Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: chennai Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 65 results (0.027 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!

Dec 30 2004 (HC)

Dove Investments Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Investme ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-30-2004

Reported in : [2005]124CompCas399(Mad); (2005)6CompLJ490(Mad); 2005(1)CTC249; (2005)1MLJ269; [2005]60SCL604(Mad)

orderp. sathasivam, j.1. by consent of all the parties, the appeals themselves have (been) taken up for disposal. m/s. dove investments private limited, mumbai-21; m/s. max worth investments private limited, chennai-34; and mr. p.n. mohan, partner of m/s. sandhya priya investments, chennai-41 -respondents 2 to 4 in company petition n.13/111a/s.r.b of 2003 on the file of company law board, southern region bench, chennai, aggrieved by the order dated 23.8.2004, directing m/s. sterling holiday resorts-first respondent therein to register transfer of 22,93,000 shares in the name of the m/s. gujarath industrial investment corporation ltd., petitioner therein within 30 days of receipt of the said order, have preferred c.m.a. no. 3188 of 2004 under section 10-f of the companies act, 1956. questioning the very same order, m/s. sterling holiday resorts, first respondent therein filed c.m.a. no. 3223/2004. since both the appeals arise against the very same order of the company law board, the same are being disposed of by the following common order:brief facts:for convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the company law board. m/s. gujarat industrial investment corporation limited/petitioner is a government of gujarat undertaking, filed company petition no. 13/111a/srb of 2003 under section 11-a of the companies act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') against m/s. sterling holiday resorts (india) limited ('company' in short) and three others, namely, m/s. dove .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 28 2004 (HC)

K. Gopal Vs. the District Collector,

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-28-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)CTC596; (2005)1MLJ317

ordera. kulasekaran, j.1. mr. p.s. jayakumar, learned government advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents.2. the petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in no. na.ka.3795/2004/a1 dated 09-12-2004 and quash the same.3. the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner is an elected president of pappireddypatti village panchayat; that a special audit of the said panchayat was conducted by the second respondent for the year 2003-2004 and based on the audit report, the first respondent issued a notice under section 205 of the tamil nadu panchayats act, 1994 (hereinafter called as the act) calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation by notice dated 01-09-2004 and copies of the audit report also served on the petitioner; that the petitioner has sent his explanation dated 14-09-2004 to the first respondent. not satisfied with the explanation, the first respondent issued the impugned communication dated 09-12-2004 under section 205 (3) of the act directing the tahsildar to convene a meeting for consideration of the notice and explanation, if any and the proposal for the removal of the petitioner, at the office of the village panchayat at a time appointed by the tahsildar.4. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the audit was conducted invoking rule 2 of the tamil nadu panchayats (surcharge, disallowance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 2004 (HC)

D. Kumar Vs. V. Gayathri and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-16-2004

Reported in : II(2006)ACC216

p. sathasivam, j.1. the applicant in w.c. no. 71 of 1994 on the file of commissioner for workmen's compensation-i, madras-6, against the dismissal of his petition for compensation, has filed this appeal under section 30 of workmen's compensation act, 1923 (herein referred to as 'the act').2. the brief facts are as follows:the appellant herein filed a claim under section 10(1) of the act against proprietrix by name v. gyathri devi first respondent herein, the secretary, lotus colony flat owners' association-2nd respondents herein and perumal maistry-third respondent herein claiming compensation for the injuries said to have been sustained by him in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment on 19th may, 1993. according to him, he was a mason and was employed through the 3rd respondent by 1st and 2nd respondents to do masonry and repair work at the housing board ownership flats situated at lotus colony, nandanam, madras-35. on 19th may, 1993 at about 3.00 p.m., when the applicant and three others including the third respondent were doing masonry work by standing on a scaffolding at flat no. 7, third floor of 'l' block, the said scaffolding suddenly broken and the applicant fell down from the third floor and met with an accident in the course of his employment. due to the accident, he sustained multiple grievous injuries on his head, right side body, right leg and other parts of body. initially he had treatment at government royapettah hospital from 19th may, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 2004 (HC)

D. Kumar Vs. V. Gayathri Devi and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-16-2004

Reported in : 3(2005)ACC599; [2005(105)FLR678]

p. sathasivam, j.1. the applicant in w.c. no. 71 of 1994 on the file of commissioner for workmen's compensation-i, madras-6, against the dismissal of his petition for compensation, has filed this appeal under section 30 of workmen's compensation act, 1923 (herein referred to as 'the act').2. the brief facts are as follows:the appellant herein filed a claim under section 10(1) of the act against proprietrix by name v. gyathri devi first respondent herein, the secretary, lotus colony flat owners' association-2nd respondent herein and perumal maistry-third respondent herein claiming compensation for the injuries said to have been sustained by him in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment on 19.5.1993. according to him, he was a mason and was employed through the 3rd respondent by 1st and 2nd respondents to do masonry and repair work at the housing board ownership flats situated at lotus colony, nandanam, madras-35. on 19.5.1993 at about 3.00 p.m., when the applicant and three others including the third respondent were doing masonry work by standing on a scaffolding at flat no. 7, third floor of 'l' block, die said scaffolding suddenly broken and the applicant fell down from the third floor and met with an accident in the course of his employment. due to the accident, he sustained multiple grievous injuries on his head, right side body, right leg and other parts of body. initially he had treatment at government royapettah hospital from 19.5.1993 to 27.5.1993 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 2004 (HC)

S.P. Lakshmanan Vs. the Secretary to Government, Highways Department, ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-10-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)CTC324

orderprabha sridevan, j.1. by consent the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. the government of india had received a loan from the international bank for reconstruction and development (hereinafter called 'the bank') towards the cost of upgradation of government roads and for meeting the cost of enhanced periodical maintenance. the first respondent invited bids enhanced periodical maintenance of government roads on 5.12.2003. bid was open to all bidders from eligible source country as defined in the guidelines, bidders from india registered with tamil nadu or other state governments were also eligible to participate in the bid. bids were invited for eight contracts mc-1 to mc-8. this writ petition is with regard to mc-5 which relates to roads in tiruchy and thanjavur district.3. the instructions to bidders contains the details regarding to bidding documents, preparation of bids, submission of bids, bid opening and evaluation, award of contract. some of the clauses are important and those clauses alone will be referred to. as per clause 4.3, all bidders had to include the information given thereunder and the documents alongwith their bids. one of the relevant information that had to be given as per clause 4.3 (j) was -'proposals for sub-contracting components of the works amounting to more than 20 percent of the bid price (for each, the qualifications and experience of the identified sub-contractor in the relevant field should be annexed);'clause 4.4 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 2004 (HC)

Pandiyan and ors. Vs. the Inspector of Police

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-08-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)CTC90

ordern. dhinakar, j.1. a-1 and a-5 to a-7 in s.c. no. 146/97 are the appellants in the above appeal. they were tried along with five other accused before the learned sessions judge, chengalpattu. in this judgment, for the sake of convenience, the appellants as well as the five other accused will be referred as a-1 to a-9 in the same order as they were arrayed before the learned sessions judge.2. a-1 to a-9 were charged under section 148, ipc under charge no. 1 and a-1 to a-4 and a-5 to a-9 were charged under section 302, ipc under charge nos. 2 and 3 for causing the death of kannan (d-1) and dilliraj (d-2) respectively. the allegation against them in the said charges is that at 10.30 p.m. on 31.3.96, a-1 to a-9 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering kannan (d-1) and dilliraj (d-2) and in furtherance of the said common object, a-1 to a-4 attacked kannan (d-1) with patta knives and caused his death and that a-5 to a-9 attacked dilliraj (d-2) and caused injuries, which lead to their death. the learned trial judge, while finding a-1 to a-9 guilty under section 148, ipc, sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life, and a-1 to a-4, though were charged under section 302 for causing the death of d-1, a-2 to a-4 were acquitted by the learned sessions judge, but a-1 alone was found guilty under the said charge for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. similarly, a-5 to a-9, though were charged under section 302, ipc for .....

Tag this Judgment!


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