Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help

 Welcome Guest | Apr 18 2014
Home Skip Navigation Links
Search by Database Expand Search by Database
Skip Navigation Links
Subject Modules Expand Subject Modules
Skip Navigation Links
State Modules Expand State Modules
Skip Navigation Links
Legal Focus Expand Legal Focus



Free Demo

Database Updates
Search by Database
Subject Modules

Database updates



A. B. Fathima Sulthana W/o E. Gulab vs (1) Women Lawyers Association Represented by its Secretary, Chennai; (2) D. Prasanna; (3) S. Thamizharasi; (4) V. Nalini; (5) N. Beulah John Selvaraj; (6) G. V. Shoba; (7) V. Alamelu; (8) G. Kavitha; (9) S. Suseela Devi; (10) K. Nandini; (11) R. Vidya; (12) J. Sundara Kanchani; (13) D. Mary Rose  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 04 Apr 2014]

(1) R. Riyaz Ahmed; (2) R. Rafi Ahmed; (3) R. Mustaq Ahmed; (4) R. Shafeeq Ahmed vs (1) J. G. Glass Industries Private Limited, Chennai; (2) D. Nandakumar; (3) Sujatha Nandha Kumar  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 04 Apr 2014]
Civil Procedure - Land & Property - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O. 2 r. 2 - O. 7 r. 11 - Suit for declaration - Inconsistent pleas - Rejection of plaint - Legality - Appellants (plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration claiming that they have perfected their title to suit property land by adverse possession and that respondent (defendant/company) had no legal and physical existence and thus a fictitious company - Respondent filed an application under O. 7 r. 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint, which was allowed by Trial Court - Aggrieved appellants filed an appeal, which was dismissed by Lower Appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of Trial Court - Aggrieved appellants have filed instant second appeal - Appellants contended that there were disputed facts between parties, same could be established only after full-fledged trial of the suit and that rejection of the plaint by Courts below was erroneous -

Held, it was not in dispute that earlier, appellants filed a suit, for specific performance of the sale agreement, on the basis of agreement between their father and 'S' - Appellants obtained an order of injunction not to disturb their possession and order of injunction was in force till 4-4-2006 - During pendency of said suit, appellants filed instant suit, which was filed on 31-3-2006 and in instant suit, they claimed title over the suit property by adverse possession - In instant suit also, they obtained an order of injunction not to disturb their possession - On 4-4-2006, appellants withdrew the earlier suit - Thus, it was clear that the appellants obtained and enjoyed 2 interim orders from 31-3-2006 to 4-4-2006 on the basis of 2 inconsistent pleas against the same respondents - Without obtaining leave under O. 2 r. 2 of CPC, appellants filed the instant suit, which was barred under O. 2 r. 2 of CPC - Thus, the act of appellants in obtaining 2 interim orders against defendants in 2 different suits on the basis of 2 inconsistent pleas was clearly abuse of process of law and Courts below rightly rejected the plaint on that ground - In the affidavit filed in support of application for rejection of plaint, respondents disputed the maintainability of suit - As such, instant suit seeking for the relief of declaration on the ground of adverse possession was not maintainable - Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another, 2013 Indlaw SC 603, relied on - Appeal dismissed.

(1) M. Jayasankar; (2) K. Anumuthu; (3) A. Mathiyazhagan; (4) D. Geetha vs (1) Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai; (2) Managing Director, T.N.H.B. Annasalai, Chennai; (3) Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Secretary and Personal Officer, Chennai; (4) Executive Engineer and Administration Officer, Krishnagiri District  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 04 Apr 2014]
Service - Temporary or adhoc appointment - Regularisation - Denial - Entitlement of - Petitioners were appointed on on daily wages basis sponsored through employment exchange, filed instant petitions for calling for the file of respondent (Board) resolution dt.30-4-2012 and to quash the same and further sought for issuance of an order in directing the respondents to reappoint and regularise their services as Technical Assistants in Board - Petitioners contended that they made repeated requests for their absorption as Technical Assistant but there was no reply and indeed, they made last representation dt.16-5-2011 to respondent no. 2 and that Board Meeting dt.30-4-2012, accorded its approval to call for the list from the Exchange and appoint 15 Assistant Engineers, 15 Technical Assistants and one Surveyor and further Board issued call letters to candidates fixing the date of interview on 1-9-2012 - Whether petitioner were entitled to regularisation of their services as claimed -

Held, fact that petitioners' engagement as Technical Assistants, through Letter dt.29-11-1989, were 'purely on daily wages basis and the same were neither regular nor temporary' and further, it was made clear that they should not claim the continuance of permanent on the job, as a matter of right, comes to an inescapable conclusion that pleas of petitioners to reappoint and regularise their services as Technical Assistants in the Board, were not per se maintainable before Court, in the eye of law and as such, Court negatives their pleas -Plea of petitioners that Board passed a resolution dt.30-4-2012 to fill up the vacancies of 15 Assistant Engineers, 15 Technical Assistants and 1 Land Surveyor, by ignoring their representations dt.16-5-2011, could not be sustained because of the reason that in absence of number of Technical Assistants in Board, Board found it difficult to execute their work promptly and with a view to fill up the vacancies to avoid unnecessary delay in executing the works smoothly and timely, the Resolution was passed - Petitions dismissed.

APL Company Private Limited, Represented by its Authorized Representative, Ian Claxton, Chennai vs Varadariya Exporters, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 01 Apr 2014]
Arbitration & ADR - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ss. 48, 49 r/w s. 47(1) - Foreign arbitration award - Enforcement - Legality - Petitioner entered into a Service Contract with respondent and as per contract, respondent was to provide to the petitioner Minimum Volume Commitment of 100 Forty Equivalent Units (FEUs) during contract period - However, disputes aroused and parties sought to refer the dispute to an Arbitrator under the Rules of the American Arbitration Association - Arbitrator held respondent did not fulfill its obligation under the Service Contract and passed an award - Petitioner filed instant petition u/s. 47(1) r/w s. 49 of the Act to enforce the said Award -

Held, respondent had not chosen to appear before Court to plead any of the conditions specified in s. 48 of the Act to refuse enforcement of foreign award - Respondent acknowledged that he only tendered 26.5 FEUs to the petitioner out of Minimum Volume Commitment of 100 FEUs and the same, apparently, was an infraction of the terms of the Service Contract - Respondent never denied the liability - Thereafter, arbitration clause was invoked in terms of the Service Contract and award was passed by Arbitrator appointed by American Arbitration Association in terms of article 4(a) of the Service Contract - Perusal of award shows that Arbitrator sent notice of hearing to parties on 18-3-2004 - Respondent did not appear for hearing - To afford a last opportunity, matter was kept open till 26-7-2004 and another notice was sent in that regard on 14-7-2004 - However, respondent did not respond to the notices and no written submissions were also filed - All those facts make it clear that the even though reasonable opportunity was given to the respondent to defend his case, they failed to avail of it - Petitioner satisfied the requirements contemplated u/s. 47 of the Act and respondent had not chosen to furnish any proof in terms of s. 48 of the Act - Foreign award passed by Arbitrator was held enforceable and same should be deemed to be a decree of HC - Respondent was directed to make payment to petitioner as per the award - Petition allowed.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore vs PRICOL Limited (Premier Instruments AND Controls Limited), Coimbatore  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 01 Apr 2014]

K. Elumalai Naicker vs (1) District Collector, Kancheepuram; (2) Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tambaram  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 01 Apr 2014]

A. R. Metallurgicals (Private) Limited Represented by its Manager, Mohamed Idris, Dharmapuri District vs (1) Chairman-cum-Managing Director, TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai; (2) Chief Engineer, TANGEDCO, Vellore Electricity Distribution / Circle, Vellore; (3) Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO Krishnagiri Electricity Distribution Circle, Krishnagiri  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 01 Apr 2014]

Dr. S. Gurushankar vs (1) Commissioner, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai; (2) Commissioner, Thanjavur Municipality; (3) Executive Engineer, Underground Drainage Section, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Thanjavur; (4) President, Nilagiri Panchayat, Thanjavur; (5) Commissioner, Thanjavur Municipal Corporation  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 28 Mar 2014]
Municipalities & Local Governments - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, s. 49 - Sewerage connection - Directions - Requirement of - Petitioner filed instant petition for a direction to respondents to connect the sewerage water drain from his Hospital, to the underground drainage system of respondent (Municipality) on the basis of his representation - Petitioner contended that he was prepared to accept the expenses towards civil works required to connect the sewerage water drain from Hospital to the underground drainage system of Municipality and was also prepared to give indemnity bond and furnish security for that purpose -

Held, respondent Corporation waa local authority under the control of the affairs of Govt. and as there was a Report by Asst. Executive Engineer, to the effect that there was feasibility of connecting the hospital premises to the underground drainage system in respondent at a total length of 1750m, the claim of petitioner had to be considered by respondents - In that regard, respondent no. 1 (Commissioner) sent a letter to the petitioner stating that his request with regard to the connection of sewerage water drain of his Hospital to Underground Drainage System was placed before the Municipal Council and soon after its approval, required action would be taken on his representation - S. 49 of the Act provided for application for permission by any authority to carry out any development on any land or building and petitioner's need for getting necessary permission for sewerage connection to the Underground Drainage system was already been pursued by authorities concerned and necessary Resolution was also passed - Respondents were bound to consider the petitioner's requirement, as he had come out with an undertaking to abide by the conditions of respondents in giving sewerage water drain connection of the petitioner Hospital to the Underground Drainage system of the respondent Corporation, based on the Report of Executive Engineer - Respondents were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner positively, in the light of public need and connect the sewerage water drain of Hospital to the Underground Drainage system of respondent Corporation on condition that petitioner gives an undertaking to respondents to bear the costs with an indemnity bond and furnish security - Petition allowed.

(1) Union of India Represented by its Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure E-III (B) Branch, New Delhi; (2) Secretary Ministry of Science and Technology Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi; (3) Surveyor General of India Survey of India, Hathibarkala Estate, Uttarakhand vs (1) S. K. Dash; (2) C. K. V. Pillai; (3) K. Chandran; (4) K. Phahi Raju; (5) N. Mohandas; (6) S. Sampath Kumar; (7) M. Saminathan; (8) Baishnab Behera; (9) N. Saminathan; (10) G. Satyanarayana; (11) I. Krishnarao; (12) B. N. Umesh; (13) K. B. Ramesh; (14) K. M. Ravish; (15) N. B. Sujide; (16) Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 28 Mar 2014]
Service - Equal pay for equal work - Fixation of pay - Revised pay - Claim - Entitlement of - Petitioners filed instant review applications to review the order dt.7-8-2012 passed by DB in writ petitions filed against the order of Tribunal, wherein Tribunal directed the petitioners to revise the pay scale of respondent Nos. 1 to 15 from scale of Rs.6500-10500 to the scale of Rs.7500-12000, with effect from 1-1-1996 and to grant consequential benefits - Respondents were working in the cadre of surveyors in the office of Survey of India, under the Ministry of Science and Technology, GOI - While so, they were promoted as officer surveyors in group 'B' category - Petitioners contended that Tribunal had merely passed an order directing the petitioners to consider the claims of respondents of the employees concerned in the light of the recommendations of V Central Pay Commission and the Anomaly Committee and that question as to whether the officer surveyors would have parity in their pay scales with group 'B' employees of the other Departments of Central Govt. had not been dealt with, both by Tribunal and DB, thus, SC had found it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioners to file a review application before HC to obtain appropriate findings on the issue, on merits and that report of Anomaly Committee was not accepted by Central Govt., as it was not mandatory in nature -

Held, review jurisdiction of HC was limited in nature - However, in view of fact that SC, in its order dt.8-4-2013, made in SLP, filed by petitioners, had granted liberty to the petitioner to approach HC, by filing a review petition, thus instant review application filed by the petitioners was sustainable in the eye of law - Tribunal and DB had not considered the various factors, which should have been taken into account, including the method of recruitment, the level at which the recruitments were made, the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, minimum educational/technical qualifications which were required for the avenues of promotion, the nature of duties and responsibilities, the horizontal and vertical comparison with similar jobs, public dealings, the satisfaction level and the financial resources of Govt. concerned, for the fixation of the pay scales - Anomaly Committee had recommended the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 to all group 'B' officer surveyors, without giving the reasons for making the said recommendations - Having considered the fact that Tribunal passed orders, in applications, without properly analysing the relevant issues that had arisen before it, with regard to the parity of pay scales, and as the Tribunal had not arrived at its conclusions in a logical manner, and as the DB had passed an orderd,t7-8-2012, confirming order passed by Tribunal, SC had granted liberty to petitioners to move HC, by filing instant review application - It would not open for HC to give a different interpretation to the considered order passed by SC - In view of facts, matter had to be remitted back to Tribunal, for considering the various issues which were raised with regard to fixation of pay scales of group 'B' officer surveyors on par with other employees working in various departments of Central Govt. and with regard to the binding nature of recommendations made by Central Pay Commission concerned and the Anomaly Committee - Impugned order passed by Tribunal and DB were set aside - Matter was remitted back to Tribunal to pass appropriate orders - Review allowed.

NTT DoCoMo Inc., Represented by its Constituted Attorney Sharad Vadehra, Japan vs (1) Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Chennai; (2) Controller of Patents, Maharashtra; (3) Union of India Through the Secretary Department of Industrial Policy and Promotions Ministry of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 28 Mar 2014]

Geodesic Techniques Private Limited Represented by its Construction Manager M. Tamizharasan, Bangalore vs Larsen and Toubro Limited Construction Building and Factories, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 28 Mar 2014]
Arbitration & ADR - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, s. 9(ii) - Madras High Court Original Side Rules, 1956, O. 14 r. 8 - Absence of reconciliation of the accounts - Encashment of advance bank guarantees - Claims - Injunction - Legality - Applicant filed instant application is under O. 14 r. 8 of XIV Rule 8 of the Rules r/w. s. 9(ii) of the Act to grant an order of injunction restraining respondent from in any way enchasing advance bank guarantee furnished by applicant with respondent pursuant to Letter of Intent in pending disposal of the arbitration proceedings to be initiated by the applicant - Applicant contended that according to it, prima facie, their claim show that Rs.5,66,80,390.80 was payable to applicant and final statement of account submitted by them was not reconciled and based on a meeting held earlier, respondent has made a claim for payment as state and for consequential repayment vide their letter dt.11-3-2014 -

Held, perused of documents filed in support of application, Court was of considered view that applicant had made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction - If an order of injunction as sought for was not granted at instant stage and bank guarantees were allowed to be encashed, applicant would be put to irretrievable harm or injury - Thus, there would be an order of interim injunction as prayed for until further orders - Order accordingly.

G. Sundararajan vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Home Department, Chennai; (2) Additional Director General of Prisons, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 28 Mar 2014]

M. Premavathy vs (1) B. Prakash; (2) Commissioner of Land Administration, Revenue Department, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 28 Mar 2014]
Service - Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, r. 48 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, s. 12(1)(c) - Withholding the terminal benefits - Nominee - Claim - Entitlement of - Petitioner filed instant petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to disburse the retirement benefits such as GPF and Family Benefit Fund to petitioner, who was also a widow, due on the death of her daughter, with all consequential benefits - Respondent no. 2 contended that marriage of respondent no. 1 with deceased was not declared as null and void and petition under the Act was dismissed on 5-2-2002 as abated and thus, who was eligible to get the terminal benefits was not determined as on -

Held, from the nomination Forms (Form-I and Form-II) nominating the petitioner, mother of the deceased, it was evident that the wishes of the deceased was to convey the terminal benefits to her mother alone, in case of her demise - Perusal of pleadings in petition under the Act, which was pending till the date of death of petitioner's daughter, it was evident that the respondent no. 1 had not accepted the petitioner's daughter as his wife, even though a formal decree of nullity of marriage was not passed due to the demise of deceased - During the time of deceased nominated the petitioner, who was none other than her mother, as nominee to receive the benefits of Family pension, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), General Provident Fund (GPF) etc., - Respondent no. 2 ought to have verified r. 48 of the Rules position and decided the matter by rejecting the alleged objection filed by respondent no. 1, opposing payment of terminal benefits to petitioner - By said inaction of respondent no. 2 in deciding issue, petitioner who was a widow and who lost her daughter, was unable to get the terminal benefits such as GPF and Family Benefit Fund - Respondent no. 2 should sanction and pay GPF amount in favour of petitioner as per the nomination made by deceased, should pay balance family benefit fund with 9% p.a interest - Order accordingly.

Noorul Islam Centre for Higher Education vs Commissioner of Income Tax  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 28 Mar 2014]

Magna Electro Castings Limited vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 28 Mar 2014]

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs (1) Farida Prime Tannery Private Limited; (2) Farida Shoes Private Limited; (3) K. H. Shoes Private Limited; (4) K. H. Arind Private Limited  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 28 Mar 2014]

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs Good Leather Shoes Private Limited  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 28 Mar 2014]

Rajalakshmi Enterprises vs Income Tax Officer  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 28 Mar 2014]

(1) K. Athiappan; (2) A. Sathyamoorthy vs Income Tax Officer  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 28 Mar 2014]

D. Leeladevi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 28 Mar 2014]

Income Tax Officer vs Assefa Dairy Development Federation  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 28 Mar 2014]

B. Muniswamy vs (1) Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Chennai; (2) Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai; (3) District Collector, Villupuram  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 27 Mar 2014]

Sterlite Industries India Limited vs CCE, Madurai  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 27 Mar 2014]

J. K. Impex vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 27 Mar 2014]

Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer