Chennai Court December 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
R. Chinnadurai Vs. S. Rajalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad313; (2004)2MLJ51
V. Kanagaraj, J. 1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.3.1990 rendered in A.S.No. 47 of 1990 by the Court of Additional District Judge, Erode thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.4.1988 rendered in O.S.No. 878 of 1987 by the Court of District Munsif, Sathyamangalam.2. Tracing the history of the above second appeal coming to be preferred, what comes to be known is that the defendant is the appellant herein and the respondent herein has filed a suit for specific performance against the appellant in O.S.No. 878 of 1987 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Sathyamangalam praying for a decree directing the defendant to execute and register a sale deed for Rs. 14,500/= over the plaint schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff, for delivery of possession and for costs on averments such as that the defendant is the owner of a site measuring 160 feet East-West and 70 feet North-South (5.00.5 Hect.) in S.F.86/1; that on 11.12.1981, ...
P. Nedumaran and ors. Vs. State Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Polic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC721
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the following criminal appeals, viz. Crl.A. Nos.749 to 752 and 764 TO 765 of 2003.2. Criminal Appeal Nos.749 to 752 and 764 of 2003 have been filed by Pala Nedumaran, Pavanan, Subha Veerapandian, Thayappan and Shahul Hameed respectively. Criminal Appeal No.765 of 2003 has been filed by K. Paranthaman. All these accused persons are facing prosecution for the offences under Sec. 21(1)(a), 21(2) and 21(3) of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (in short 'POTA'), which offences are punishable under Sec. 21(4) POTA and Sec. 10 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sec. 124(A), 153(A)1(A) of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The gravamen of the charge is that all these accused persons are sympathisers/followers of an organisaition called Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which organisation is a banned organisation under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and is also a scheduled organisation under Sec. 18 of POTA. There is no d...
C. Saraswathi Vs. S. Ramachandran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad280
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decretal order dated 23-11-2000 made in I. A. No. 653 of 2000 in O. S. No. 82 of 1998 by the Court of District Munsif, Sivaganga thereby dismissing the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner herein praying to implead her as the second plaintiff in the suit.2. Tracing the history of the above civil revision petition coming to be filed by the petitioner, what comes to be known is that the petitioner's husband, the second respondent herein, has filed the suit in O. S. No. 82 of 1998 based on a pronote dated 1-6-1996 alleged to have been executed in favour of the petitioner herein for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- by the first respondent herein on a supposed made over given by the petitioner herein in favour of her husband, but actually no endorsement has been effected in the pronote to the said effect. However, the suit has been filed by the hus...
Shri V.R. Chinnan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: [2005]272ITR443(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee's minor children had been admitted to the benefits of a partnership of which the assessee and his mother were partners. On the capital contribution made by the minors, the distributable profits had been allowed to accumulate. The accumulation as on 1.4.1980 was Rs. 1,00,000/- in the accounts of the minors and Rs. 50,000/- each in the account of the assessee and his mother. These accumulations had apparently accrued over a long period from 1974 to 1980, the firm having first been constituted in the year 1974 and later reconstituted in the year 1977. On 1.4.1980, the parties entered into an agreement which reads thus:-'Whereas the parties to this deed along with minor C. Veerappan and C. Subramania, all sons of the party of the first part are running the firm M/s SVR Cycle Mart, Karaikudi in which the above said two minors are admitted to the benefits of partnership and whereas the partners are having balances in their respective current accounts wit...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Essorpe Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)571; [2004]265ITR637(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us for consideration is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the disputed customs duty payable and funded interest payable to the bank, which liabilities pertain to the earlier years, can be allowed as a deduction in computing the profits under Section 115J of the Act ?'2. The assessment year is 1990-91.3. In the profit and loss account prepared by the assessee for this assessment year, under the heading 'Notes' were mentioned, inter alia, two items which are relevant here. Note 5 reads thus :'Bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. 17.24 lakhs have been given to the Customs Department towards differential duty on import of staple fibre under dispute pending before the Supreme Court and not provided for in the accounts.'4. Item 12 under the notes reads thus :'Funded interest term loan amounting to Rs. 43.57 lakhs being overdue, interest on L/C arrears in respect of ear...
R. Rathinasabapathy Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2734
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J. 1. This revision petition has been fled by the petitioner against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam passed in Crime No. 571 of 1999 of Theni Police Station.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner is the de facto complainant and he lodged a complaint against the S. I. of Police of Theni Police Station which was registered as Crime No. 571/1999 for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324, IPC. After investigation a final report under Section 173, Cr. P. C. was filed on 2-8-1999 before the Court and a final order dated 26-8-1999 was also recorded by the learned Magistrate. The complainant /petitioner filed an application for the statement of final report filed under Section 173, Cr.P.C. dated 2-8-1999 and the final order dated 26-8-1999. Learned Magistrate by order dated 11-3-2003 rejected the said application on the ground that part of the record shall not be given under Section 173(4) Cr. P. C.3. The accused in ...
Fisher Pumps (P) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2003
Reported in: [2005]139STC152(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. On direction, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent.2. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the respondent dated September 30, 2003, cancelling the certificate of registration granted to the petitioner under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with retrospective effect from April 1, 2003, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and direct the respondent to receive the applicable renewal fees and renew the certificate of registration for the assessment year 2003-2004 with effect from April 1, 2003.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing my attention to proviso to Sub-section (3) of section 21 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 would contend that in the light of the said provision, the impugned order cannot be sustained. He also relied on a division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sun Gas Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar, Tam...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Henkel Spic India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2003
Reported in: [2004]120CompCas189(Mad); (2004)188CTR(Mad)482; [2004]266ITR490(Mad); [2004]54SCL89(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Question referred to us is 'whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest earned on short-term deposits of share application money by the assessee did not accrue to the assessee during the assessment year 1992-93'.2. The assessee is a Public Limited Company which came out with a public issue of shares on 29.1.1992 and the issue was closed on 3.2.1992. The application money received by the company was deposited with collecting banks or the bankers of the company, to which the amounts were transferred, for 46 days. The interest earned on such deposits was sought to be taxed by the Assessing Officer as income for the assessment year 1992-93. The assessee's contention was that the application money which had been received from the applicants for the allotment of shares was required to be and was kept in a separate bank account as required by section 73(3) of the Companies Act and that the interest earned on those moneys could not have been treat...
Hariharan Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police Cb Cid
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC38
ORDER1. Criminal Revision Case No. 1795 of 2003 has been filed by one Hariharan who is A-2 in the Sessions Case No. 87 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 1), Chennai and Accused Nos. 11, 16 and 17 in the above S.C.No. 87/2003 viz., one Sampath, Gunasekaran @ Guna and Naraimudi Ganesan @ Ganesan have filed Criminal Revision Case No. 1796 of 2003.2. The above four revision petitioners and 14 others are facing trial before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 1) Chennai in S.C.No. 87 of 2003. The charges framed against the said accused persons in the above case are as follows:Chart No. and against whomOffences1. A1 to A8120B IPC2. A4, A7, A10.A11.A14.A15, A16 and A17A1, A12, A3, A5, A6, A8, A9, A13 and A19365 IPC365 r/w 109 IPC3. A1 to All,A14 to A18387 IPC4. A-12419,420 and 387 r/w 109 IPC5. A3, A4, A6 to A8, A10, All, A14to A18302, IPC6. A3 to All, A13 to A18A1, A2 & A12347 and 364 IPC347 r/w 109 & 364 r/w ...
R. Kaaruppan Vs. Patron of the Chennai Rifle Club and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad167
P. D. Dinakaran, J.1. In brief, a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of M. Karpagavinayagam, J. and S. Ashok Kumar, J. by order dated 5-12-2003, concededly, on the directions of the Apex Court dated 6-3-2003 in SLP Nos. 4501-4502 of 2003, disposed W.P. Nos. 20425 of 1999 and 8121 of 2003, W.A. No. 794 of 2002 and Cont. P. No. 368 of 2003.2. The operative portion of the order dated 5-12-2003 reads as follows :'117. To sum up : (i) The writ petitions in W.P. No. 20425 of 1999 and W.P. No. 8121 of 2003, writ appeal in W.A. No. 794 of 2003 and Contempt petition in Cont. P. No. 368 of 2003 are dismissed. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.(ii) In the suo motu contempt proceedings, Mr. Karuppan is found guilty under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1/- (One rupee) to be paid Within one month, in default to undergo one day simple imprisonment.' 3. Thereafter, Mr. R. Karuppan, petitioner/appellant in tho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »