Chennai Court February 2004 Judgments
Padmavathi Ammal Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad485; (2004)2MLJ365
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12-4-1993 rendered in A. S. No. 231 of 1992 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 24-1-1992 rendered in 0. S. No, 229 of 1989 by the Court of District Munsif, Cuddalore.2. Tracing the history of the above second appeal coming to be preferred, it comes to be known that the appellant herein has filed the suit in O.S. No. 229 of 1989 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Cuddalore as against the respondents /The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and its officials for declaration to the effect that the order dated 10-3-1989 made in No. 4648/88-89 by the respondents is deliberate and contrary to law and the same is not legally valid and for permanent injunction from disconnecting the Service connection No, 216 and for costs.3. In the plaint, the appellant/plaintiff would submit that he is running a rice mill viz. Vetrivel Rice Mills for which the ...
Tag this Judgment!E. Ravi Kumar Vs. the Commissioner of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ311
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the respondent dated 1-5-2003, refusing to grant licence for conducting Indian cultural and classical dances under the name and style of 'Queen Indian Cultural Dances' at No. 137, Broadway, Chennai-600 108, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition to call for the records and to quash the same.2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was granted licence under Section 34 of the Madras City Police Act (in brevity 'the Act') for running a public resort and also for conducting Indian cultural and classical dances at No. 137, Broadway, Chennai-600 108 till 31-122000. The said licence was not renewed thereafter. When the petitioner made a fresh application for seeking licence under Section 34 of the Act on 28-2-2003, the same was rejected by the respondent in the impugned proceedings.3. Even though no show cause notice was required before refusing to grant licence as applied for by the petitioner, t...
Tag this Judgment!Parasmal Dangi Alias Parasmall Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Chennai)608
1. This appeal of the assessee relates to the block assessment period 1985-86 to 1994-95 and 1st April, 1995 to 7th Dec., 1995.2. Shri V. Ramachandran, the learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer (AO) has made an addition of Rs. 51,96,706 on protective basis. The learned Counsel further submitted that the substantive addition has been confirmed by the AO in the case of Shri P. Uttamchand. Once the substantive addition is confirmed in the case of Shri P. Uttamchand, the protective assessment made in the case of the assessee cannot stand. The learned Counsel further submitted that there cannot be any protective assessment in the case of block assessment.3. On the contrary, Shri K. Srinivasan, the learned Departmental Representative (DR), submitted that since there was a doubt, the AO assessed a sum of Rs. 51,96,706 in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. According to the learned Departmental Representative, the AO has every right to make protecti...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Thirumayam Rural Electric Cooperative Society Limite ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC864; 2005ACJ528; 2004(3)CTC339; (2004)IIILLJ615Mad
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. As against the order dated 8.4.1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Tiruchirapalli) made in W.C. No.39/1995, the Management of Thirumayam Rural Electric Cooperative Society Limited has preferred this appeal.2. This proceedings is in relation to the awarding of compensation for the death of a workman by name Silaiappan, who was a Helper in the employment of the appellant.3. The accident had happened at 12.05 p.m. on 1.8.1993 at Kadathanpatti village, while Silaiappan had been climbing the electric post in order to render service of power(fuse of call work), accidentally he had come into contact with the live wire, sustained injuries and had lost his life.4. Before the Deputy Commissioner, the claimant Pack am was examined as P.W.1 and another Helper Alagu Raja along with Ravi, who had accompanied the deceased person during the course of a particular job, have been examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. The Junior Engineer Mr. Nagarathinam was examined as R.W.1 on...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Thangavelan Vs. T.S. Sivarama Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ694
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J. 1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the eviction ordered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority after remand of the matter by this Court in C.R.P.219 of 1988 dated 27.7.1994 in respect of the petition mentioned non residential premises bearing old D.No.85-A, new D.No.129 at Saint Theresa Street, Pondicherry. The land lord filed rent control petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Pondicherry (Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for demolition and reconstruction of the premises. It is stated in the petition that the premises is very old and in a dilapidated condition, necessary approvals have been obtained from the Town Planning Authorities and the land lord is having ready cash and the premises is also required for personal occupation by the land lord for non residential purpose after new construction.2.The petition was resisted by the tenant on the ground that the requir...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ponnusamy, S/O. Arumugham and ors. Vs. H.H. the Prince of Arcot End ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC349
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2003 passed by the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli in AS.SR. No. 1061 of 2003.2. The revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 1831 of 1991 on the file of learned Principal District Munsif, Trichy, laid by the respondents for recovery of Rs. 960 as rent.3. The suit was resisted by the revision petitioners/defendants on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property as they have already obtained patta.4. Learned Principal District Munsif, Trichy, by judgment and decree dated 18.1.2002 rejecting the defence of the revision petitioners/defendants decreed the suit.5. As against the said judgment and decree, the revision petitioners preferred an appeal in A.S.SR.No. 1061of 2003 before the learned Principal District Judged Tiruchirappalli. Even without numbering the said appeal, by judgment and decree dated 26.2.2003 learne...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdas Vs. Kaliamoorthy (Died) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC122; (2004)4MLJ240
ORDERT.V. Masilamani, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the appellant, who is the appellant before the Appellate Authority. The respondent herein filed the petition for eviction under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii) and 10(3)(a)(iii) before the District Munsif (Rent Controller), Sirkali against the subtenant, who is the petitioner herein.2. The Learned Rent Controller, agreeing with the contentions on two grounds, passed an order of eviction holding that the subtenant committed willful default and that the chief tenant needs the premises for his own occupation. As against the said order, the subtenant/the petitioner herein preferred the rent control appeal before the Subordinate Judge (Appellate Authority), Mayiladuthurai. Having gone through the evidence and records and upon hearing both sides, the learned Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. As against the fair and final order of ...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Nagarajan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad383; (2004)2MLJ340
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The petitioner is the licensed Document writer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Document Writers Licence Rules, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), framed by the State of Tamil Nadu exercising the powers conferred under Section 89-B of the Registration Act.1.2 Rule 2(d) of the Rules defines the document writer as follows : 'Document writer' means and includes aperson engaged in the profession of preparing documents, namely, doing the work ofconveyancing including investigation of title, preparation of draft deeds and engrossing the deed, on the stamp paper or plainpaper for registration.1.3 It is not in dispute that the petitioner satisfies the conditions required for the grant of licence as provided under Rules 4, 6 and 7 of the Rules, which deal with the eligibility for licence, test qualification and age qualification; nor he suffers from any disqualification under Rule 5 of the Rules and hence, he was granted licence in Form No. B under ...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Varadarajan Vs. the Regional Transport Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC413; 2004(2)CTC351; (2004)1MLJ639
ORDERC. Nagappan, J. 1. The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order of the respondent in his Memo R. No. 27084/A4/90, dated 07.10.1996.2. The petitioner is the owner of goods vehicle bearing Registration No. TDR 2629 covered by the Goods Carriage Permit valid in the State of Tamil Nadu and it expired on 26.11.1999. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was registered by the Assistant Registering Authority, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, on 06.02.1985 and the maximum laden weight was 26400 kgs., as per the details of the vehicle in the R.C.Book and the permitted laden weight to carry the goods was endorsed as 24000 kgs. and tax assessment was made on 7.2.1985 as Rs.2200/- in the R.C.Book. The petitioner has further stated that there was no tax arrears and on 7.10.1996, in the impugned order in Memo R.No. 27084/A4/90, the respondent directed the petitioner to pay the difference tax to the tune of Rs. 22,500/- for the period from 01.10.1985 to 31.03.1990...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Vs. State by Circle Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC338
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. The accused, who stands convicted in S.C.No.112 of 1995, for the offences under Sections 499, 302, 201 and 394 r/w 397 I.P.C., for various terms of imprisonment is the appellant. 2. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvidaimarudur, moved the court below, by filing a final report, against the accused/appellant, for appropriate punishment under Sections 449, 302, 201 and 394 r/w 397 I.P.C., alleging that on 8.3.1995, at about 1.00 a.m., the accused/appellant committed trespass into the house of one Muthachiammal, with an intention to commit murder, due to previous enmity, that after committing the trespass, he had murdered Muthachiammal and Vinod, by strangulating both, that in order to escape from the legal punishment, causing disturbance of evidence of offence, he had hanged the two bodies, as if they had committed suicide in the house, and that during the commission of the above offence, he had committed robbery also, thereby he is liable to be punished under the abov...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »