of that case reported in ummer koya, p.t. vs. tamil nadu chess association, manu/tn/0534/2005 : 2005 (3) ctc 86, are entirely different from the fact of this case and having regard to the judgment reported in the matter of harshad chiman lal modi vs. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-27-2016
..... special deputy collector, la iii, fixing the total compensation as rs.20,03,722/-. subsequently, the prayer in the writ petition was amended challenging the award along with the proceedings. the learned single judge, by order dated 19.10.2001, dismissed the writ petition as devoid of ..... notice in form 3 was published in form 3 a and served on the land owner for enquiry under section 5 a of the act which was conducted on various dates. the appellant / land owner besides participating in the 5a enquiry, also filed his objections. the authorities ..... circulation in the locality where the appellant was residing. he also contended that the special provisions contained in the town and country planning act were not complied with and hence, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed. the further contention of the learned senior counsel ..... prayers: w.a. no. 2572 of 2001:-writ appeal filed under clause 15 of the letters patent against the order dated 19.10.2001 made in w.p. no. 20286 of 1993. w .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-29-2016
..... of interest had been held to be not sustainable:- (i) maruti suzuki ltd. v. cce (2009) 240 e.l.t. 641 (sc):- .... on account of repeated amendments in the cenvat credit rules, huge litigation in the country stands generated. in the circumstances, we are of the view that penalty is not leviable on appellant/assessee, particularly when ..... untenable after the rajasthan high court's ruling in lucid colloid's case. the view taken by the lower appellate authority that the superintendent's letter is not appealable is patently erroneous. ? 5.4. thus, it is clear that, when the content of the communication was impregnated with missiles (demands), which may at any time, escape ..... section 11 ac of the act; (iii) penalty of rs.20,000/- on the director, under rule 26 of the central excise rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the rules ?). 2.2. the appellants filed an appeal before the commissioner of central excise (appeals), who rejected the appeals, by the order, dated 06.06.2005. 2.3. thereafter, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-23-2016
..... developed on or before 31.03.2002. at this stage, it is to be relevantly pointed out by this court that only deviations or unauthorised constructions made before the amendment act, 1998 can be regularised either by the government or the authority, but not an unauthorised constructions or deviations made after the commencement of the ..... amendment act, 1998 as per decision salahudeen babu v. p.t. prabhakar and others, 2006 (4) mlj 22. 11. that apart, the power of exemption is not to be exercised ..... court taking note of the attendant facts and circumstances of the case in an integral manner, holds that the same does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality in the eye of law. consequently, the writ petition fails. 17. in fine, the writ petition is dismissed. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-23-2016
..... developed on or before 31.03.2002. at this stage, it is to be relevantly pointed out by this court that only deviations or unauthorised constructions made before the amendment act, 1998 can be regularised either by the government or the authority, but not an unauthorised constructions or deviations made after the commencement of the ..... amendment act, 1998 as per decision salahudeen babu v. p.t. prabhakar and others, 2006 (4) mlj 22. 11. that apart, the power of exemption is not to be exercised ..... court taking note of the attendant facts and circumstances of the case in an integral manner, holds that the same does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality in the eye of law. consequently, the writ petition fails. 17. in fine, the writ petition is dismissed. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-04-2016
..... , by the provisions of the code of civil procedure, being an act passed by the governor-general-in-council, and being act no.viii of 1859, and the provisions of any law which has been made amending or altering the same, by competent legislative authority for india." (letters patents of the three high courts, namely, calcutta, bombay and madras are ..... p) ltd. (balasaria construction (p). ltd. vs. hanuman seva trust - 2006 (5) scc 658) and also in narne rama murthy case (narne rama murthy vs. ravula somasundaram - 2005 (6) scc 614), that if the plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, the same cannot be raised at the appellate stage. we have no problem ..... for the plaintiff relied on the following decisions: (a) 2005 (1) ctc 304 (sc) (iridium india telecom ltd. vs. motorola inc.): "2. this appeal impugns the judgment of the division bench of the high court of judicature at bombay in a letters patent appeal holding that the amended provision of order 8, rule 1 of the code of civil .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
Decided on : Mar-04-2016
..... there is some defect in the phraseology used by the legislature the court cannot aid the legislature's defective phrasing of an act or add and amend or, by construction, make up deficiencies which are left in the act. even where there is casus omissus, it is for others than the courts to remedy the defect." (q) in ..... of the rule necessarily involves that addition to or modification of words used in statutory provisions is not generally permissible. courts may depart from this rule only to avoid a patent absurdity. (s) in union of india vs sankalchand himatlal sheth and another, reported in 1977 (4) scc 193, the hon'ble supreme court, at paragraph 54, ..... in view of the judgments in fakeerappa v. karnataka cement pipe factory [2004 (4) lw 20] and the managing director, tamilnadu state transport corporation, madurai v. mary [2005 (5) ctc 515]. 9. claimants are parents and sister. it is true that evidence has been adduced that sister was married. contention of the appellant company that sister is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-28-2016
..... and the same is not in consonance with section 64(2)(1) of the patents act. 9. it is the primordial submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant/defendant, that the judgment rendered by the hon'ble supreme court ..... of fair play would be entitled to further opportunity to cross-examine based on that document resulting in delayed trial defeating the very object and purpose of the amendment to the civil procedure code. 76. in the third case merely because a document has been marked as "an exhibit", an objection as to its admissibility is not ..... bernd; ex.p26 technical collaboration agreement dated 25.6.2004 and ex.p27 revised technical collaboration agreement dated 10.6.2005, and the said agreements have not been stamped in accordance with the indian stamp act, and the contents of the said documents pertain to secret trial/research between the respondent/plaintiff and a third party .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-01-2016
..... the validity of the acquisition proceedings preferred writ petitions, seeking to quash the said proceedings on the ground that the time prescribed under the land acquisition (tamil nadu amendment) act, 1996 (tamil nadu act 16 of 1997) has not been adhered to, resulting in vitiation of the proceedings. 5. during the pendency of the acquisition proceedings initiated on publication of notification ..... the order dated 26.10.2009 passed in w.p. no.9123 of 2001. w.a.nos.333 and 334 of 2014filed under clause 15 of the letters patent challenging the order dated 25.10.2000 passed in w.p.nos.17417 and 17418 of 2000. w.p.no.9361 of 2006is preferred under article 226 of the ..... 1998 dated 23rd april, 2001, which was heard along with some other appeals. the said appeal was allowed by a common judgment dated 18th january, 2005. thereafter, on review, being review application no.36 of 2005, the judgment passed in w.a.no.1640 of 2001 alone was set aside and that writ appeal was restored to file. 10. besides, .....
Tag this Judgment!