Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract act 1872 Court: chennai Year: 2011 Page 26 of about 256 results (0.057 seconds)

Aug 04 2011 (HC)

M/S.United Cargo Care Vs. Mr.Kuberan and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-04-2011

..... 18.03.2011 before the learned judicial magistrate no.1, tuticorin under section 156(3) cr.p.c. the case of the petitioner is that he has entered into a contract and perform his clearance duty. after completion of the agreed project, the petitioner raised to the 1st respondent, the invoice no.130, dated 20.05.2009 including his service charges .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 2011 (HC)

K.Santhanalakshmi Vs. Saravanan and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-15-2011

o r d e r1. the fourth defendant in o.s.no.140 of 2009 on the file of the sub court, ranipet, who is also the fourth respondent in i.a.no.315 of 2009, has filed the above civil revision petition under article 227 of the constitution of india, being aggrieved by the order of exparte injunction granted therein and to struck off the plaint in o.s.no.140 of 2009.2. the brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the above civil revision petition, are set out below:-under a registered sale deed, dated 01.11.1995, executed by sallammal, elumalai, saravanan, saraswathy and sumathi, the fifth respondent herein, purchased the suit property for a valuable consideration. by a notice dated 18.11.1996 issued by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, they claimed the suit property as joint family property and they have got a share in the property and the sale deed executed on their behalf by their father elumalai in favour of the fifth respondent herein is not legal and binding on them as they were minors on the date of execution of the sale deed and the sale deed had not been executed for the benefit of the joint family. the respondents 1 and 2 and their father elumalai has also trespassed into the suit property and therefore it become necessary for the fifth respondent herein to file the suit in o.s.no.27 of 2000 on the file of the sub court, ranipet, against his aforesaid vendors seeking declaration of his title to the suit property for delivery of possession and for mesne profits.3. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2011 (HC)

New Bharat Enterprises Vs. Airports Authority of India

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-16-2011

o r d e r1. heard mr.k. doraisami, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and mr.vijay narayan, learned senior counsel for the respondent. by consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. the said writ petition is filed apprehending non settlement of the amount by the respondent, who is liable to refund the deposit amount of rs.6,16,74,216/- made pursuant to the lease agreement and is likely to forfeit the amount. therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.3. the writ petition is filed challenging the order of airport authority of india dated 13.1.2011, by which, the respondent has directed the petitioner to settle the amount of rs.4,57,11,957/- immediately and also furnish a fresh bank guarantee valid for a period of three years for an amount of rs.4.37 crores in respect of service tax arrears disputed and covered under the order passed by this court in w.p no.45079 of 2006.4. admittedly, the period of license has come to an end by 15.11.2010. as per clause 7 of the license agreement, the petitioner has deposited an amount of rs.6,16,74,216/-, which is the amount equal to six months licence fee as security deposit in the form of bank guarantee from a nationalised bank. the conditions, subject to which such deposit was made, was enumerated in clause 7 of the agreement, which reads as follows: "that the licensee shall deposit a sum of rs.6,16,74,216/0(rupees six crore sixteen lakh seventy four thousand and two hndred sixteen only) i.e., an .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2011 (HC)

A.M.Dharman Vs. the District Collector and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-16-2011

o r d e r1. writ petition is filed praying to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings, na.ka.no.2103/2009/a3 dated 25.2.2011, consequently published in tamil nadu government gazette, dated 1.3.2011 that accompanied along with the proceedings na.ka.no.2103/2009/a3/a.d(p) dated 1.3.2011 and quash the same as arbitrary, unjustifiable, illegal ultra vires and colourable exercise of power.2. mr.s.shivashanmugam, learned government advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. by consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.3. challenging the order of the district collector/inspector of panchayat and the consequent notification removing the petitioner from the post of president of the village panchayat, the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 5.3.2011 to the principal secretary, rural development and panchayat raj, secretariat, chennai-9. on the same breadth, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the very same order stating that there is a violation of principles of natural justice. petitioner fairly states that a stay petition has also been filed along with the appeal. so far no orders have been passed and therefore, great prejudice is caused to the petitioner.4. mr.s.shivashanmugam, learned government advocate appearing for the respondents states that the petitioner has chosen to challenge the very same proceedings before the two forums which could not be and therefore, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 2011 (HC)

Roopa Steam Calendaring Works and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regu ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-15-2011

common order1. both the writ petitions are filed praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in his circular memo no.ce/comml/ee/dsm/aee1/f. power cut/d.358/10 dated 17.9.2010 and the consequential quota letter issued by the third respondent in his letter no.se/tedc/tpr/ht/f.quota/d.../10, dated 24.9.2010 and including the bills dated 1.2.2011 and 4.3.2011, seeking to levy penalty under serial no.13(a) and (f) and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary without authority of law, against the order of the first respondent in m.p.no.6, 9, and 17 of 2010 dated 7.9.2010 and consequently direct the third respondent to permit the petitioner to run their industry with 80% of their base demand and base energy of the third respondent along with additional demand and energy from the third party purchase, captive power plant and wind energy over and above the quota fixed by the third respondent.2. sri r.s.pandiyaraj, learned advocate appears for the petitioner in both the writ petitions. sri j.ravindran, learned counsel appears for the respondents electricity board in both the writ petitions. 3. the relief sought for in both the writ petitions are one and the same. hence, by consent of both parties, both the writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal.3. though the writ petitions have been filed for larger relief as above, the petitioner in both the writ petitions restricts the prayer in terms of the order passed by this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 2011 (HC)

M/S.Green Peace Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chennai Metropolitan Develo ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-15-2011

o r d e r1. writ petition is filed praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to entertain, consider and grant the approval to the demolition and reconstruction, planning permit and building approval for the new construction comprised in t.s.no.13 part, 28/1 part, 29 part, and 30 part of kodambakkam village, bearing block nos.m-45, m-46, m-47 s.v.lingam salai, k.k. nagar, chennai-600 078 measuring an extent of 5 grounds 2257 square feet without insisting the no objection certificate from the third respondent or any other authority so long as the proposed new construction is in accordance with the development rules.2. mr.c.kathiravan, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the first respondent; mr.v.bharathidasan, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the second respondent and mr.a.vijayakumar, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the third respondent. by consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. petitioner is the promoter engaged in building construction. this petition is filed on behalf of the owners of the property which was originally developed by tamil nadu housing board and sold to the individuals. the present owners are either original allottees or subsequent purchasers. the undisputed fact is that the tamil nadu housing board has no lien over the property. for the purpose of developing the property, the first respondent orally insisted the petitioners that no objection certificate issued by the tamil nadu .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //