Chennai Court March 2003 Judgments
Tvl. City Tower Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer, Moore ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: [2003]131STC317(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider and pass order on the letter dated 18.9.2002 and 9.10.2002 in accordance with the decision of the High Court in (2002) 127 STC 504.2. Even if the prayer appears to be innocuous and prima facie there is no difficulty in giving a direction to the first respondent to consider the letter and pass orders, in view of the contentions raised by both the counsels appearing for the parties and particularly the counsel appearing for the respondents, it is necessary to delve into the matter in some detail.3. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No. 35465 of 2002 for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to issue C forms as per the various letters of request. The said writ petition was disposed of on 13.9.2002 with a direction to the respondent to consider the representations and to take appropriate action in accordance with law within one week from the date of receipt...
Tag this Judgment!Poojarani Alias Adilakshmi Vs. Krishna Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ90
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The unsuccessful 2nd defendant in both the courts below is the appellant in SA. No. 1825/1989.2. The plaintiff in OS. No. 785/1985, before the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore, who has partly succeeded in the trial court, has preferred SA. No. 121/1990.3. The plaintiff's suit is one for declaration of his right and for recovery of possession and for damages and future profits.4. The case of the plaintiff is that one Narayanasami Reddiar and Rangappa Reddiar were brothers and the suit property belonged to them. Narayanasami Reddiar's son is Sadasiva Reddiar and Rangappa Reddiar's son is Kumarasami. Kumarasami had a son, Subbaroyalu and a daughter, Nagammal @ Kamalatchi. Sadasiva and Kumarasami partitioned their properties on 16.2.1916, in which, the property set out in the Schedule 'B' was allotted to Kumarasami and to his minor son Subbaroyalu. Kumarasami Reddiar had executed a settlement deed of certain properties in favour of his daughter on 12.10.1919, by whic...
Tag this Judgment!S. JarlIn Prinso, W/O R. Selvaraj Vs. the Director of Government Exami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad414
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The prayer is for a mandamus to the first respondent to issue duplicate Diploma Certificate of Teacher Training Course bearing Registration No. 12262/88 to the petitioner.2. The case as set out in the affidavit in support of the writ petition is as follows:The writ petitioner passed her S.S.L.C. in April, 1986. She joined Diploma in Teacher Training Course in 1986 in St. Antony's Teacher Training Institute for Women, Panagudi, Tirunelveli, and completed the Course in 1988 and passed the examination conducted by the first respondent in April, 1988 with Registration No. 12262. She has got her mark sheet issued by the first respondent dated 3-10-1988 to prove the same. She was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in a leave vacancy from 21-2-1989 to 20-4-1989 in the aided R.C. School of Ilankulam Parish. The leave vacancy appointment was approved by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nanguneri Range, by order dated 8-5-1989. She was also paid salary. She was further ...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Tahsildar (La), Krishna Water Supply Project Unit-3 Vs. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ781
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. The State of Tamilnadu in their Order Ms. No. 1428/PWD dated 2.7.1983 accorded sanction for the acquisition of lands required for raising full reservoir level of Poondi Reservoir under Krishna Water Supply Project. Following that, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Krishna Water Supply Project, Chepauk, Madras - 5, in his letter dated 30.1.1985 sent the requisition in the form prescribed for the acquisition of land measuring 49.61 acres of wet lands in Thomur village, Tiruvallur Taluk, Chengalpet District. Pursuant to that, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of wet lands for an extent of 48.83 acres in survey No. 226/1/Part, etc., was approved in G.O.Ms. No. 700/PWD, dated 13.5.1985 and duly published in the Government Gazette dated 29.5.1985. An enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was duly conducted, in which all the parties concerned participated. Finally, a draft declarat...
Tag this Judgment!Alamelu Ammal and E.G. Durairajan Vs. Govindasamy Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ99
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The 1st appellant is the plaintiff and the 2nd appellant was ordered to be impleaded.2. The plaintiff's suit is one for declaration and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff's case is that the suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff's father, Natesa Pillai, who had three daughters, viz. (1) Ponnammal, (2) Visalakshi and (3) Alamelu, the plaintiff herein. Natesa Pillai died in 1976. The plaintiff and her eldest sister Visalakshi partitioned the properties, left by Natesa Pillai, as per the compromise decree passed in OS. No. 41 of 1976, on the file of the Sub Court, Chingleput, where under, the properties are divided as follows:-S.NoSurvey No. VisalakshiPlaintiff1S. No. 226/20.50 Cents out of 1 acre 89 cents1.39 acres2S. No. 226/2Well & 3 HP Motor, Pumpset and Service connection 1/3rd2/3rd3S. No. 239/30--46 cents out of 0--92 cents0--46 cent4S. No. 239/40--33 cents out of 0--66 cents0--33 centsNatesa Pillai's eldest daughter Ponnammal and her son Radh...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: R. Raghupathy and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC38; (2003)2MLJ290
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Nagapattinam in Trust O.P.No.38 of 1995.2. The said Original Petition was filed by the petitioner/Trust represented by its hereditary Trustees. With reference to 'Mandagapadi' on the second day of Vidayathi festival of Sri Rajagopalaswamy temple, Mannargudi, a Trust was created by the plaintiffs/Trustees. The ancestors of the Trustees had constructed a bungalow mentioned as 'A' Schedule property. The idol of Sri Rajagopalaswamy is brought and a Mandagapadi is conducted by their family. The festival involves considerable expenses. One K.R. Raghunatha Rao and K.R. Ramachandra Rao, two brothers, the predecessors of the present Trustees, were interested in providing for the above 'Mandagapadi' and in order to perform the same regularly and permanently and to provide funds and income had set apart some properties for the Trust. They therefore, earmarked plaint 'A' schedule property for...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavir Mirror Industries, Rep. by Its Proprietor and anr. Vs. the Des ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC333; 2003(89)ECC35; 2003(155)ELT226(Mad); (2003)2MLJ250
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Though the matter was listed for considering the petition filed by the second respondent (interim order of stay) by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition, itself was heard on merit, along with the other two writ petitions raising similar questions where the very same learned counsels are appearing for the writ petitioners and the respondents.2. In all these writ petitions, the prayer has been made for quashing the preliminary findings dated 20.11.2002 under the proceedings No. 14/19/2002-DGAD. It has been further prayed that Rule 7 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') as illegal and unconstitutional.3. Section 9-A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 hereinafter called as 'the Act' empowers the Central Government to impose Anti-Dumping Duty on any article exported from any country in to Ind...
Tag this Judgment!T. Raghavan, Advocate, Executor and Legal Representative of T.H. Tarap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Mad)179; 2003LC1048(Madras); 2003(158)ELT569(Mad); [2003]262ITR257(Mad)
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.2.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'C' (first respondent) in ITA Nos. 562 & 563/Mds/1978-79.3. It is unnecessary to notice the chequered history of this case. In Tax Case Nos. 587 & 588 of 1984, some questions were referred to the High Court at the instance of the Revenue and were answered by the High Court in Judgment dated 24.6.2002. Thereafter under the impugned order, the first respondent has passed the order allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue and dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.4. The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is to the effect that before dealing with the appeals, the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal should have given opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner. It is contended that under Section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, before deciding the appeal, it...
Tag this Judgment!Pasumai Irrigation Limited, a Company registered under the Companies A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC86; 2003(2)CTC270
ORDER1. The petitioner, praying to call for the records in C.C.No.4628 of 2000 on the file of the Court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the same, has come forward to file the above criminal original petition on averments such as that the petitioner is a limited company doing business in drip irrigation system and more than 150 persons are working in the company; that during the course of business, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.25 lakhs from the respondent and subsequently, it was repaid with interest, but the respondent, with fraudulent intention and to harass the petitioner, filed an application under Section 439(1)(b) read with Section 433(e) and (f) and 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act before this Court in Company Petition No. 529 of 2000 for winding up of the petitioners company, which is pending.2. The petitioner would further submit that suppressing the fact of filing of C.P. 529 of 2000 before this Court, the respondent filed a private complain...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Rathinam, W/O Ravi Vs. A.S. Ponnammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ411
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us, and her three sisters are defendants in the suit brought by her for partition of the properties of one Chinnasamy Kudumban who passed away in the year 1982. The properties mentioned in several schedules to the plaint were claimed by the plaintiff to be belonging to the joint family of the said Chinnasamy Kudumban, some of them being ancestral. Defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement denied that assertion except as regards items 3 and 4 in A schedule and item 12 in B schedule which stood in the name of the father and claimed that all other properties belonging to them had been acquired by them through their husbands.2. The plaintiff did not produce any documentary evidence, nor did she set out the manner in which the deceased Kudumban had acquired the properties. The only material before the Court was the deposition of the plaintiff which did not throw any further light regarding the title of the said Kudumban to t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »