Chennai Court August 2003 Judgments
Smt. Ritu Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Mad)354; [2004]271ITR466(Mad)
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. In all the three writ petitions, the point which is taken by the petitioners/assessees is the violation of principles of natural justice.2. Heard both sides. Considering the fact that no opportunity has been given to the petitioners, which is apparent on the face of the record, the writ petitions are taken up for final hearing.3. By notice dt. 30th March, 2000, which was served on the petitioners/ assesses only in the afternoon, the assessees have been directed to forward their comments so as to reach the office by 10.30 a.m. on 31st March, 2000. But, there was no sufficient time for the assessees to prepare their replies and (sic).However, by an order passed on the very next day, the assessment was completed.4. It is true that an appeal was also filed before the appellate authority and the appellate authority has also dismissed the appeal. However, considering the fact that the assessees have not been given proper opportunity to submit their reply, there is ...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Baskaran, Proprietor of Sri Amman Leathers Vs. Indian Finance and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad54; I(2004)BC256; 2003(4)CTC218
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. 1. In Application No. 3150 of 2003, the applicant has sought for revoking the leave granted to the respondent/plaintiff in order dated 11.10.1999 in Application No. 3582 of 1999.Application No. 281 of 2003 was earlier filed by him seeking for a direction to the Registry to return the plaint to the plaintiff to be presented before the Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.2. The applicant is the first defendant in the suit and the suit has been filed under Order 31, Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules read with Order 34, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,54,443 together with interest and in default, to sell the properties mortgaged. According to the applicant, a suit pertaining to foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of mortgage or charge upon immovable property under Section 16-C, C.P.C as well as under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdicti...
Tag this Judgment!Bakiyalakshmi and ors. Vs. Alamelu (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ383
P. Shanmugam, J.1. Defendants- 1 to 6 and 8 are the appellants. The suit filed by the respondents for specific performance has been decreed. The appeal is against this judgment and decree.2. The parties are described as per their rankings in the suit.3. The brief facts are as follows:Defendants-1 to 4 are owners of the property, house and ground at No. 137, Sivanandha Nagar Co-operative Colony, Tatabad, Coimbatore. They were residing in the said premises. They have entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs dated 21.12.1994 for sale of this property for a total consideration of Rs. 18, 00, 000/- and received an advance of Rs. 2, 00, 000/- on the date of the agreement. The defendants have planned to settle down at Visakhapattinam, and for certain other family reasons, the defendants agreed to sell the property and leave Coimbatore. The defendants made it clear to the plaintiffs that they will require two months' time after full payment of sale price and after registration of the sale...
Tag this Judgment!V. Maria Pushpa Janet Rajam, Mentally Unsound, Represented by Her Fath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC577; (2003)3MLJ305
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The appeal is directed against the common order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil dated 30.8.2001, made in O.P.Nos. 21/2001 and 32/2001 in and by which the District Judge dismissed O.P.No. 21/2001 filed for judicial separation under Section 22 of the Indian Marriage Act and allowed O.P.No. 32/2001 granting custody of the minor children in favour of the applicant, namely G. Anantha Jeyakumar, respondent in this appeal. Since the present appeal is directed only against the order granting custody of the minor children made in O.P.No. 32/2001, it is unnecessary for us to narrate the facts relating to O.P.No.21/2001.2. The case of the petitioner-husband is briefly stated hereunder:For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the District Court. According to the petitioner, the marriage between him and the respondent-wife was performed on 3.9.87 at Saint Antony's R.C. Church, Anthoniar Vattom, Thiruvithamcode as per Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Subbiah Pillai (Died) and ors. Vs. M.A. Thirunavukkarasu Pillai (Died) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ396
R. Banumathi, J.1. S.A. No. 256 of 1983: This Second Appeal is directed against the common Judgment and decree (dated 21.01.1983) in A.S. No. 10 of 1981 of District Court, Tiruchirapalli, which arose out of the common Judgment and decree in O.S. No. 962 of 1974 of Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli (dated 10.12.1979).S.A. No. 1636 of 1985: This Second Appeal is preferred against the common Judgment and decree (dated 21.01.1983) in A.S. No. 87 of 1981 of District Court, Tiruchirapalli, which arose out of the common judgment and decree in O.S. No. 392 of 1975 of Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli (dated 10.12.1979).2. Before we refer to the facts and the main grounds urged, it is necessary to refer to certain earlier proceedings. For convenience, parties are referred as in their original rank in O.S. No. 392 of 1975. Unsuccessful plaintiff, who lost his case before the Lower Appellate Court, is the present appellant. Due to the death of the respondents, earlier both the Second Appeals 256 of 1983 and 163...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Natesan (Died) and ors. Vs. Pandari Narayanan (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ507
P. Shanmugam, J.1. Defendants are the appellants. The suit for a declaration that the plaint schedule properties belong to the plaintiffs as service inam lands and for a direction to the defendants to put the plaintiffs in possession of the same was decreed as prayed for by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge and the appeal is against this judgment and decree.2. The brief facts of the case are stated below. The parties are described as per their rankings before the trial court. 3. The plaint schedule land bearing Survey No. 403 of Idaripatti Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District of an extent of 318.28 acres was granted in inam to the ancestors of the plaintiffs for rendering Pandari service in Sri Kallalagar Temple, Alagarkoil, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. The said inam consists of supplying flowers and garlands of flowers for the worship in Sri Kallalagar Temple. According to the plaintiffs, the land is a minor inam granted for religious service and as such, inalienable and the...
Tag this Judgment!Kousalya Educational Trust Rep. by Its Chairman Kumaran K. Pandiyan Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ393
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. The aforesaid Revision was filed on 25.7.2002 against the order dated 8.7.2002 in I.A. No. 160 of 2002 in O.S. No. 3 of 2001, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, rejecting the application of the petitioner for being impleaded as a party.2. The suit was filed by the present respondent No. 1 against the respondents 2 & 3 for a direction to the defendants not to restrain the plaintiff from taking part in the General Body Meeting of the Pandiyan Educational Trust and for directing them to convene the General Body of the Pandiyan Trust. During pendency of the aforesaid suit, the present petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C for being impleaded as third defendant in the suit. Such application was resisted by all the parties to the suit and ultimately rejected by the trial court by order dated 8.7.2002.3. Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code has been recently amended. The relevant provision as contained in Section 115(1) is extracted...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation Ltd. (Now ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR1031]
P.K. Misra, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Management against the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in Industrial Dispute No. 476/95, setting aside the order of dismissal of respondent No. 2 from the service and directing that fresh appointment should be made. 2. Respondent No. 2 was working under Cheran Transport Corporation from 1981 till February 1991 and thereafter he was transferred to work under the present petitioner. Subsequently, a charge memo was issued on 22.2.1992 alleging that he had received Rs. 34/- from two passengers and issued two tickets bearing Nos. 46064 and 46065. He has indicated in the ticket that Rs. 5/- has been received towards luggage and thus misappropriated a sum of Rs. 12/- for himself. Respondent No. 2 denied the charge and subsequently a domestic enquiry was held. Having found guilty in the domestic enquiry, after issuing second show cause, respondent No. 2 was dismissed from service on 1.6.1992. Appeal filed b...
Tag this Judgment!Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd., (Through Its M.D.) Vs. Regional P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ663Mad
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. Petitioner is Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd. (a Government of Tamil Nadu Enterprise). The writ petition has been filed questioning the order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund, Madurai, dated January 19, 1996, and the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madurai, dated April 17, 1996. By those orders, the petitioner Corporation was directed to reckon the incentives paid to the employees for provident fund and remit the dues.2. Following are the few facts that are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition:The petitioner-Corporation is engaged in transportation of coal by sea and unloading the coal in Tuticorin for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to generate power for the supply of electricity. The Corporation comes under the purview of 'transport for carriage of goods by water' under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act).3. The applicability...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal and ors. Vs. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC584
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. C.A.No.287 of 1995 is by A-1 to A-3 and A-5, and C.A.No.343 of 1995 is by A-4 both in S.C.No.41 of 1994 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Madras.2. In the judgment, the appellants in C.A.287/95 will be referred to as A-1 to A-3 and A-5, and the appellant in C.A.343/95 will be referred to as A-4 in the same order as they were arrayed before the learned Sessions Judge for the sake of convenience.3. As the two appeals arise out of a single Sessions Case, we pass the following common judgment in the above two appeals.4. The allegation against A-1 to A-5 is that at 7,30 p.m. on 15.4.1992, they conspired in the house of A-5 to cause the death of Dellibabu, and in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by them, A-1 and A-2 cut the deceased at about 5.15 a.m. on 16.4.92 at Parasurama Eswara West Maada Street with aruvals and patta knives; and that A-3 to A-5 instigated the attack.5. The learned Sessions Judge found A-1 to A-5 guilty under Sec. 120-B of I.P.C....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »