Chennai Court March 2003 Judgments
M. Veerateswaran Vs. the Deputy Collector Cum Sub-divisional Executive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC449; (2003)2MLJ578
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The prayer is for a Mandamus to forbear respondents 1 to 3 from giving permission to the fifth respondent for the purpose of playing microphone in a private temple within the premises bearing Door No. 64 Nehru Street, Karaikal, Union Territory of Pondicherry, on the following allegations:The fifth respondent, a resident of Karaikal, had purchased the property at Door No. 64, Nehru Street, and illegally put up a construction and using it as Kalyana Mandapam. He had not obtained a sanctioned plan. The plan originally sanctioned has no connection whatsoever with the construction put up by him. The petitioner has complained to the authorities and they have also initiated legal action to prosecute the fifth respondent. The said construction adjoins the petitioner's compound wall. The fifth respondent has installed an Amman statue. During December and January, he secured permission from respondents 1 to 3 and played music through microphone at odd hours causing immense ...
Tag this Judgment!Embar Naidu Vs. Rathnam Chettair and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC385; (2003)2MLJ115
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No. 774 of 1984 dated 16.8.1999 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court.2. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance. The first defendant, who is the appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') is the owner of the property. According to the plaintiff, on 23.2.1975, the appellant in the appeal has agreed to sell the suit property to one Gopal Chettiar, who is the second respondent herein, the second defendant in the suit, free from all encumbrances for a consideration of Rs. 53,000 and he also received a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards advance on that day. It was agreed that the balance of sale consideration should be paid by Gopal Chettiar within a period of six months. As per the plaint averments, Gopal Chettiar was always ready and willing to pay the balance of sale price and get the sale deed executed and he approached the appellant for th...
Tag this Judgment!Latha C. Mohan Vs. Cavinkar Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC498(Mad)
A. Kulasekaran, J. 1. Application No. 197 of 2003 has been filed praying this Court to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents from passing off their cosmetic goods, inclusive of half care goods by using the trade name Kanya. 2. The applicant/plaintiff has filed the above said suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants and their men from infringing or adopting or using the plaintiffs registered trade mark Kanya bearing Trade Mark No. 703898; for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from in any manner passing off their goods as that of plaintiffs by using the plaintiffs trade name Kanya etc. 3. The case of the applicant is that the applicant has been running the business of beauty parlour in the name and style of Kanya since December 1981, which was also registered under Trade and Merchandise Act to cater to the needs of women with respect to grooming skin care and hair care; that the applicant has been running nine Kanya out...
Tag this Judgment!M. Moncharan Vs. C. Venkatesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4326
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner Who is the fourth accused in C.C. No. 656 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tiruppur has come forward to file the above Criminal Original Petition seeking to call for the records in the said calendar case and quash the same on averments such as that the first accused in the complaint filed by the respondent before the Magistrate is a partnership firm of which the petitioner and accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the complaint are partners; that the firm was constituted in 1991; that clauses 8, 9 and 10 of the partnership deed contemplated that M. Rajendran and M. Baskaran shall be the Managing partners; that the managing partners have powers to open bank accounts; that they have also got powers to borrow additional funds required for the purposes of the business; that partnership firm is carried on in accordance with the partnership deed; that the right from the constitution of the firm, the second and the third accused are in ch...
Tag this Judgment!Subbanna Gounder (Deceased), Vs. Subbayammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad437; (2003)2MLJ231
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. The first defendant is the appellant herein. 2. This appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Erode granting a decree for specific performance in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff.3. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is as follows:The 2nd defendant is the only son of the 1st defendant, and they are members of Hindu joint family. The suit survey field is the ancestral property of the defendants 1 and 2, who are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. On 9.12.1980, a written agreement for sale was executed by the defendants 1 and 2 agreeing to sell half share in the suit property for Rs.45,000/- to the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.7,500/-. Since the sale transaction could not be completed, another agreement of sale was made on 2.6.1981, and it was also registered. The said advance amount was taken over as part of the advance for the agreement dated 2.6.1981. The defendants 1...
Tag this Judgment!The Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Vs. Narendra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ135
S. Jagadeesan, J. 1. These appeals are arising out of the award of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani dated 23.2.2001 in LAOP. Nos. 6 & 7 of 1996. An extent of 102.51.0 hectares of the land in Balasamudram village and an extent of 63.83.5 hectares of the land in Pudachu village at Palani Taluk were acquired for the construction of Palar-Porunthalaru Dam. 2. Originally, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition was issued on 19.1.1972. The possession of the land admittedly was taken by the appellants on 1.3.1972. Subsequent to the taking of possession, the appellants allowed the Notification under Section 4(1) issued on 19.1.1972 to lapse. Once again, Notification under Section 4(1) was issued under the Land Acquisition Act afresh on 11.9.1990. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 10.2.1993 determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.6881/=. Not satisfied with the said compensation, the respondents sought for a Reference under Section 18 of the Lan...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh and Nagendran Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ70
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Nagendran and Ramesh are accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in Sessions Case No. 316/1998 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Court, Chennai and they have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and each were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence under Section 341 I.P.C. The other accused A.3 and A.4 were acquitted.2. The facts leading to conviction, are as follows:-a) P.W.1 Prema and P.W.3 Sheela are the daughters of Stanley Shanmugam, the deceased in this case. The deceased Stanley Shanmugam was residing at No. 55, Ist Street, C-Kalyanapuram, Vyasarpadi. The accused 1 to 4 are the residents of the same area. The said Stanley Shanmugam was running a brandy shop, under the name and style of 'Balaji Wines'. A1 Nagendran demanded rowdy mamool from one Venkatesan, the Manager of th...
Tag this Judgment!R. James Vs. Assistant Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC269; 2004ACJ918
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 601 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Tiruvallur, aggrieved by the order dated 15.4.2002 made in I.A. No. 204 of 2002 in M.C.O.P. No. 601 of 1999 directing the petitioner-injured to subject himself before the Medical Board with regard to his injuries and disability, has filed the above revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent insurance company.3. The petitioner has filed M.C.O.P. No. 601 of 1999 claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 in respect of grievous injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 30.3.1999. The respondent insurance company filed a written statement disputing the claim of the petitioner.4. Pending O.P., the respondent insurance company filed I.A. No. 204 of 2002 seeking direction to examine the claimant by the Medical Board, Chennai. The learned Subordinate Judge, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ansaldo Engergia S.P.A. a Company Registered Under the Laws of Italy, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Mad)88; [2003]261ITR476(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. Petitioner is a foreign company registered in Italy. The petitioner had entered into contracts with Neyveli Lignite Corporation, the second respondent. It is claimed that the contracts were on Turnkey basis for implementation of a comprehensive Power Project for the second respondent. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits under Section 44BBB of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and on that basis application for an order under Section 197 of the Act was made and on the basis of such application, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax by order dated 9.3.1999 and 29.4.1999 authorised the second respondent to deduct tax at 5%. The certificates issued were valid till 31.3.1999 and 31.3.2000 respectively. The similar certificates for the subsequent financial years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 were granted as requested by the petitioner. In the last such certificate dated 1.5.2002 it was indicated t...
Tag this Judgment!Jayachandran Vs. Neelakanta Reddiar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ295
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein.2. A judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore dismissing the suit for partition filed by the appellant/plaintiff in respect of the plaint A and B Schedule properties and also in respect of the claim for past mesne profits is under challenge. 3. The appellant/plaintiff sought for a preliminary decree for partition of the plaint Schedule properties on the following grounds:The plaintiff, who was born on 10.2.1953, is the undivided son of the first defendant, while the second defendant is his mother. The plaintiff and the first defendant are members of the joint family. All the suit properties in plaint A, B and C Schedule except a few originally belonged to his grandfather Sadasiva Reddiar. Sadasiva Reddiar obtained most of the properties for his share in the partition between him and his brother. The suit properties are all ancestral joint family properties belonging to the plaintiff and his father first defendant....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »