Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(2)CTC641
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. The reference is by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin, under Section 366(1) Cr.P.C. Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2003 is by A4 and A9, Criminal Appeal No. 327 of 2003 is by A5 and A6, Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 2003 is by A7 and A10, Criminal Appeal No. 329 is by A12 and Criminal Appeal No. 338 of 2003 is by Al, A2, A3, A8, A11, A13 and A17, in Sessions Case No. 377 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin. In this judgment, the appellants will be referred to in the same order as they were arrayed before the learned Sessions Judge, for the sake of convenience. The appellants were tried along with 15 others, who were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge and in this judgment, the acquitted accused, A14 to A16 and A18 to 29, will also be referred to in the same order as they were arrayed before the learned Sessions Judge. Since the above appeals and the refe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)IIILLJ416Mad; (2003)2MLJ349
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Kumbakonam Milk Supply Cooperative Society through its Secretary, aggrieved by the order dated 28-02-1994, made in E.S.I.O.P. No. 33/87 on the file of the District Judge, Thanjavur, has filed the above appeal under Section 82(2) of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. 2. According to the appellant, it is a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and their main object is to purchase milk from its members and to sell the same. The said work was being done for the last 45 years. While so, on 14-5-85, a memo was issued claiming Rs. 87,101/- towards E.S.I. contribution for the period between 1-4-79 and 31-12-84. Again, on 26-5-86 it received another notice demanding Rs. 1,11,488.40 towards E.S.I. contribution. It is further stated that on receipt of the said notices, the appellant sent a reply stating that it is a society and not an industry, that no manufacturing process is being carried out and that the persons working in the society are not emplo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)186CTR(Mad)289
1. In this appeal, the substantial question of law which falls for consideration is:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant was not entitled to interest u/s. 214 of the Income-tax Act?' 2. Though the said question of law is very broadly worded and does not display the real controversy, the appeal has been entertained probably because of the following facts:The assessee filed the estimates for the purpose of paying the advance tax under Section 209A(3),(4) and (5). It is obvious from the language of Section 214(1) that where the payments made by way of the instalments of the advance tax is more than the actual tax liability which is ultimately found out, the excess payment made by way of advance tax would carry interest at the rate of 15%. It is innate that for this, the assessee has to file an estimate of advance tax under Section 209A(3) or (4) of the Act. When we see the estimates in this ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(2)ARBLR582(Madras); (2003)2MLJ460
1. Seethalakshmi Ammal, wife of A.T. Ramaswamy Naicker is the appellant in the above appeals. C.M.A. No. 425/1991 is directed against the order passed in O.P. No. 3/1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur dated 3-5-1988. The very same appellant has filed C.M.A. No. 426/1991 questioning the order passed in O.P.No. 2/1981 of the same Court dated 3-5-1988.2. In respect of disputes between Ganapathyammal, Seethammal and Rengammal on the one side and A.T. Ramasamy Naicker on the other, and in view of pendency of civil matters in the High Court as well as the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, the parties have agreed to resolve the same by way of arbitration; accordingly Justice Mr. A. Alagiriswamy, Retired Judge of the Supreme Court, was appointed as arbitrator. The matters referred to the arbitrator are:1.Giving effect to the decree in A.S. No. 214 and 462 of 1961 of the High Court of Madras and C.R.P. Nos. 913 and 3148/72 pending in the High Court;2. S.A.865 of 1971 p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)2MLJ722
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit for specific performance of the contract of same in respect of the agreement executed by the defendant and the said suit was decreed on 29.1.1986. Pursuant to the sale, the plaintiff applied for execution in E.P. No. 293/1986 and the Executing Court also ordered, execution of the sale deed. The petitioner/plaintiff furnished necessary stamp papers for the execution of the sale deed and the sale deed was also presented before the Sub-Registrar Office at Ambathur by the concerned clerk of the Court on 20.7.1993. At that time, it was found that the survey number furnished was the survey number of the village and the correct survey number is that 204/1C1B4. Thereafter, the plaintiff verified the revenue records and found, what was given in the plaint was only the village survey number and the correct survey number is 204/1C1B4. Immediately, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment under Order 6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(2)CTC710
J U D G M E N T Heard. I - DETAILS OF THE JUDGMENT UNDER CHALLENGE 2.1. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their rank before the trial Court. 2.2. The appellants in these appeals are fourth, second, third and first accused respectively in S.C.No.25 of 1993 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Madras. 2.3. The appellants are convicted and sentenced by judgment dated 27 .4.1995 in S.C.No.25 of 1993, as follows. (i) the first accused therein (appellant in C.A.No.551/95) was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 489-A, 489-C and 489-D IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the said offence; and also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489-C IPC and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment for the same; and directed both the sentences to run concurrently; (ii) the second accused (appellant in C....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)2MLJ487
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. All the writ petitioners are, admittedly, ex-servicemen who after their discharge from defence service joined in the Central Electro Chemical Research Institute (CECRI), Karaikudi, except in the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 7772 of 1998, who during his service in the Central Electro Chemical Research Institute (CECRI), Karaikudi was transferred to Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI), Chennai. Concededly, both the Central Electro Chemical Research Institute (CECRI) and Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI) are a constituent unit of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, and the fact remains that some of the writ petitioners have retired on superannuation and some of them continue to be in service.2. Even though the petitioners were paid Dearness Relief on pension, as per their service in the defence, the said Dearness Relief on pension was subsequently recovered quoting Rule 55A(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(2)CTC526; (2003)2MLJ756
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J. 1. The defendants in O.S.No. 50 of 1983 are the appellants in A.S. No. 441 of 1986 and A.S.No. 977 of 1994. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 9 of 1984 is the appellant in Tr.A.S.No. 756 of 1988. 2. The suit for partition and separate possession, O.S. No. 50 of 1983 was decreed and final decree was passed, against which two appeals, viz. A.S. Nos. 441 of 1986 and 977 of 1994 are preferred by the defendants in the said suit. The suit for a declaration of title and for permanent injunction, O.S. No. 9 of 1984 was dismissed, against which the other appeal, viz. Tr. A.S. No. 756 of 1988 is preferred by the plaintiff in the said suit. 3. The genealogy of the members of the family is shown hereunder: Devanna Gounder X Arukkani Ammal (Died-1932) (Died-1947) _______________________________________________________________________________ | | | Palanisamy x poornamal Pappathiammal Karundevi Gounder x Kaliammal (Died-1974)D-2(50/83) D-6(50/83) D-1(9/84) p-3(50/83) (Died-2000) (Die...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(3)CTC81; (2003)2MLJ316
ORDERP. Thangavel, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the landlord as revision petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 3.12.1996 and made in R.C.A. No. 8 of 1994 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruchirapalli reversing the order and decretal order dated 25.11.1993 and made in R.C.O.P. No. 165 of 1987 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli. 2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:- The revision petitioner is the landlord of the demised premises described in the Rent Control Original Petition which is a portion of Door No. 66 in Big Sowrashtra Street, Woraiyur, Tiruchy Town. The respondents herein are the tenants of the demised premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 85/-. The respondents herein have committed wilful default in payment of rent from February, 1987. The son of the revision petitioner, who is a graduate, is doing lottery ticket business and the demised p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)859; III(2003)BC479; 2003CriLJ4660; 2003(3)CTC202
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This petition has been filed praying to call for the records in C.C. No. 852 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. I, Coimbatore and quash the same, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.2. The averments of the petition are that the first petitioner is the sister and the second petitioner is her minor brother; that her father and mother were running a Partnership firm under the name and style of 'Sreevari Engineering Traders'; that both the petitioners have admitted the benefits of the aforesaid partnership; that it appears that her father gave a cheque to the respondent herein drawn on The Karur Vysya Bank, Oppanakkara Street, Coimbatore in the year 1998, which was a blank cheque given by way of security and not towards the discharge of any lawful debt or obligation; that the cheque was drawn by the Partnership Firm, represented by her father; that after 2000, her father did not operate the account any more and the account became unused...
Tag this Judgment!