Chennai Court March 2004 Judgments
Thangasamy Vs. Madasami and Anthonysamy @ Hariharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad482
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Madasami, the first respondent herein obtained money decree against Thangasamy, the petitioner herein in O.S.No.566 of 1990. In execution proceedings in E.P.No.76 of 2000, he attached the property in question. The said property was purchased by Anthonysamy alias Hariharan, the second respondent herein, in Court auction. In pursuance of the Court's order, the Court Ameen delivered the property to the second respondent. Questioning the identity of the property, the petitioner applied a petition challenging the delivery in E.A.No.78 of 2002. The said application was dismissed by the learned District Munsif. Hence, this civil revision petition.2. According to the petitioner, the property in question, bearing Door No.6/56-G, was delivered instead of the house bearing Door No.6/56 and as such, the said property has to be delivered back to the petitioner.3. Assailing the impugned order dated 1.8.2003 in E.A.No.78 of 2002, learned counsel for the petitioner would...
Tag this Judgment!Parry and Co. Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Mad)408; [2004]269ITR177(Mad); (2004)3MLJ417
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The assessee is engaged in varied trading & Service activities as clearing and forwarding agents, Electrical and Engineering (structural) contractors, Marketing of branded products etc. In 1979, the assessee was appointed as one of the selling agents of HMM Limited, which is engaged in the manufacture of diverse items of food products, namely, 'Horlicks', 'Boost' and 'Mother's Special' and also toiletries. The selling agency/distributorship agreements relating to 'Horlicks' and 'Boost' were due to expire on 31st July 1985, that relating to 'Mother's Special' on 30th September 1985, and that relating to the said toiletries on 31st December, 1988. HMM Limited took a decision that it would be in the interests of its business to itself ultimately take over the distribution and sale of the food products and the toiletries and hence, the agreement should be reviewed. But, at the same time, it did not want to take over immediately as the sudden disassociation of...
Tag this Judgment!Trilux Technologies Singapore Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Boon Technologies ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC280; [2005]123CompCas551(Mad); 2004(4)CTC12
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the complaint in C.C.No. 3610 of 2002, pending on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai as far as the petitioners are concerned.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners and others who were Directors of M/s.Trilux Technologies Singapore Ltd., at Singapore for alleged offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the complainant, he developed a software and exported the same to the accused-company in the month of December, 2001 which was confirmed by the accused by their letter dated 18.12.2001. The accused sent two cheques dated 18.2.2002 for U.S.$ 7800 each drawn on Overseas Chinese Bank of Corporation Ltd., Singapore, in the Foreign Currency Account and the cheques were sent by the 7th accused on behalf of the first accused. The other accused are holding posts in the company ...
Tag this Judgment!Mariammal and ors. Vs. Mymoon Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC764
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J. 1. The tenants who suffered decree of eviction filed the above appeal.2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.435/1977 against one Periannan for recovery of possession of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and for future mesne profits, etc. According to the plaintiffs, the suit theatre 'Prabhat Talkies' was leased out to the defendant under the lease deed dated 28.10.1964 for running cinema. Pursuant to the said lease deed, the defendant took possession of the theatre with the building, machinery, fixtures, etc., and also the goodwill as a going concern. According to the plaintiffs, it is a composite lease.3. The defendant contested the suit contending inter alia that the lease is not composite lease but it relates only to the building and so the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called 'the Act' has no application to the suit properties.4. The...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Raja Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: [2005]123CompCas319(Mad)
S. Ashok Kumar, J.1. These criminal original petitions have been filed against the E.O.C.C. Nos. 603 to 606 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences-II, Egmore, Chennai.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :The Registrar of Companies at Chennai, filed complaints against the petitioner herein and four others. In E.O.C.C. No. 603 of 2002, the allegation is that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable Under Section 63(1) of the Companies Act for the reason that the company had issued a prospectus dated December 22, 1995, filed with the complainant on December 2, 1995, in respect of a public issue of 14,40,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each for cash at par aggregating to Rs. 144 lakhs and the company had made a statement in the said prospectus to the effect that it will be implementing projects for investment in bank including bought out deals and future projects in the next three years as issued by the company under the headi...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hameed (Died) and ors. Vs. Arulmighu Somanathaswamy Devasthanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad184
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This second appeal has been brought forth by the first defendant in a suit for permanent injunction, whose defence plea was rejected by both the Courts below.2. The following facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties.The immovable property more fully described in the schedule to the plaint belonged to the plaintiff Devasthanam. It is a punja land measuring 11-2/3 cents. The second defendant, pursuant to the lease chit dated 11-1-1941 in favour of the temple, was put in possession. The total extent of the lease was 95 kulis. Pagathy was fixed at Rs. 6/- per annum. While so, by mistake, the Authorised Officer granted Kudiyiruppu patta to an extent of 20 cents to Viswanathan and Arunachalam, the sons of the second defendant. The previous Executive Officer of the temple has not taken any action for the grant of patta. No action was initiated to set aside the grant of patta and the same is pending. The present suit was only in respect of 11-2/3 cents, which is ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. K. Vasantha Devi Vs. Mahesh Kumar Rathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC321
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the common order passed by XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 15-04-2002 made in I.A.Nos. 14060 and 14059 of 2001 in O.S.No. 176 of 2000, defendants 1 and 2 therein preferred the above Revision Petitions.2. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed the said suit (O.S.No.176 of 2000) under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for judgement and decree in favour of him for a sum of Rs.55,900/- with interest on Rs.30,000/- at 30 per cent per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation. The petitioners herein/defendants before the Court below filed I.A.Nos. 14060 and 14059/2001 under Order 37, Rule 3 (5) C.P.C., praying for unconditional leave to them to defend the said suit.3. In the affidavit the first defendant has stated that the procedures contemplated under Order 37 C.P.C. have not been followed. He was not served with a copy of the plaint and the annexures thereto along with the summons which is mandatory under Order 37, Ru...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Officer, Kolappalur Town Panchayat Vs. Max Well Apparel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ581
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The Executive Officer, Kolappalur Town Panchayat is the revision petitioner in both the revisions. The respondent herein - M/s. Maxwell Apparel Industries Limited filed a civil suit in O.S.No.132 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam, praying for declaration declaring the demand special notice dated 14.03.1997 by the defendant under assessment number 2411 and 20.03.1997 for the door number 729B to G under number 17 to 22 of the year 1996-1997 respectively are illegal, unconstitutional and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant from recovering or collecting the above taxes from the plaintiff in any manner. The defendant Town Panchayat filed a written statement disputing the claim made by the plaintiff. It is seen that on the plea that due to urgent administrative reasons they could not cross examine PW.1 and PW.2 examined on the side of the plaintiff, the Town Panchayat filed I.A.Nos.404 and 405 of 2003 for reopen an...
Tag this Judgment!N. Hariharan, S/O. Shri H. Neelakanthan, Manager (istn and P), Indian ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ512Mad; (2004)3MLJ5
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. By letter dated 7.5.2001, the fifth respondent Corporation refused to give the benefit of 'One Time Voluntary Separation Scheme 2000' to the petitioner and the said letter dated 7.5.2001 reads as follows:INDIAN OIL (MD) SR CHENNAIHR GROUPFROM : DGM (HR):SR REF:HR/IR/1441/VRS DT.07/2001FOR : GM, TAMIL NADU STATE OFFICE-------------------------------------------------SUB : ONE TIME VOLUNTARY SEPARATION SCHEME-2000 We have for reference the representation dated 25.04.2001 received from Shri N. Hariharan, Manager (IS), TN STO wherein he had requested us to consider his VR application dated 12.6.2000under OVSS-2000 favourably. In this connection, we have been informed by HO that Shri N. Hariharan's application for VR is not under consideration keeping in view the various parameters applicable for grant of VR under OVSS 2000 Scheme. You may therefore counsel the officer suitably.Sd/. Dy. General Manager 2. Aggrieved by the said letter of the fifth respondent dated 7...
Tag this Judgment!Kasi Viswanathan Vs. Jayalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC481; (2004)2MLJ402
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The 8th defendant having aggrieved by the dismissal of C.M.P.No. 12486/1992 in A.S.S.R. 37889/1992 filed the above appeal.2. One Jayalakshmi, the 1st respondent filed a suit for partition of her 1/4th share in the suit properties. The said suit was filed on 1.9.1981. The appellant/8th defendant purchased item No. 7 of the suit properties from defendants 1 to 7 on 2.3.1982, pending suit. Since the 8th defendant though filed written statement remained absent, he was set ex parte and a decree was passed granting half share in item Nos. 1 to 8, in the decree dated 26.12.1986. The said decree for half share was granted, though the suit was filed seeking 1/4th share, on the basis of the death of 1st respondent.3. The 8th defendant filed a petition in I.A.No. 43 of 1987 to set aside the ex parte decree. The same was dismissed on 24.7.1987. An appeal was preferred in C.M.A. 191/1987 challenging the order passed in I.A.No. 43/1987. The same was dismissed. Aggrieved ag...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »