Chennai Court September 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M. Ponnupandian Vs. Selvabakiyam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad272; 2003(4)CTC225
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the common order in E.A.Nos. 72 of 2003 and 71 of 2003 respectively in E.P.No. 178 of 2001 in O.S.No. 6 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thenkasi. The parties are described as per their rankings in the suit.2. The first respondent Selvabakiyam filed O.S.No. 6 of 1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Thenkasi against her son, Ponnu Pandian, the first defendant and her daughters, the defendants 2 and 3 and 2 others claiming partition of one-third share. The suit was resisted and after contest, preliminary decree for partition was passed on 8.9.1997. Pursuant to the preliminary decree, final decree was also passed on 14.7.2000. The plaintiff Selvabakiyam filed Execution Petition in E.P.No. 178 of 2001 on 19.10.2001. In the Execution Petition, respondents 2 to 4, namely defendants 2 to 4 remained absent and were set ex parte. The first defendant, namely, the revision petitioner entered appe...
Velu and Three ors. Vs. Arikrishnan and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC560
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the respondents 4 to 7 challenging the delivery order made in E.P.No. 133 of 2000 in O.S.No. 388 of 1981 on the file of Principle Sub Judges, Pondichery.2. The decree-holder Ukkaravelu as the power agent of one Adhilakshmi Ammal alias Poubathiammal filed E.P.No. 45 of 1984 for delivery of possession of the property and the same has been terminated by recording delivery in favour of the decree-holder Ukkaravelu. The first respondent Arikrishnan purchased the property from the decree-holder Ukkaravelu and Arikrishnan also filed execution petition in E.P.No. 133 of 2000 after disposal of appeal in A.S.No. 939 of 1985 in this Court. The Judgment-debtor Malayan preferred appeal in A.S.No. 939 of 1985 to this Court and he died during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner/respondents 4 to 7 were added as the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor Malayan. The purchaser Arikrishnan filed second execution ...
Bhel Ancillary Association Rep. by Its Secretary S. Kubendran, Bharat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad252
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J. 1. The petitioner filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the defects pointed out, in the new VICTRI electronics meter and its system fixed in the Industries and Factories and to dispense with the 25% additional charge levied for the welding load for the Industry and Factories of the members of the petitioners Association.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that originally mechanical meters have been installed and due to power fluctuation of voltage they used to collect 25% in addition to the actual consumption shown in the mechanical meters. Subsequently electronic meters were installed and these meters show the actual consumption including the power loss due to fluctuation in the supply of electricity. It is further stated that apart from collecting entire amount of the consumption charges including the charges for the loss of power, the respondent has also demanded 2...
In Re: W.S. Industries (India) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: [2004]51SCL53(Mad)
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This Petition is filed by the Petitioner Company under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act for sanctioning the Scheme of Arrangement between the Petitioner Company and its Shareholders with effect from 31st December, 2002 be sanctioned by this Court so as to be binding on all the Shareholders and Creditors of the Petitioner Company viz. M/s. W.S. Industries (India) Limited.2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner Company formerly known as W.S. Insulators of India Limited was incorporated on the 23rd day of August, 1961 as a Public Limited Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The name of the Petitioner Company was changed to its present name pursuant to Section 21 of the Act and the Registrar of Companies issued a fresh Certificate of incorporation consequent on change of the name on July, 15, 1987. As on December 31, 2001, the Authorised share capital of the Company was Rs. 30,00,00,00...
In Re: Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. Ii, Referring O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1082
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This petition has arisen out of a reference made by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. ii), Tindivanam, in an application filed in Crl. M.P. No. 20 of 2003 by the defence in S.C. No. 126 of 2002 on the file of the said Court, seeking clarification for Section 24(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on an application filed by the defence under Section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras, appearing on behalf of the Returning Officer would not only submit his note, but also would argue to the effect that the case is one registered and pending disposal for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(B)(C)(G) r/w. 218, 201 r/w 376, I.P.C. and as many as 53 witnesses have been so far examined; that at this stage, an objection has been raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of A1, A3, A4 and A5 challenging the competence of the Additional Public Prosecutor in piloting the prosecutio...
Dr. S. Karunakaran Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Mad)183
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue the copies of the certificate in Form No. 10-I, as well as the statements recorded by him on the basis of which he has issued the notice dt. 14th Oct., 1999, to the petitioner and forbearing him from taking further proceedings without furnishing the aforesaid documents.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue.3. In fact, a show-cause notice was issued by the respondent as to why sanction should not be accorded to prosecute the petitioner under Sections 277 and 278 r/w Section 276C of the IT Act, 1961. The attention of the petitioner was drawn to Section 279(2) of the IT Act, which empowers the Chief CIT in his discretion to compound such offence on payment of the prescribed compounding fee. In case the petitioner is not interested in availing this facility, he has been called upon to intimat...
Solaiappa Gounder and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Ins ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC78
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 392 of 1995 is by A1, A2, A4 to A10, A13 and A14 and Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 1995 is by A11 and A12 in Sessions Case No. 193 of 1993 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The appellants in Crl.A.No. 392 of 1995 will be referred to as A1, A2, A4 to A10, A13 and A14 and the appellants in Crl.A.No. 406 of 1995 will be referred to as A11 and A12 for the sake of convenience. They were tried along with Viswanathan, who was arrayed as A3 and who was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, and in this judgment, the said Viswanathan will be referred to in the same order as he was arrayed before the learned Sessions Judge, for the sake of convenience. As both the appeals arise out of a single Sessions Case, they are disposed of by the following common judgment.2. The learned Sessions Judge framed as many as 17 charges against A1 to A14. Under Charge No. 1, A1 to A14 were charged under Section 148, IPC and under Charge No. 2...
Bikram Singh Channa Vs. Registrar, Cegat,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: 2004(91)ECC372
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. With the consent of either side the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The request for pre-deposit has been declined by CEGAT. The order passed by the CIGAT in my considered view is a well considered order. At the time of admission, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 3,00,000 with the second respondent. The said condition has been complied with. As per the order passed by the CEGAT, another sum of Rs. 7,00,000 has to be remitted or deposited by the petitioner.3. Taking into consideration of the entire order, while holding that the direction to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 10,00,000 is too onerous, this Court modifies the impugned order passed by the CEGAT and directs the said authority shall take up the appeal on file if the writ petitioner deposits another sum of Rs. 2,00,000 within a period of six weeks from today. If the said sum of Rs. 2,00,000 is not remitted within six weeks, then the consequence will be the earlier order ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›