Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-30-2004
Reported in : (2004)3MLJ176; 2005(30)PTC385(Mad)
n.v. balasubramanian, j.1. these appeals are preferred by the appellant against the common order passed by the learned single judge of this court in o.a.nos.553 and 554 of 2000 and application nos.2558 to 2560 of 2000 in c.s.no.397 of 2000 dated 14.8.2000. by the said common order, the learned judge vacated the interim injunction already granted and dismissed o.a. nos. 553 and 554 of 2000 and allowed the two applications filed by the respondents to vacate the interim injunction in application nos.2559 and 2560 of 2000. learned judge also allowed the application no.2558 of 2000 filed to revoke the leave granted to the appellant/plaintiff. hence, there are three appeals filed against the order in o.a. nos. 553 and 554 of 2000 and application no.2558 of 2000.2. the appellant herein filed the suit on the file of this court in c.s.no.397 of 2000. along with the suit, two applications in o.a.nos.553 and 554 of 2000 were filed for the relief of interim injunction restraining the respondents from indulging in any action amounting to infringement of the appellant's copyright in the artistic work jolen crsme bleach carton, container and jolen written in distinctive script and also restraining the respondents from passing off their goods as the goods of the appellant. this court granted interim injunction by order dated 19.6.2000. thereafter the respondents filed counter affidavit along with two applications in a.nos.2559 and 2560 of 2000 to vacate the interim injunction. learned judge, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-19-2004
Reported in : II(2005)BC127; 129CompCas451(Mad); 2004(4)CTC261; (2004)3MLJ252; 57SCL5(Mad)
orderk. gnanaprakasam, j.1. the revision petitioners are the plaintiffs.2. the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the suit properties and allotment of 6/12 shares to the plaintiffs.3. the plaintiffs' case is that they are brother and sister, and the 2nd defendant is the another brother of the plaintiffs and they are all sons and daughter of siddhaiyan and nallammal, the first defendant. though the suit properties stand in the name of the first defendant, the same had been impressed with and treated as the joint family properties of the first plaintiff, the 2nd defendant and their father, siddhaiyan, the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 and the father of the plaintiffs have been treating the suit properties as the joint family properties and in fact, they have also executed a registered mortgage in favour of salem fairlands house building society for availing house building loan. siddhaiyan died intestate and therefore, the first plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are the surviving coparceners of the suit properties. the 2nd plaintiff and the first defendant, who are daughter and wife of the deceased, siddhaiyan are also entitled to their respective shares in the suit properties. while so, the 3rd defendant, viz., m/s. lakshmi vilas bank limited claimed that they are the creditors of the defendants 1 and 2 and they have mortgaged the item (1) of the suit properties and compelled the plaintiffs to vacate from the said item, but, they have not succeeded. in the said .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-08-2004
Reported in : 59SCL27(Mad)
k. govindarajan, j.1. the appellant having aggrieved by the order dated 5.7.2004, passed by the company law board, (hereinafter called 'clb'), rejecting their application filed in c.a.no.62/2004 in c.p.no.8/2004, preferred the above appeal.2. the appellant-company established a gas and naphtha fired combined cycle power generation plant at pillaiperumalnallur in government of tamil nadu. respondents 1 and 2 are having 46% paid up capital of the company (26% and 20% respectively). the 3rd respondent-company and the 4th respondent are holding 28% and 26% paid up capital respectively. the 5th respondent is the managing director of the appellant company. respondents 6 to 8 are directors of the appellant-company nominated by the 3rd respondent herein. respondents 9 and 10 are the directors nominated by the 4th respondent herein. the financing companies, namely, i.d.b.i., and l.i.c., have nominated one director each. they are not parties to the proceedings. since the dispute is only between the appellant-company and respondents 1 and 2, the appellant-company has given up respondents 3 to 11, though they have been added in the appeal as respondents.3. the appellant-company entered into a power purchase agreement, (hereinafter called 'ppa'), with the tamil nadu electricity board, (hereinafter called 'tneb') on 3rd january 1997, as the appellant-company has to sell to the tneb, capacity and net electrical output of the power generating facility pursuant to the terms and conditions set .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-08-2004
Reported in : 2005(3)ARBLR354(Madras); 129CompCas849(Mad); 2004(5)CTC1; (2004)4MLJ434
k. govindarajan, j.1. the appellant having aggrieved by the order dated 5.7.2004, passed by the company law board, (hereinafter called 'clb'), rejecting their application filed in c.a.no. 62/2004 in c.p.no. 8/2004, preferred the above appeal. 2.the appellant-company established a gas and naphtha fired combined cycle power generation plant at pillaiperumalnallur in government of tamil nadu. respondents 1 and 2 are having 46% paid up capital of the company (26% and 20% respectively). the 3rd respondent-company and the 4th respondent are holding 28% and 26% paid up capital respectively. the 5th respondent is the managing director of the appellant company. respondents 6 to 8 are directors of the appellant-company nominated by the 3rd respondent herein. respondents 9 and 10 are the directors nominated by the 4th respondent herein. the financing companies, namely, i.d.b.i., and l.i.c., have nominated one director each. they are not parties to the proceedings. since the dispute is only between the appellant-company and respondents 1 and 2, the appellant-company has given up respondents 3 to 11, though they have been added in the appeal as respondents.3. the appellant-company entered into a power purchase agreement, (hereinafter called 'ppa'), with the tamil nadu electricity board, (hereinafter called 'tneb') on 3rd january 1997, as the appellantcompany has to sell to the tneb, capacity and net electrical output of the power generating facility pursuant to the terms and conditions .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-17-2004
Reported in : 2004CriLJ4284
m. karpagavinayagam, j.1. the great poet thiruvalluvar said in thirukural:(vernacular matter omitted)the meaning of this kural is this:'it would be folly not to fear of what is to be feared.the truly wise will fear of what is to be feared.'we are reminded of this kural while dealing with this suo motu contempt petition.2. mr. karuppan, former president of madras high court advocates association, who has put in more than 25 years of practice as an advocate, thinking that he is involving in heroic and courageous acts, has challenged the majesty of law, thereby landing himself in the trouble of facing the contempt proceedings before the full bench of this court.3. this has got a chequered history which is as follows :'(a) karuppan, an advocate of this court, as a party in-person, claiming himself as a best rifle shooter, filed various writ petitions and the contempt petition against the chennai rifle club and its office bearers as well as the government seeking for the direction to the government for vesting the chennai rifle club with the state government on the ground of various irregularities committed by one sivanthi adityan, the secretary of the chennai rifle club, and to permit him to have a training in the coaching camp and to participate in the national rifle association of india and for other directions.(b) these petitions came up before the division bench comprising of m. karpagavinayagam, j. and s. ashok kumar, j. during the pendency of those petitions, it was brought .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-18-2004
Reported in : 2004(4)CTC130
orderm. karpagavinayagam, j.1. the petitioners, the defendants 1 to 12 in the suit for partition filed by the first respondent herein, after the preliminary decree was passed, filed a petition under section 4 of the partition act to direct the second respondent herein to sell his 1/8 share in the suit property to the petitioners, which was purchased by him as a stranger purchaser, and the said petition was dismissed. hence, this civil revision petition.2. the first respondent filed the suit for partition of his 5/8 share in the suit property. since 1/8 share of the suit property was purchased by the second respondent herein as a stranger purchaser, he was also impleaded as one of the parties to the suit. ultimately, a preliminary decree was passed, allotting 5/8 share to the plaintiff, the first respondent herein and 1/8 share to the second respondent herein, who is the stranger purchaser and 2/8 share to the petitioners/defendants 1 to 12.3. in pursuance of the preliminary decree, the first respondent filed a petition in i.a.no.294 of 2001 for passing final decree. at this stage, the petitioners filed i.a.no.113 of 2003 under section 4 of the partition act for passing an order, directing the second respondent, the 13th defendant in the suit, to sell his 1/8 share in the property, to the petitioners, for the value to be fixed by the court, since the suit property is a family residential house, in which the petitioners alone are residing.4. the said i.a.no.113 of 2003 was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-25-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)42; IV(2005)BC440; 2005CriLJ1353
orderv. kanagaraj, j.1. the above criminal original petitions have been filed to call for the records relating to c. c. nos. 6609 to 6612 of 2003 on the file of the viii metropolitan magistrate court, george town at chennai-1.2. the case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are accused no. 1 and 3 in the above cases and it is the second accused who issued the cheques in favour of the respondent on behalf of the firm in which admittedly, the petitioners are partners.3. the petitioners contention is that they were not assigned with such responsibilities to decide regarding the issuance of the cheques and therefore, kept away from such assignments and hence, according to law, they cannot be prosecuted.4. today, when the above criminal original petitions, all relating to one and the same parties but on issuance of different cheques which bounced, four cases have been made out by the respondent. it is the admitted case of the petitioners that they are the partners. the court has every reason to arrive at the preliminary conclusion to hold that they have got every say in each and every activity of the firm unless on evidence it is ruled out that these petitioners have nothing to do with regard to the management, maintenance or issuance of cheques. therefore, so far as this point is concerned, it has to be effectively decided on such evidence placed on record before the trial court and hence this court cannot go into such of the questions and is not in a position to appreciate .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-30-2004
Reported in : AIR2004Mad433; (2002)2MLJ352
orderk.p. sivasubramaniam, j. 1. the petitioners pray for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the 3rd respondent dated 21.1.1997 to quash the same and to direct the respondents to sell the house nos. 2,3,8,11 and 16 in l.i.g., in kamarajar colony at nagapattinam municipality to petitioners 1 to 5.2. the following facts are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition:- the petitioners were allotted the respective houses in kamarajar colony, at nagapattinam municipality at different points of time, during the period from 1967 to 1970, on rental basis.3. the group of houses constructed under the lower income group scheme were allotted to the employees of the nagapattinam municipality on rental basis. though the construction was intended to be quarters for the employees of the municipality, as the colony was established at a remote place, the employees of the municipality were not interested in occupying the same. therefore, the vacant houses were allotted in favour of some private persons also who are not working under the municipality. according to the petitioners, the nagapattinam municipality passed a resolution on 19.8.1978 recommending the sale of the houses on hire purchase scheme to the employees of the municipality who have been allotted the houses. the petitioners contend that though in g.o.ms.no.1740, rural development and local administration department, dated 16.10.1981, the government imposed a ban on such selling .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-22-2004
Reported in : (2004)3MLJ45
orderd. murugesan, j.1. the issue raised in all these writ petitions is one and the same and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. for the disposal of the writ petitions, we refer to the facts relating to w.p. no.2001 of 2004. 2. before considering the facts of that case, it would be appropriate for us to refer to the provisions relating to the grant of approval by the all india council for technical education, shortly known as aicte, for the course covered under the provisions of aicte act, 1987. in order to ensure co-ordinated development of technical education in accordance with the approved standards and allied objects, the said act was brought in conferring power on the council established under section 3 of the said act. the power to grant approval vests with the council under section 10 of the act. before granting approval, the council insisted the grant of no objection certificate (for short 'noc') from the state government as per regulation 8 (4)(e). from paragraph-6 of the notification calling applications for introduction of additional course, for increase in intake in the existing institutions, as per the national calendar for the academic year 2004-05, 'the application not recommended by the state government shall not be processed by the council. the no objection certificate of the state government should be received within the cut-off date (31.12.03). in case the noc is not received from the state government by the cut-off date, aicte shall .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-11-2004
Reported in : (2004)2MLJ362
m. chockalingam, j.1. the plaintiffs, in a suit for declaratory relief in respect of the passage and consequential mandatory injunction, have challenged the judgment of the learned subordinate judge, coimbatore made in as no.214 of 1992 wherein the judgment of the trial court granting decree in their favour was reversed.2. the following facts are noticed in the plaint averments:the plaintiffs are the sons of one palaniappa gounder, who was the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 21.4.1969. he died in the year 1980 leaving the plaintiffs as heirs and they have been in occupation and enjoyment of the suit property. the plaintiffs entered into a division of the suit properties under a registered instrument dated 9.6.1990. the suit property was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs 2 and 3. thereafter, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 have sold the same to the fourth plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 3.6.1991. the second defendant was the owner of the property situated on the south of the suit property and he sold the same to the first defendant. thus, the first defendant became entitled to the property situated on the south under sale deed dated 16.2.84. the plaintiffs were entitled to the space measuring 1-1/2 feet north south and 48-3/4 feet east west on the south of the plaintiffs' southern wall. they have been using the said space to approach their southern wall for maintenance and repairs. the plaintiffs and the predecessor-in- .....Tag this Judgment!