Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-11-2005
Reported in : 2005(4)CTC156; (2005)3MLJ441
..... in rcop no. 2879 of 1995 under section 10(3)(a)(i) of the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1960 read with tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for eviction of the respondent from the residential flat no. 5 on the southern side in the second floor of complex of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-11-2005
Reported in : [2006]134CompCas396(Mad); [2007]75SCL280(Mad)
..... further proceedings and ordered notice to respondents. 4. one c. subramaniam, general secretary of the standard motor products india limited employees' union, a trade union registered under the trade union act, 1926 filed w.v.m.p. no. 7031/2005 for vacation of the stay granted on 23-12-2004. the very same general secretary of the employees' union has filed ..... a sum of rs. 2,67,400/- towards 'cheque returned charges'. paragraph 5 of his report shows that the official liquidator issued a notice under section 138 of negotiable instrument act, 1881 on 3-3-2005 by registered post with acknowledgment due to t.s.r. khannaiyann, directing him to remit to him the sum of rs. 2,67,400/- within .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-11-2005
Reported in : 2005(3)CTC693
..... of the same measurement to the tenants herein after putting up new construction. as per section 30 of the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act, the said act is not applicable to any building for a period of five years from the date on which the construction is completed. therefore, once, the petition premises, ..... subject matter of the revisions are demolished and reconstructed, since the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act is not applicable for such premises, the revision petitioners in both the revisions are not entitled for reinduction as tenants in respect of the portions of the same ..... , for which the landlady is having sufficient funds. the necessary undertaking also furnished as contemplated under the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). in addition, r.c.o.p. no. 6 of 1997 has been filed against the tenant narayanan that the petition premises was let out .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-13-2005
Reported in : I(2007)BC430; (2005)4MLJ239
..... defendants also. the fight is between the plaintiff and the defendants 2 & 3. it is not the case of the revision petitioners that against their interest, defendants 2 & 3 are acting, in collusion with the plaintiff. therefore, nothing could be extracted or elicited from defendants 2 & 3, by the examination by the revision petitioners. thus, the purpose of summoning contemplated under ..... a witness, it was possible for the court, if it came to the conclusion that the said application of the petitioner was an abuse of the process of the court, acting under its inherent powers under section 151 of the code of civil procedure, to disallow the application. in the instant case, there is no such finding by the court below .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-18-2005
Reported in : 2005(3)CTC703
..... allowances and conditions of service of chairman, vice-chairman and members) rules 1985 and i schedule of high court judges (salaries and conditions of service) act, 1954 as well as basing reliance on pratibha bonnerjea's case, arrived at a conclusion that the chairman and vice-chairman of central administrative tribunal are entitled ..... the period during which he served as the commission of inquiry or as the commissioner of payments under the madras race club (acquisition and transfer of undertaking) act, 1986 can not be taken into consideration for computing the pensionary benefits. both the above answers are not applicable to the case on hand. no doubt, ..... hence an appeal by special leave by the union of india before the supreme court. after considering the provisions of the high court judges (conditions of service) act, 1954 and central administrative tribunal (salaries and allowances and conditions of service of chairman, vice-chairman and members) rules, 198 5, the supreme court has held .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-29-2005
Reported in : [2007]138CompCas95(Mad)
..... be deprived of that valuable rights by allowing the application on payment of meager cost of rs. 1000/-. 12. in considering the application under section 5 of the limitation act and considering 'sufficient cause', the court must exercise its discretion with reference to such circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties. the court must carefully ..... , it is to be seen whether the court below was right in condoning the delay of 1008 days and allowing the application filed under section 5 of the limitation act. 9. due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, civil suits in the high court have been transferred to the city civil court, chennai. the transfer of those suits ..... was dismissed for default on 16.06.1997. 3. i.a.no. 9994 of 2000:- the respondent / plaintiff has filed this petition under section 5 of the limitation act to condone the delay of 1008 days in filing the application for restoration of the suit. according to the plaintiff, c.s.no. 614 of 1992 was transferred to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-08-2005
Reported in : [2007]138CompCas99(Mad); (2005)4MLJ22; [2006]66SCL320(Mad)
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. These revisions are directed against the orders of Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore made in I.A. Nos. 452, 453/1998 in O.S. No. 541/1998, allowing the petition filed by the Plaintiff to implead D-6 individually and in his Representative Capacity for all other shareholders and regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Coimbatore. The Defendants 1 and 2 are the Revision Petitioners.2. Necessary facts for the disposal of this revision could briefly be stated thus:O.S. No. 541/1998.-- The first Defendant-M/s. Chennimalai Yarns Private Limited has been carrying on business at Chennimalai and having its registered office at Coimbatore. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the Directors of the D-1 company; D-5 is the former Director of the company and a share holder. D-6 is also a share holder in D-1 company. Case of the Plaintiff is that he is the Managing Director of D-1 company and has been so appointed for a period of five years. The company has made borro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-25-2005
Reported in : AIR2006Mad93; (2005)4MLJ375
..... textile workers union v. p.r.ramakrishnan, : (1983)illj45sc a constitution bench of the supreme court held that although here is no statutory requirement in the companies act, the workers of a company are entitled to be heard in a winding up petition against the company as their rights will be adversely affected by the order to ..... demurrage claimed by the writ petitioner.22. it was further contended that the writ petitioner is responsible for the delay in discharging the consignment arising out of any act or omission of the stevedores. it is alleged that from the reports of the surveyor appointed for this purpose the stevedores who are under the control of the ..... to bear the said charges.11. the writ petitioner alleged that the respondent-port trust neglected to perform its statutory duty under section 60 of the major port trusts act, 1963, and hence the petitioner had to file this writ petition for a writ of mandamus for a direction directing the respondent-port trust to perform its duty .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-30-2005
Reported in : II(2007)BC10
..... the third respondent made use of the said blank letter head and committed breach of trust. it is further alleged that the officers of the second respondent/bank have acted in collusion with the third respondent in debiting the amount as aforesaid.8. the writ petitioner raised an issue before the banking ombudsman requesting action to be taken, ..... the director of the writ petitioner company that the bank transferred the said amount to the account of the third respondent. it is alleged that the branch manager acted in good faith without any reason to believe that the letter dated 29.08.2000 was a fabricated one. the authorized signatory himself was present and had given ..... an authorized signatory and who gave the letter dated 29.08.2000 to the branch manager of this respondent in person and the branch manager of this respondent acted upon such letter and transferred the amount to the account of the third respondent. i submit that the action of the branch manager immediately in causing a debit .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-01-2005
Reported in : II(2006)BC382
..... on his file.2. the respondent preferred the complaint through the power of attorney before the judicial magistrate under section 138 read with section 142 of negotiable instruments act against the petitioner herein and after examining the power of attorney under section 200, cr.p.c, learned judicial magistrate had taken cognizance of the case. ..... in taking cognizance of the case is not valid in law.7. in this regard, it is essential to extract section 142(a) of the negotiable instruments act which reads as follows:'cognizance of offences.-- notwithstanding anything contained in the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):(a) no court shall take cognizance of ..... 1994 1 lw (crl) 34, learned single judge of this court arunachalam, j. (as he then was) held as follows:'the eligibility criteria under the negotiable instruments act does not get disturbed, if a gpa duly constituted initiates private complaints, for, as i have stated earlier, the power of attorney agent, steps into the shoes of .....
Tag this Judgment!