Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: chennai Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 65 results (0.026 seconds)

Nov 29 2004 (HC)

R. Srinivasan Vs. R. Natarajan,

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-29-2004

Reported in : 2005(2)ARBLR376(Madras); (2005)1MLJ111

..... respondents that the original undertaking given by the petitioner containing the terms of agreement entered into between the parties, viz., the petitioner and the respondents herein, is available with the mediator one m.loganathan, auditor, pollachi.14. clause 14 of the partnership deed, copy of which is marked as ex.p.18, relates to reference for arbitration in case of dispute ..... acres surrounding the factory has got site value and is worth more than a crore of rupees even in the year 1997. however, considering the relationship and as per the mediation, the respondents agreed to sell their share for rs. 56,25,000/- to the petitioner. the respondents 2 and 3 jointly issued notice to the petitioner and the first respondent ..... the petitioner was kept by shanmugam, advocate of pollachi, and the xerox copy was given to each of the partners. though shanmugam died, the original undertaking was with the other mediator m.loganathan, auditor, pollachi. the petitioner did not pay rs. 30 lakhs within 11.6.1998 as well the balance amount of rs. 26,25,000/- before 11.12.1998 ..... the second respondent in the counter admitting the formation of partnership in the year 1972 and denying the allegation of mismanagement of the firm by him. at the instance of mediators, it was agreed on 12.12.1997 that the value of the business together with factory, building, etc. was fixed at rs. 75 lakhs out of which, deducting the petitioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 2004 (HC)

The Management of Rane Brake Linings Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, I ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-16-2004

Reported in : 2004(3)CTC515; [2004(102)FLR491]; (2004)IIILLJ314Mad; (2004)3MLJ13

..... may make a complaint in writing in a prescribed manner,- (a) to such conciliation officer or board, and the conciliation officer or board shall take such complaint into account in mediating in, and promoting the settlement of, such industrial dispute; and(b) to such arbitrator, labour court, tribunal or national tribunal and on receipt of such complaint, the arbitrator, labour court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2004 (HC)

N.S. Spance Vs. D.S. Kanagarajan and T.A. Dhayavathi

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-14-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)CTC494; (2005)1MLJ540

m. thanikachalam, j.1. the plaintiff, unable to get a decree for declaration of his title to the suit property and for a permanent injunction, concurrently, before the courts below, has preferred this second appeal.2. the suit property originally belonged to one d.k. srinivasa chettiar, the father of the first defendant ancestrally. it seems, he had sold the suit property to the plaintiff's paternal uncle by name, n.a. perianna chettiar on 22.5.1960, for the valuable consideration stated therein. perianna chettiar and his brother, subramania chettiar's sons have partitioned their family properties in the year 1958 under a family arrangement. thereafter, alone perianna chettiar had purchased the suit property, in which others have no interest. since perianna chettiar had no male issues and the plaintiff was looking after the affairs of the family and helping perianna chettiar, perianna chettiar gave the suit property to the plaintiff, in or about the year 1970 and from the said date onwards, the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit property. the right vested in favour of the plaintiff by perianna chettiar was confirmed in the arrangment dated 30-10-1972. in pursuance of the above, mutation took place in the property register and connected records and on that basis also, the plaintiff was enjoying the property, paying tax, leasing out the same to third parties, to the knowledge of the first defendant, who is adjacent owner of the suit property. thus the plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 2004 (HC)

Pandurangan Vs. Sakkubai,

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-24-2004

Reported in : (2004)4MLJ497

m. karpagavinayagam, j. 1. the plaintiff in the suit is the appellant herein.2. the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for declaration and injunction. the suit was decreed by the trial court. however, in the appeal filed by the defendants before the first appellate court, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. hence, this second appeal by the plaintiff.3. the case of the plaintiff is as follows:the suit property was originally settled in favour of the mother of the plaintiff. after her death, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. when the defendants disturbed the possession, the plaintiff earlier filed the suit in o.s.no1434 of 1974 for declaration and injunction. ultimately, that suit was dismissed, holding that the plaintiff would be entitled to 1/3 share and the defendants therein would be entitled to 2/3 share. even after the dismissal of the earlier suit, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, openly to the knowledge of the defendants. no steps have been taken by the defendants to recover the property. hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration and injunction on the ground that any right which accrued to the defendants stood extinguished by efflux of time and as such, the plaintiff prescribed his title by adverse possession.4. the case of the defendants is as follows: the plaintiff cannot claim title to the suit property. in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2004 (HC)

The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Rep. by Its Registrar Vs ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-29-2004

Reported in : AIR2005Mad182

f.m. ibrahim kalifulla, j.1. the tamil nadu dr. m.g.r. medical university is the appellant before us. the challenge is to the order of the learned judge dated 23.6.04 in w.p. no.9118/04. the learned single judge dealt with the claim of the respondent for issuance of a certiorarified mandamus relating to the order of the appellant dated 12.2.03 in lr. no.affln.i(3)/42713/2003 and for a direction to the appellant to grant permission for increase of ten seats in b.pharm degree course in the respondent's college for the academic year 2004-05.2. the admitted facts are that the respondent college had the approval of the pharmacy council of india as early as 27.3.03 for the increase of seats in the b.pharm degree course from fifty to sixty from the academic year 2002-03 upto 2004-05. based on the said approval, the respondent college applied for affiliation for the additional intake by their letter dated 7.10.03, which has been rejected by the appellant by the impugned order dated 8.12.03.3. though very many grounds were urged before the learned single judge in support of the rejection order dated 8.12.03, mr.vellaisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would concentrate his submissions on g.o. ms.610, health and family welfare department dated 13.11.98, which the learned judge has found to be not applicable to b.pharm course. 4. on a perusal of g.o. ms.610 dated 13.11.98, we find that under the very caption of the said government order, while referring to para-medical .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 2004 (HC)

S. Ahamed Meeran, S/O. Sultan Mohideen and ors. Vs. S. Kumaraswamy, S/ ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-22-2004

Reported in : 2006(1)CTC55

orderr. banumathi, j.1. this civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 2.9.2004 of the learned principal district munsif, tirunelveli in i.a. no. 1076 of 2004 in o.s. no. 297 of 2002, allowing the amendment application filed under order 6, rule 1, c.p.c. on payment of costs of rs. 1000. the defendants are the revision petitioners.2. o.s. no. 297 of 2002 relates to house property. case of the plaintiff is that the suit property belonged to one hassan mohideen, who has executed a registered general power of attorney in favour of one s. arunachalam to deal with the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff purchased the suit property from the said s. arunachalam by a sale deed dated 1.12.1997. in the said sale deed, a major portion of the sale price has been reserved for payment. subsequently, the said reserved amount has been paid by the plaintiff to the general power or attorney s. arunachalam on 11.4.2002. the plaintiff has received the 'panapattru receipt' from the said s. arunachalam. immediately after the sale, possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. the assessment has been changed in the name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has also paid the tax due for the suit property. electricity service connection has also been transferred in the name of the plaintiff on 25.7.1998. defendants 1 and 2 are making false claim in the suit property. on 10.5.2002, defendants 1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 2004 (HC)

Shanmugam Vs. Mir Sultan Mohideen and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-15-2004

Reported in : 2004(2)CTC321; (2004)3MLJ167

orders. sardar zackria hussain, j.1. the appellant before the rent control appellate authority, pondicherry is the revision petitioner. the revision is directed against the order of eviction on the ground that the petition non-residential premises is bona fide required for demolition and reconstruction, by the learned rent controller as confirmed by the learned rent control appellate authority.2. the first respondent herein filed the rent control original petition for eviction under section 14(1)(b) of the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1960 that the petition non-residential premises is required bona fide for demolition and reconstruction stating that it was purchased by his grandfather on 28.3.1941 and on his death, the first respondent's father leased the building to the tenant n. thiagarajan pillai to use it as a godown for storing and sale of vegetables. on the death of his father, the tenant attorned his tenancy to the first respondent in 1970 and at the time of filing of the petition, the tenant was running in the petition premises a lorry booking office and transport service business in the name and style of pushpa vinayagar. according to the landlord, the petition premises is more than 75 years old constructed by madras terrace and mud mortar and plastered with lime and it is in highly dilapidated condition. cracks have developed on the terrace and in the walls of the building. the terrace is sagging and it is resting on the support of 32 casuarina .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 2004 (HC)

State Vs. Udayakumar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-08-2004

Reported in : 2004CriLJ2758

1. crl. appeal no. 363/ 1997 : state has come forward with this appeal against the order of acquittal in s.c. 231/1992 on the file of principal assistant sessions court, cuddalore. by the judgment dated 3-9-1996, the learned principal assistant sessions judge, cuddalore has acquitted a1 to a3 for various offences.2. crl. revision case no. 582/1997; this revision is preferred by p.w. 1 -- sudha/ complainant against the order of acquittal by the trial court acquitting a1 to a3.3. common points for determination arise in both appeal and revision and hence both were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.4. details of the charges framed against the accused and the findings of the trial court are as noted below :--chargenumbergist of the offenceagainst which accusedfinding of trial court1under section 4 of dowry prohibition actandunder section 498-a r/w 109, ipc -- instigation for cruelty in demand of dowry a2 acquitted.2under section 498-a, ipc -- demand of dowry and dowry harassment a1 acquitted. 3under section 313 r/w, 109, ipc -- instigation for causing miscarriage of pregnancy without woman's consent. a1 acquitted. 4under section 313, ipc -- causing miscarriage without woman's consent. a3. acquitted5. case of the prosecution could briefly be stated thus :--first accused was working as police constable in armed reserve police, cuddalore (batch no. 245). he is a resident of alakudi village in sirkali taluk. the complainant sudha was his neighbour and residing in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 2004 (HC)

K. Rasaiyya Vs. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Secretary to the Go ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-15-2004

Reported in : 2004(3)CTC187; (2004)3MLJ230

p.d. dinakaran, j. 1. by g.o.ms.no.217, rural development (c1) department, dated 10.10.2003, the first respondent, exercising the powers conferred under section 212(13) of the tamil nadu panchayats act, 1994 (for brevity 'the act'), removed the petitioner from the post of the chairman of the panchayat union council, vathiraiyurupu, virudhunagar district, based on a no confidence motion held on 18.8.2003 at 3 p.m. aggrieved by the same, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the notification issued by the first respondent in g.o.ms.no.217, rural development (c1) department, dated 10.10.2003 published in the tamilnadu gazette no.282, dated 10.10.2003 and quash the same, on the ground that the resolution dated 18.8.2003 passed by the second respondent, as well as the consequential notification issued by the first respondent in g.o.ms.no.217, rural development (c1) department, dated 10.10.2003, are violative of section 212(13) of the act, for want of support of not less than two-third of the sanctioned strength of the village panchayat.2. concededly, the panchayat union council consists of thirteen members. out of them only eight members attended the no confidence motion held on 18.8.2003, while two-third of the sanctioned strength of the council requires nine members to validate the motion, as per section 212(13) of the act, which reads as follows:'section: 212 - motion of no confidence in chairman or vice-chairman of panchayat union .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 2004 (HC)

Manimalan Vs. K. Subrayan

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-19-2004

Reported in : AIR2004Mad446; (2004)3MLJ80

orderk. gnanaprakasam, j. 1. this civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.10.2003, made in cmp.no.25 of 2003 in c.o.p.no.31 of 2003, on the file of the district consumer disputes redressal forum, namakkal.2. the respondent herein preferred a complaint before the district consumer disputes redressal forum, namakkal and during the pendency of the complaint, the respondent filed an application to amend the name of the revision petitioner herein and the same was allowed. aggrieved by the same, this revision has been filed.3. originally, the respondent herein filed the complaint against manimalan in his individual capacity and thereafter he filed the application to change the petitioner as managing partner of the company and the said application was allowed and the same is challenged in this civil revision petition.4. heard the learned advocate for the revision petitioner and the respondent.5. the learned advocate for the revision petitioner would contend that the tribunal has no power to order amendment and therefore the order passed is vitiated.6. on the contrary, the learned advocate for the respondent would contend that though there is no express provision for the amendment of the complaint, but there is no prohibition also in the act for amending the complaint.7. now let us consider whether the tribunal has got power to allow the amendment sought for.8. the consumer protection act, 1986 (act 68 of 1986) was enacted to provide for entire protection of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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