Chennai Court January 2004 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.
R.B. and Sons, Rep. by Its Proprietor Mr. Ishwarchand B. Tater Vs. Dir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(95)ECC6; 2004(167)ELT511(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Admittedly, the petitioner is the second transferee of licence No. 0410001482 granted for exporting leather and leather products by the Import and Export Control Trade Organisation, Chennai on 22.09.1999. Originally, the licence was granted in the name of Sri Shanmuga Prime Tannery and thereafter, transferred in favour of one M/s. M.B. Vir Enterprises, from whom it was transferred to the petitioner. 2. The advance licence granted to Sri Shanmuga Prime Tannery was transferred in favour of the first transferee viz., M/s. M.B. Vir Enterprises, on the following condition:'The Advance Licence is made transferable as per para 7.19 of Export Policy 1997-2002 read with para 7.27 of Handbook of Procedures (Vol. I) 1997-2002.'3. Paragraph 7.27(ii) of the Handbook of Procedures, which deals with transferability of licence reads as follows:-'Upon endorsement of transferability, issue of duplicate licence, enhancement in the cif value or amendments including revalidation ...
G.S. Chakravarthi Asokar @ G.S. Ashokar Vs. therasitta Santhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ716
ORDER1. Therasitta Santhi, the respondent herein filed the suit for specific performance against the petitioner herein on the basis of the sale agreement dated 21-2-1995. The petitioner did not choose to appear before the Court. So, the suit was decreed ex-parte. Time was granted for payment of the balance sale consideration. Since the petitioner did not agree to receive the amount, the respondent filed execution petition in E.P.No.72 of 1999 after depositing the balance sale consideration. The petitioner filed an application in E.A.No.274 of 2002 in E.P.No.72 of 1999 under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, praying for rescission of the agreement dated 21-2-1995. This was contested by the respondent on the ground that the application was barred by limitation and the decree did not specify the period for payment of balance sale consideration. Endorsing this objection, the application filed in E.A.No.274 of 2002 was dismissed by the executing Court. Hence, this civil revision petiti...
All India Indian Overseas Bank Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Emp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC566
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. All India Indian Overseas Bank Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Association, the petitioner herein, seeks for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring the registration by the first respondent of the second respondent under the name of All India Overseas Bank Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Employees' Welfare Association as illegal and void and being violative of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.2. The petitioner submits that it was duly registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, vide registration No. 163, dated 22.7.1978. The Secretary of the petitioner Association states that motivated by self-interest, a group of a few employees led by one Myilvahanan attempted to thwart the legitimate activities of the petitioner Association by initiating litigation against the holding of election etc. The application filed by the said individuals were dismissed and the said individuals being unable to se...
Sadan Tools Room Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Director, Mr. Ashokkumar Shetty Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad29; 2004(1)CTC608
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned demand dated 31.12.2002 served on 11.2.2003 on the file of the second respondent and consequent Distraint Notice No. 18235 dated 6.3.2003 on the file of the third respondent, quash the same and to consequently forbear the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner.2. The respondents viz., Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board by impugned proceedings dated 31.12.2002 raised a demand for a sum of Rs. 98,596 i.e. Rs. 57,747 towards water and sewerage tax and Rs. 40,849 towards surcharge from the petitioner. The said Rs. 57,747 towards water and sewerage tax was demanded as per the following details:Period TaxRs. 2/1988-1989 917.001/1992-1993 837.002/1992-1993 837.001/1993-1994 837.002/1993-1994 837.001/1994-1995 837.002/1994-1995 837.001/1995-1996 837.002/1995-1996 837.001/1996-1997 1754.002/1996-1997 1754.001/1997-1998 17...
N. Amaravathy and ors. Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC97
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioners either at 11.30 a.m. or at 12.30 p.m. Hence these matters were passed over and called at 2.15 and again at 4.00 p.m. Even then there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Hence I was constrained to hear the learned counsel for the respondents and pass the following order.2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are concededly purchasers of vacant lands in Survey Nos.376/2, 378, 379, 380, 381/1, 381/2, 382, 383, 384, 388, 398, 392 part and 402 (14.09 acres) (petitioner in W.P.No.9627/98), 397 part (46 cents) (petitioner in W.P.No.9628/98), 393 (49 cents) (petitioner in W.P.No.9629/98), 391 part, 398 part and 399 part (97 cents) (petitioner in W.P.No.9630/98), 391 part (49 cents) (petitioner in W.P.No.9631/98), 401 part and 402 part (48 cents) (petitioner in W.P.No.9632/98) and 397 part (25 cents) (petitioner in W.P.No.9633/98) respectively in Nerkundram Village, Chinmayanagar, Chengelpet ...
Rajappa Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC691
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. Appellants are the accused 1, 2 and 3 in S.C. 240/95 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Tanjore. By his judgment dated 19.8.96 the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused 1 and 2 under Section 304 (Part II), I.P.C and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and five years respectively. A3 was convicted under Section 324, I.P.C and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Other accused A4 to A8 were acquitted of all charges.2. It is not in dispute that the accused are related to each other. .A1 Rajappa is the son of maternal aunt of P.W.1. P.Ws. 1 to 3 are the sons of deceased Thangaraja Nadar. A1, A2 and A6 are residing as one family in Perumalkoil Street.3. Family of P.W.1 owns 100 Kuzhi of land. Likewise A1 Rajappa is in possession of 1-1/2 Veli of land in Natham Area. About three years prior to the occurrence, A1 obstructed the course of Water Channel proceeding to the lands of the deceased which r...
T. Kantharaju Vs. Dr. N. Kuppuswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC89; (2004)2MLJ80
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 9.10.2001 made in I.A.No. 1202 of 1998 in O.S.No. 318 of 1996 by the Court of District Munsif, Krishnagiri by the third defendant to the suit who is also the third respondent in the I.A.No. 1202 of 1998.2. Tracing the history of the above Civil Revision Petition having come to be filed, it comes to be known that the respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs 3 and 4 in O.S.No. 40 of 1983 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri; that the said suit was filed by their mother for possession of the suit property, past and future mesne profits and for costs and the same was decreed allotting the suit properties to her after contest by the defendants therein; that pending suit, first plaintiff Rajammal died leaving behind her husband Gopal @ Narayanaswami Naidu, son and daughter as legal heirs and they were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 4; that subsequently ...
Op. Mani and anr. Vs. Ams. Thaikka Lebbai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC103; (2004)1MLJ626
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The revision petitioners are the respondents 3 and 4 and the proposed parties in IA.No. 20480/2001 in OS.No. 523/2000 before the VIII Assistant City Civil Court, which application was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 / plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint and also for substituting their names in the place of the original defendants and the said petition came to be allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 3 and 4/proposed defendants have preferred this civil revision petition.2. Heard the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners and the respondents 1 and 2 and the respondents 3 and 4 were given up on the ground that no relief was sought against them.3. The learned Advocate for the revision petitioners would contend that the respondents originally filed the suit against the defendants, viz. Rajalakshmi and Bhuvaneswari and also filed IA.Nos. 2964/2000 and 2965/2000 for grant of interim injunction and also for amendment and both the petitions were...
Kokila and anr. Vs. A.C. Rayan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC347; 2006ACJ507; 2004(1)CTC439; (2004)1MLJ687
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Claimants in M.C.O.P.No. 680 of 1992 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chengalpettu are the appellants in the above appeal.2. In respect of death of their daughter by name Sudha in a Motor Accident that took place on 17.7.1992, her parents prayed for a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000. Before the Tribunal, mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Natarajan as P.W.2, besides marking Xerox copy of the post-mortem report and First Information Report as Exs.P-1 and P-2 respectively. On the side of the owner and the Insurance Company, no one was examined as no document marked to substantiate their defence.Based on the materials placed, the Tribunal, after holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry in question, passed an award of Rs. 25,000 with interest at 15 per cent from the date of petition till date of deposit. The Tribunal also directed both the owner and the insurer to pay the said am...
Malladi Projects Management Centre Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. D.C.M. Finan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2004
Reported in: II(2006)BC302; [2005]127CompCas911(Mad); 2004(1)CTC518
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order passed by the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in Crl.M.P.No. 1359 of 2002 in C.C.No. 2462 of 2002 dated 28.1.2003.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent M/s.D.C.M. Financial Service Ltd., Chennai filed a complaint against (1) M/s.Malladi Project Management Centre Pvt. Ltd., (2) M/s.Saka Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd, (3) M/s.Sri Prabha Franchise Pvt. Ltd., and (4)Sri. Prashanth Malladi for the offences punishable under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 r/w Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that a cheque dated 31.3.2001 for an amount of Rs. 1,25,78,703 towards repayment of outstanding amounts to the complainant bounced and therefore, the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. The Accused A1 to A4 filed a petition under Section 204, Cr.P.C., to recall the process and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »