Chennai Court March 2003 Judgments
Mohan Murti Shandilya and Renu Murti Shandilya Vs. the Union of India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC141; [2003]114CompCas482(Mad)
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioners herein have jointly prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to refund all the balance sums with interest payable under Non resident External Fixed Deposit Receipts bearing Nos. 84/RIP/565500 dated 1.12.1989 and ES/RIP/591039 dated 19.12.1989 into the account of the first petitioner in Standard Chartered Bank, Mylapore, Chennai.2. The writ petition is at the stage of notice of motion. The respondents have been served. With the consent of counsel for either side the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.3. Heard Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. M. Muthappan or the petitioner, Mr. S. Ramasurbamaniam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent and none appearing for the third respondent and service on respondents 1 and 4 is not complete.4. The second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. In December 1989, the petitioners made Non Resident External...
Tag this Judgment!T. Kanchana Devi, W/O. Late R. Thirunavukkarasan Vs. R.D. Mani,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1844; (2003)2MLJ42
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Claimant in unnumbered M.C.O.P. of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, aggrieved by the order in I.A. No. 1323 of 2000 dated 2-8-2000, dismissing her petition filed under Section 166(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 24 (3) of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989 to exempt from paying court-fee of Rs. 99,371-50, has filed the above Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. It is seen that in respect of death of one Thirunavukkarasan in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 10-4-2000, his wife, minor children, and parents have prayed for a compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- had filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Cuddalore. Along with the said petition, the claimants filed a petition under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 24 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989 and under Section 151...
Tag this Judgment!N. Janardhanam (Deceased), Vs. Tiruchirapalli Cooperative Building Soc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad142; (2003)2MLJ423
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant.2. The plaintiff's suit is one for permanent injunction.3. The plaintiff's case is that the suit property originally belonged to one Rajamani Devadoss, who had mortgaged the same to the 1st defendant and he having defaulted to discharge the mortgage debt, the 1st defendant took steps for realisation of the amount, under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act to pass an award in ARC. No. 139/1970-71 and an award was passed on 23.8.1971. Pursuant to the same, EP. No. 24/1972-73 was filed before the Regional Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing) Cuddalore and the property was brought to sale in public auction and the plaintiff purchased the property in the public auction held on 24.1.1974. The plaintiff filed EA. No. 1317/1975 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Trichy and took possession of the property through court on 5.11.1975. After taking possession, he made improvements at heavy cost. As such, the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. A. Palaniswamy Vs. G. Nachiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3332; 2003(2)CTC562
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This petition has been filed praying to call for the records in S.T.R. Case No. 1870 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Karaikal, Pondicherry, and quash the same.2. The averments of the petition are that the petitioner is employed as Medical Officer in the ONGC dispensary at Karaikal; that on 14.9.2002, while he was on duty at the dispensary, the respondent herein along with her husband, viz., Ganesh @ Arunachalam abused him by mentioning his caste name, attacked him on his left cheek and head since he had not sanctioned the respondent's overtime claim as she was working only for five hours a day and six days a week, which is not within the ONGC Rules to sanction her overtime; that immediately thereafter, he lodged a complaint before the P.C.R. Cell, Karaikal, and the complaint was registered in FIR No. 2/2002 for an offence punishable under Section 7(1)(e) of the PCR Act r/w. Section 332 r/w. 34 IPC; that in the said case, the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Ancillaries Private Limited, Rep. by Its Managing Director S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad416; (2003)2MLJ56
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The appellant viz., Southern Ancillaries Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director, filed a suit in O.S. No.47 of 1983 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallore, against the respondent herein, praying the Court to pass a decree for a sum of Rs.1,45,790.99 with interest on Rs.1,28,450.24 at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. The respondent-defendant in A.S. No.873 of 1988 made a counter claim contending that the plaintiff is liable to pay to it a total sum of Rs.3,61,329.35 along with interest at 19% p.a. from 3.4.1981 for the delay in making payments. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge, after trial, held that,{a} the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,45,790.99 and interest at 6% p.a. on Rs.1,28,450.24 from the date of suit till realisation; {b} the plaintiff, out of the amounts due to the defendant viz., Rs.3,61,329.35, to deduct Rs.17,340/- and pay the balance; and {c} on the principal sum of Rs.71,111.30, the...
Tag this Judgment!Nagammal Vs. the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4677
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. The appellant in this appeal was tried in S.C. No. 42 of 1999 on the file of Court of Sessions, Perambalur for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. (two counts). On being found guilty, she stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on each count and the sentences are directed to run concurrently. It is that conviction, which is in challenge in this appeal. Heard the learned counsel on either side. There are two deceased in this case namely, Keppagounder and Karupayee. Karupayee is the mother of Keppagounder. Keppagounder is the husband of the accused. P.W.13 is the son of the accused and Keppagounder. For convenience sake, in this judgment, we will hereinafter refer to both the deceased as D.1 and D.2. 2. The case of the prosecution is that by mixing Nitrite poison in milk, the accused gave the same to D.1 and D.2, who after drinking the same became sick. Out of the two, Keppagounder (D.1) died on the spot. Karupayee (D.2) was taken to the hospital of P.W...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Dalmia Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Detective Department,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: [2003]114CompCas530(Mad); 2004CriLJ452; [2004]52SCL27(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Dinesh Dalmia, promoter of DSQ Software Limited in Writ Petition No. 44701 of 2002, challenges FIR No. 476 dated 24-9-2002 on the file of the Sub Inspector, Detective Department, Central Kolkata, third respondent herein in so far as it concerns him. In Writ Petition No. 44714 of 2002 the very same petitioner challenges FIR bearing No. 300 dated 23-9-2001 on the file of the same respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 44701 of 2002 is briefly stated hereunder:According to him, M/s DSQ Software Limited was promoted by him at Chennai in the year 1993. The main object of the company was the preparation and export of software products. It was ranked one of the leading Software companies in the country. Its earnings were in foreign exchange. It has valuable customers, many of whom are Fortune 500 companies. In the year 2000, when the software market was at its peak, with a view to expand its activities further, it embarked on the purchase of ov...
Tag this Judgment!Subbammal Vs. Paramasivam Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC419
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J.1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. O.S.No. 457 of 1995 is filed by him for declaration and for permanent injunction restraining the second defendant from interfering with his possession of the suit properties.2. At the stage of trial, after the examination of plaintiff's side was completed, the defendant wanted to examine himself. The defendant chose to file an affidavit under Order J 8, Rule 4 CPC (inserted by Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 1.7.2002), by virtue of which, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit.3. The petitioner objecting to the said course filed a petition under Order 18, Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure to delete the proof affidavit and to direct the chief examination of the defendant to be taken in the court. The said application was dismissed by the Learned District Munsif, Ambasamudram. The present Revision is filed against the said order.4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the amended provision ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: [2004]266ITR219(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessment year is 1981-82.2. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1981-82 ?'3. The Commissioner and the Tribunal, disagreeing with the Assessing Officer, have held that penalty was not leviable for the assessment year 1981-82. The Revenue being aggrieved, has obtained reference of the question as to whether the Tribunal was right in cancelling that penalty.4. The premises of the assessee were searched on August 1, 1985, after which he filed returns for the years 1978-79 to 1986-87. For the assessment year 1983-84, penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer, which was set aside on appeal. No reference was sought from that order of the Tribunal. The proceedings initiated to levy penalty were after ah assessment was made for that year on the ba...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)409; [2004]266ITR685(Mad)
R. Jaysimha Babu, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the rental receipts derived from letting out of properties should be assessed under the head 'Business'?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expenses incurred for the purpose of letting out of the properties should be allowed as 'business expenditure ?'2. The assessment years are 1979-80, 1983-84 and 1984-85. The assessee owns two buildings in the city of Chennai, 'Chennai House' and 'Firhavan Estates' and received rental income by letting out those buildings. The AO declined to assess that rental income under the head 'income from business' and assessed the same under the head 'income from property'. The CIT(A), having allowed the assessee's appeal, the Revenue carried the matter to the Appellate Tri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »