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.
Ramakrishna and Sarojini Vs. Kannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ516
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The landlords are the revision petitioners. 2. The landlords filed a petition under Sections 2. The landlady filed the petition under Sections 10(2)(i) and 2. The landlady filed the petition under Sections 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, in R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1991 before the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Chidambaram, for the eviction of the tenant and the said petition was dismissed. The landlords, thereafter, have preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No. 8 of 1997 before the Sub Court, Chidambaram, and the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the landlords have preferred this civil revision petition.3. The landlords in their petition have stated that the respondent is a tenant in respect of the petition premises, which was leased out for non-residential purpose and the rent was Rs. 400/- per month. It is also stated that the tenant has been irregular in payment of rent and as on 30.4.1989, he was liable to pay...
D. Philomina Vs. P. Velusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC109; 2004(1)CTC170
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This revision has been filed by one Mrs. Philomina, one of the directors of M/s. Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., Bhavani Chithodu NH Road, Chithodu, Erode-2 against the order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sankari in Crl.M.P.No. 175 of 2003 in C.C.No. 329 of 2002 of the said Court.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:One Velusamy filed a complaint against M/s. Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills (P) Ltd and 11 others. A2 in the case is the Managing Director of the said Company. According to the complainant, the company purchased cotton from the complainant to the value of Rs. 2,40,275 on 12.9.2000 and two cheques for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 and another cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,20,275 drawn in favour of the complainant on the Syndicate Bank, Shevapet, Salem-2 were issued by the accused. When the said two cheques were presented for collection from the complainant's Indian Bank, Konganapuram Branch on 15.10.2002 both the cheques were returned on ...
Indian Overseas Bank, Rep. by Its General Manager Vs. K. Perichiappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ416Mad; (2004)1MLJ610
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The appellant Indian Overseas Bank (hereinafter called 'the Bank') challenges the judgment of the learned single Judge whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondent herein (hereinafter called 'the delinquent-officer') was allowed by the learned single Judge.2. The delinquent-officer had joined the bank in 1968 and continued to serve in various capacities. A scheme was launched providing loans in the year 1982-83 under Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) to help small and marginal farmers. These loans were used to be sanctioned by the Regional Office and, according to the policy, it was the delinquent- officer who granted the loans as the Manager of the branch on the recommendations of the Panchayat Union. The loans were supposedly to be given directly to the recipient agriculturists and it is to them that the cheques of the loan amounts were being issued. Still complaints were received from the recipients in November, 1983. However, they were withdra...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. the Deputy Director of Small Saving ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)562; [2004]266ITR27(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu,J.1. The question raised by the Revenue in this appeal is as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that distribution of prizes under the District Level Gift Linked Savings Mobilisation Scheme did not constitute 'lottery' and the provisions of Section 194B of the Income Tax Act are not applicable and if applicable, as to whether the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty imposed.2. In order to encourage thrift as also to mobilise funds for the developmental works, Saving Schemes are operated by the Government. Under the gift linked scheme, a prize coupon is given to the investor when the investment made is in excess of Rs.1,000/-. The investor does not pay any price for those coupons. Prizes are awarded to the holder of the lucky coupon, which is chosen by lot. The prizes given are consumer goods, such as, fan, colour television, moped etc. During the accounting year ended 31-3-1998, the assessment year being 1998-99, the respondent released prizes worth R...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. C. Ananthan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)164; [2005]273ITR401(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred for our consideration, at the instance of the Revenue is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no penalty should be levied with reference to concealed income seized in the form of jewellery and cash following the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. v. CIT : [1987]168ITR705(SC) , even after amendment to Section 271 in 1964 and in 1975?' The assessment year is 1986-87.2. There was a search in the assessee's shop and residence on 22nd Nov., 1985 at which time cash, jewellery and certain documents were seized. Thereafter, a revised return was filed by the assessee for this assessment year, which return was accepted-and assessment made on the basis of that return.3. The assessee in response to the notice seeking to impose penalty, took the stand that there was no concealment and it was only for the purpose of buying peace with the De...
Vedavalliammale and ors. Vs. Venkataraja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC581
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J. 1. The appellant in both the appeals is the first defendant Vedavalliammale in O.S.No. 58 of 1982 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry.2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the suit.3. One Ramaraja filed the suit O.S.No. 58 of 1982 for declaration that he is the legal heir of the deceased Kannusamy Row, great grand son of Vengadasala Naicker to whom the suit property originally belonged to and also for declaration that the sale deed dated 11.7.1959 executed by Thayanayagy Ammal, the mother of Kannusamy Row, in favour of Vedavalliammale, the first defendant, is null and void, since she has no right legally to alienate. The suit property is a house situated at No. 9/35 Savaripadatchi Street, Nellithope, Pondicherry. It originally belonged to the plaintiff's grand father Vengadasala Naicker. Vengadasala Naicker, as per the Notorial Donation Deed dated 15.12.1896, donated the suit property in favour of his mi...
Nirandaraselvi Vs. the District Magistrate Cum District, Collector and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC112
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The wife of the detenu is the petitioner herein.2. The detenu was detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, for having come to the adverse notice of the detaining authority in three adverse cases under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, apart from the ground case in Crime No. 402 of 2003.3. On the basis of the materials furnished, the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detention of the detenu is necessary in order to protect the public order and health. Therefore, the detention order under Section 3(1) of the Act has been passed. Aggrieved against the detention order, the present writ petition has been filed.4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the relatives of the detenu have not been informed about the detention. On a perusal of the file, it is seen that the relatives of the detenu have been informed immediately after the detention.5. The le...
Manikkundu and anr. Vs. State By, Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC197
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Accused in Sessions Case No. 12/95 on the file of Sessions Judge, South Arcot Vallalar Division, Cuddalore, against the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life, have preferred the above appeal.2. For convenience, the appellants are referred as accused as arrayed in the trial Court. On 23.11.1991 at about 12.00 hours one Paramasivam, Village Administrative Officer, Ezhuthur lodged a complaint that an unknown lady aged about 25 years old was found murdered by cutting her throat and all over her face near Ezhuthur lake, Based on his complaint, a case in Ramanatham Crime No. 394/91 under Section 302, IPC was registered and investigated. After investigation, accused 1 and 2 were charge sheeted for an offence under Section 302 read with 34, IPC. Before the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution has examined 20 witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 20, marked Exs.P-1 to P-30 and M.Os.1 to 19 series in support of their case. Acce...
The Special Deputy Collector (Stamp) Vs. Chemicals and Plastics Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad362; 2004(1)CTC187
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The above Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred respectively as against the judgment and decree dated 21.7.1992 made in CMA.Nos.68 of 1991, 66 of 1991, and 67 of 1991 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, (Appellate Authority), Cuddalore preferred against the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamp papers) Cuddalore,2. Heard Mr. M.C. Swami, Special Government Pleader appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr. R. Saseedharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in all the revision petitions. With the consent of counsel on either side, the revision petitions are taken up for final disposal.3. The appeals were disposed of by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore as early as 21.7.1992. The Revisions were presented during the year 1993 with a delay. After condonation of the delay the revisions were numbered and posted for admission. At that stage, the counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the responden...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sujaya C. Murthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: 2006ACJ1190
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. C.M.A. No. 807 of 1995 has been preferred by National Insurance Co. Ltd. as against the award and decree dated 7.4.1994 made in M.C.O.P. No. 131 of 1990 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Dindigul.C.M.A. No. 808 of 1995 has been preferred by the same National Insurance Co. Ltd. being aggrieved by the award and decree dated 7.4.1994 made in M.C.O.P. No. 132 of 1990 on the file of the same Tribunal.2. C.M.A. No. 1088 of 1994 has been preferred by the claimant Nos. 1 to 4 being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 7.4.1994 made in M.C.O.P. No. 131 of 1990 insofar as the claimants were aggrieved by the finding that the accident has been caused by the car bearing registration No. TAA 3618 by its driver and insofar as the portion of the claim has been disallowed by the Tribunal below.3. C.M.A. No. 1089 of 1994 has been preferred by the claimant Shylaja C. Murthy as against the award and decree dated 7.4.1994 made in M.C.O.P. No. 131...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »