Chennai Court June 2004 Judgments
Kumar Alias Kumarasamy and ors. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ39
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. A mini bus occupied by the villagers was proceeding from Vedaranyam to the village Katharikulam Panayadikutthagai at about 8.30 p.m. on 26-1-1992. The deceased Ramsingarn and his son P.W. 1 Mohan were travelling in the mini bus with the hope of reaching their village safely. Like in a cinema, a white Ambassador car was parked across the road to block the route. Naturally, the mini bus had to stop. The accused persons who were in the Ambassador car, got down from the car, went into the bus and forcibly pulled the deceased down after attacking P.W. 1 Mohan with aruvals and iron rods, when P.W. 1 tried to prevent them. Then the deceased was forcibly taken in the car. On the next day morning, the deceased was found with injuries lying dead in the nearby area and his one hand was found severed. The motive is that deceased Ramasingam contested against the accused party in the election for Katharikulam Panayadikutthagai Vegetable Products Co-operative Society and he ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Nagarajan Vs. Gudlu K. Ranagasamy Chettiar @ Rangasamy (Deceased) a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ329
ORDERMasilamani, J.1. This revision is filed by the petitioner/third party in the execution petition initiated against the fair and decretal orders passed in E.P. No. 286 of 1993 in O.S. No. 88 of 1962 dated 22.7.1996 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.2. The revision petitioner/third party filed the execution petition in E.P. No. 286 of 1993 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore on the basis of the registered sale deeds dated 7.10.1992 and 31.3.1993 executed by the 13th defendant in the suit on the ground that he has stepped into the shoes of his vendor and that therefore the possession of the properties purchased by him has to be delivered by the respondent/9th defendant in suit as per the final decree. The respondent resisted the execution proceedings by filing a counter and after analysing the evidence of both the parties and upon hearing the arguments advanced by them, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the execution petiti...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Janakavalli Ammal Rep. by Power of Attorney P.S.Govindan Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ333
ORDER1. The revision petition is filed by the landlady represented by power of attorney agent challenging the fair and decretal orders in R.C.A.No.1 of 1994 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Chengalpattu reversing the fair and decretal orders passed by the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Madurantakam in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 1993.2. The petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960) was laid for eviction of the tenant/respondent from the petition premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for carrying on the business of the grandson of the landlady. The respondent resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the same is not bona fide. The learned Rent Controller having analysed the evidence adduced on either side and after considering the arguments held that the claim made by the landlady is bona fide. ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Shanmugasamy Vs. Kausalya Alias Krishnaveni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC324; (2004)4MLJ51
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioner is the 7th defendant in the suit O.S.No.163 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Villupuram. The revision is filed against the order dated 19.12.2002 made in I.A.No.845 of 2001 refusing to receive the receipt dated 20.1.1970 as unregistered.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition of her 1/8th share in the suit properties. She also filed I.A.No.845 of 2001 for injunction restraining the revision petitioner/7th defendant from encumbering or alienating the suit properties pending disposal of the suit. The petition was opposed by filing counter. During the enquiry of the petition the revision petitioner sought the document dated 20.1.1970 to be received which was opposed by the plaintiff as it is unregistered. The trial Court because of such objection of the plaintiff, refused to accept the said receipt. The order is challenged in this revision.3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petition...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ramachandran Vs. Vaibhav Agarwal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ106
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The above civil revision petitions have been filed against the fair and decretal orders dated 18.8.2003 made respectively in I.A. Nos. 11693 to 11696 of 2003, 12216 to 12220 of 2003 in O.S.Nos. 1182 to 1184 of 2003, 1186, 1220 to 1223 of 2003 on the file of the Court XVI Assistant City Civil Judge,Chennai. 2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, it comes to be known that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suits in O.S. Nos. 1182 to 1184, 1186, and 1220 to 1223 of 2003 before the Court below as against the petitioner herein for recovery of amounts due under Pronotes along with interest. Since the suits were instituted under the provisions of Order 37 CPC, the defendant has filed the above said interlocutory applications in I.A. Nos.11693 to 11696, 12216 to 1223 of 2003 under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) C.P.C. seeking to grant leave to defend the suits and the lower C...
Tag this Judgment!S.V.S. Oil Mills, Rep. by Its Partner, S.V. Chandrapandian Vs. S.V.N. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ543
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order of learned Judge passed in O.A. No. 40 of 2003 in C.S. No. 19 of 2003 dated 7.10.2003 wherein the learned Judge held that the plaintiff is not entitled to temporary injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, selling and advertising its products by using the trademark as shown in the plaintiff's labels and pouches in its colour scheme and getup in respect of the edible oil including groundnut oil, sunflower oil, vanaspathi and palmolein. 2. The plaintiff is the appellant herein and the defendants are the respondents. The plaintiff instituted the suit in C.S. No. 19 of 2003 on the file of this Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing and marketing, selling or advertising by using the trademark as shown in the labels/pouches in its colour scheme and get up in respect of edible oil including groundnut oil, sunflower oil, vanaspathi and palmol...
Tag this Judgment!Meenakshiammal and ors. Vs. Gopalakannan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad444; 2004(3)CTC481; (2004)3MLJ396
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Plaintiffs 2 to 8 in O.S. No.796 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvallur are the revision petitioners. Originally, one A.K. Subramania Mudaliar filed the said suit for a declaration of his right and title over the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and supporters from in any way interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. Pending suit, the plaintiff died. His wife, sons and daughters were brought on record as his legal representatives and shown as plaintiffs 2 to 9 so as to the pursue the suit. When the suit was taken up for trial, the impleaded plaintiffs filed a petition for marking of Documents 1 to 16 enclosed along with the said petition on 20.10.2000. The said request was objected to by the first defendant on the ground that those Documents, viz. 1 to 16 were secured subsequent to the filing of the suit and cannot have any bearing on the suit claim.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Special Tahsildar (La), Adi Dravidar Welfare Vs. Munirathinamma and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ574
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri dated 6-12-94, made in L.A.O.P. No. 222 of 92, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Adi Dravidar Welfare, Krishnagiri, has filed A.S.No. 1098/95. Not satisfied with the said decision, the claimants have filed A.S.No. 1354/95 seeking more compensation. Since both the appeals arise from the very same order of the learned Subordinate Judge, they are being disposed of by the following common judgement.2. An extent of 1.05 Acres of punja land in Survey No. 238/5B in Hosapuram village, Thenkanikottai Taluk were acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites for Adi-Dravidar and Scheduled Caste people of Hosapuram village. For the said purpose, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 27-9-89. The Land Acquisition Officer, after complying with the formalities, passed an award in Award No. 7/91-9...
Tag this Judgment!Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. Vs. T.N. Balasubramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR164(Madras); 2004(5)CTC699; (2004)3MLJ442
ORDER1. The revision petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, in not accepting its claim under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, has preferred this revision.2. The respondent in this revision petition as plaintiff has filed a suit, for mandatory injunction, for the return of R.C. Book and for permanent injunction not to seize the vehicle with other ancillary relief in O.S.No.147/2003 on the file of the District Munsif, Erode. In the suit, it is alleged that because of his continuous illness, he was unable to pay certain installments, due to the 4th defendant, resulting seizure of the vehicle.3. After the filing of the suit and before the filing of the written statement, the defendants filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, requesting the Court to refer the parties to the suit to arbitration, in accordance with the clause of the hire purchase agreement dated 22.3.2001, entered into between the parties, thereby praying for the di...
Tag this Judgment!Bala and Co. Vs. the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC389(Mad)
1. Petitioner is a registered dealer. For the assessment year 1995-96, the petitioner was assessed to taxable turnover of Rs.7,56,700/- under the Central Sales Tax Act. Subsequently, notice was issued that the petitioner had paid tax on purchase of boiler equipments and furnace oil from registered dealer in other State by issuing 'C' Form declaration even though such items were not covered under the CST Registration Certificate at the time of such purchase. Subsequently, the petitioner has applied for inclusion of furnace oil in the CST Certificate on 28.9.1995. Since the purchases were effected prior to the period of 28.9.1995, such purchases were not entitled for concessional rate of tax at 4%. Accordingly, a notice was issued proposing to impose penalty under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner in its objection indicated that purchase of boiler equipments and furnace oil against 'C' Forms had been made under a bonafide belief and as such penalty should not have...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »