Chennai Court February 2005 Judgments
Sivanandi @ Dharmalingam and ors. Vs. V. Rajendran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC22
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J.1. The above Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Court below in Criminal M.P. No. 1069 of 2004 in S.C.No. 96/1996 dated 27.10.2004 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Madurai.2. The Government in G.O. (ID) No. 32, Public (Law & Order B) Dept. dated 14.4.2000 has passed an order to the effect that the District Collectors of Southern Districts in Tamil Nadu are requested to address the Public Prosecutor incharge of the cases mentioned in the Annexure therein to take necessary steps to withdraw such cases, which are registered in connection with the caste clashes during the year 1996 and prior to 1996.3. In pursuance of the said order, it appears that the learned Public Prosecutors of the Southern Districts have filed an application under Section 321, Cr.P.C before the Court to withdraw the cases. In the instant case such an application was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor seeking permission to withdraw the case whi...
Tag this Judgment!Surana Traders, Rep. by Its Partner, R. Sukumar and anr. Vs. T.T.K. Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)6; IV(2005)BC180; 2005(2)CTC209
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. These O. Ps. have been brought forth by the petitioners who are facing trial in C. C. Nos. 1642 and 1643 of 2002 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners pray for quashing the proceedings in the said C. C. Nos.2. The only point raised by the counsel for the petitioners before this Court is that the respondent/complainant has already issued a notice dated 3.12.2001 and after service of the same, cause of action also arose, but the respondent/complainant has not availed cause of action but allowed it to be lost and then he gave a second notice on 25.2.2002 and now files complaint pursuant thereto. Under the circumstances, since complaint was lodged after the second notice, the complaint is not maintainable as per the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act.3. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent. Copy of the notice issued by the respondent d...
Tag this Judgment!G. Ganesan, Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ1124Mad; (2005)1MLJ680
Markandey Katju, C.J. 1. The writ appeals have been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 04.07.2003 in W.P.Nos.18479 to 18483 of 2003.2. We heard learned counsel for the appellants and we find no merit in these appeals.3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned single Judge, and hence, we are not repeating the same, except those which are necessary. 4. It appears that the appellants were appointed in the service of Tamil Nadu Housing Board in 1989 on daily wages basis. They filed W. P.Nos.8175 to 8179 of 2001 seeking regularization of their service. This Court, by order dated 10.03.2003, directed the second respondent, the Chairman & Managing Director, TNHB to consider their representations and accordingly, their representations were considered and rejected by the following order dated 09.06.2003:-The Board resolved the following after detailed discussion: Considering that there are no construction activity at present in Tamil Nadu H...
Tag this Judgment!S. Harshavardhan and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC691
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. The above two writ appeals emanate out of the order dated 4.6.2002 passed by the learned single judge in W.P. No. 13247 of 2001. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant in W.A. No. 2018 of 2002, challenging the notification, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 3.11.1999, declaration under Section 6 dated 18.9.2000 as well as the award dated 30.12.2000 in respect of the lands to an extent of 2.79.5 hectares of lands in Veerapuram Village, Chingleput Taluk, Kancheepuram District. W.A. No. 2883 of 2002 is filed by the Central Bank of India, which was not a party to the said writ petition, with the leave of this Court since they were aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned single judge.2. As regards the writ petition (W.P. No. 13247 of 2001) out of which these writ appeals arise, we are of the opinion that this writ petition was liable to be dismissed and was rightly dismissed inter alia on the ground that the petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Dollar Apparels Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Chennai)615
1. In these appeals filed by the assessee and the miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue where the issues are common, hence, these are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The common ground involved in these appeals relate to treatment of interest received on bank deposit as income from other source while computing deduction under Section 80HHC.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an 100 per cent export-oriented unit and exporting entire goods manufactured to foreign countries without any local sales. All the exports were routed through Canara Bank, Perumanallore, Tirupur. The assessee has made deposits with Canara Bank out of export proceeds received from outside India.According to the assessee, it represents 5 per cent of the foreign exchange earned from export business which are deposited in Canara Bank as per the insistence of the bank and this deposit is not made out of su...
Tag this Judgment!Blue Blends (India) Limited and Anand Arya Vs. Thirumagal Mills Limite ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: III(2006)BC475; [2005]127CompCas626(Mad)
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. All the above Criminal Revision Cases are filed by one and the same parties as against the same respondent against the orders all dated 6.7.2004 respectively made in Crl. M.P. No. 1535 of 2004 in C.C. No. 192 of 1998, Crl. M.P. No. 1534 of 2004 in C.C. No. 187 of 1998, Crl. M.P. No. 1531 of 2004 in C.C. No. 188 of 1998, Crl. M.P. No. 1527 of 2004 in C.C. No. 191 of 1998 and Crl. M.P. No. 1530 of 2004 in C.C. No. 190 of 1998 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham.2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned senior counsel for the respondent, it comes to be known that the respondent herein has lodged all the above mentioned criminal cases as against the petitioners herein for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During pendency of the said cases, the revision petitioners herein who are accused in all the above cases have filed the above mentioned crim...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. S. Pareemalam Vs. the Central Bureau of Investigation Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: [2006]130CompCas282(Mad)
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner has filed the petition to direct the respondent to register a case on the basis of the complaint dated 21.06.2004 and to investigate and file a final report.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of export and import and is carrying on the business in the name and style of Verismo Impex; that the petitioner is the Proprietrix of Verismo Impex; that the Letter of Credit is a document of the issuing bank and the same is issued for effecting guaranteed payments to the exporter (Supplier) on behalf of the importer (purchaser); that therefore when Letter of Credit is opened, it is presumed that the bank has done with due diligence as to the applicant of the Letter of Credit and also as to the genuineness and the veracity of the receiver of the goods; that in the present case, the Supreme Impex is the applicant of the Letter of Credit and they had requested Indian Overseas Bank, Singapore to open a Letter of Cred...
Tag this Judgment!Neelavathi Vs. Shanmugam and Arulmigu Ramapiran Koil at Senthamangalam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC58
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the Sub Court, Kancheepuram, dated 18.02.1994 in A.S.No.26 of 1993, which reversed the decree and judgment passed by the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, on 25.09.1992 in O.S.657 of 1986.2. While admitting the Second Appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed:'Whether the learned Subordinate Judge erred in law in construing the plea of adverse possession as inconsistent with plea of title under Ex.A1 failing to note that the plaintiff had merely set out alternative source of title which is not prohibited by law ?3. This is a suit for declaration and injunction. The appellant is the plaintiff. The subject matter of suit is 0.32 cents in survey No.94/3-B of Papankuzhi Village of Kancheepuram Taluk, patta number of which is 239. The plaintiff relied upon a settlement deed dated 25.07.1966, marked as Ex.A-1, whereby the property was gifted to plaintiff by her father Nagappan. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Tvl. Pizzeria Fast Foods Restaurant (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC629; 2005(192)ELT52(Mad); (2005)2MLJ57; [2005]140STC97(Mad)
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. Writ Petition No. 36203 of 2003 has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent, the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai in O.P.No. 918 of 2003 dated 24.11.2003.3. Writ Petition No. 36204 of 2004 has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent in O.P.No. 1347 of 2003 dated 24.11.2003. The Tribunal has passed common order in both the above cases. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned clarification No. 156 of 2003 in D.Dis.Acts. Cell-II/31073/2003 dated 26.6.2003 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 28-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').4. The Tribunal dismissed both the petitions for assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 on the ground that the clarifications are binding on the parties, and alternativ...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Chummar Vs. R. Vasantha Kumari, Represented by Power of Attorney, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC89; 2005(1)CTC739
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J.1. The above petition is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. to withdraw and transfer a case in C.C. No. 817 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Karur to any other Court of competent jurisdiction in any other district.2. The petitioner, who belongs to Kerala State, is an accused in the above case punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the complaint preferred by the respondent herein. The petitioner has narrated the various facts and circumstances under which' he has issued the cheque and reasons for approaching this Court seeking transfer. I do not propose to dwell upon all such allegations except the brief facts, which are germane to decide the issue involved.3. The learned Senior Counsel contended that transfer is required on the following grounds:a) Since the petitioner is the resident of Kerala and even for bona fide reasons whenever he is unable to appear before the Court and in spite of the fact th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »