Chennai Court February 2005 Judgments
Amudha and ors. Vs. K. Jeyaraman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC385
ORDER1. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit who failed before both the Courts below.2. The 1st appellant/1st plaintiff is the mother of the appellants 2 to 4/minor plaintiffs 2 to 4 in the suit. The 1st respondent/1st defendant is the husband of the 1st appellant and father of the appellants 2 to 4, The 2nd respondent/2nd defendant is the purchaser of the suit property from the 1st respondent.3. The appellants filed the suit for partition against the respondents and separate possession of 1/4th share each in the suit properties. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent contested the suit. The learned District Munsif, having considered the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, adduced on either side and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellants preferred the appeal in A.S.No. 88 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpat...
Tag this Judgment!thenmozhi (Ms.) Vs. Chairman and Managing Director of Neyveli Lignite ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ499Mad; (2005)1MLJ715
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals are filed against the common impugned order dated December 11, 2003 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant.2. Appellant's husband was employed in the respondent Corporation. He was charge-sheeted for stealing computers worth about Rs. 5 lakhs and, after an enquiry, in which he was given an opportunity of hearing, he was dismissed by order dated November 29, 1997, which was confirmed in appeal on February 12, 1998. The said appellate order dated February 12, 1998 became final. It appears that a criminal case was also simultaneously launched against the delinquent for the very same offence, in which he was acquitted on March 19, 2001.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the appellant's husband has been acquitted in the criminal case, he should be held to be innocent of the charge levelled against him in the departmental proceedings and, consequently, the order of dismissal pass...
Tag this Judgment!G. Balraj Vs. the Director of Police and the Commissioner of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ7
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 29.12.2004. The petitioner only challenged the charge sheet. The petitioner was the Assistant Commissioner of Police and there were grave charges against him of financial irregularities as mentioned in Annexure-I to the charge sheet filed in the typed set of papers in this writ appeal.2. No writ petition lies against a mere charge sheet because by merely levelling a charge no cause of action arises and hence the writ petition is premature. It is only if punishment is given to the writ petitioner that he could approach this Court or the appropriate forum. This writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed as premature. No costs. Consequently WAMP Nos. 329 and 330 of 2005 are also dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. Vs. the District Forest Officer, S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ593; [2005]140STC112(Mad)
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals and writ petition are being disposed of by a common judgment. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The short question involved in this batch of cases is whether the transactions under question are inter-state sales or intra-state sales. 2. The petitioner/appellant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1961 having its registered office and factory at Bangalore in the State of Karnataka. It is a Government of Karnataka undertaking, and it manufactures soap. One of the main raw material for the manufacture of soap is sandal wood which is periodically sold in auctions by the first and second respondents viz., the District Forest Officer Sathyamangalam and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Saidapet, Chennai in the State of Tamil Nadu. The State of Tamil Nadu is insisting on charging General Sales Tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 in respect of the auction sales to the petition...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ300Mad; (2005)1MLJ639
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 10.12.1999.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the records.3. The writ petitioner had alleged in paragraph-2 of his affidavit that he joined the service of the respondent transport corporation (appellant in this appeal) in the year 1981 as a driver. As on 25.10.1991 he had put more than 10 years of service. In paragraph-3 he has alleged that on 25.10.1991, while he was driving a bus bearing registration No. TPC 7221 towards Thethupatti, a lorry, which was coming behind the bus, tried to overtake the bus and in that process, there was an accident resulting in multiple injuries to the writ petitioner and the conductor of the bus and to some passengers. The writ petitioner was admitted in the hospital as an inpatient for 68 days and he was discharged without being completely cured. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent tra...
Tag this Judgment!Poppys Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., Rep. by Authorised Agent, P. Murugan V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC231; [2005]128CompCas769(Mad); 2005(1)CTC677
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This appeal has arisen from the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. V), Coimbatore at Tirupur, reversing the judgment of the trial Court namely the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirupur, made in C.C.No.112 of 2002.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. This Court is of the considered opinion that the materials available are suffice to pass an order of dismissal in this appeal, and no notice is even necessary to the respondents, since it does not require an admission.3. It was a private complaint filed by the appellant herein under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the first respondent/accused issued a cheque to him to the tune of Rs.2,32,099/-. When the same was placed for encashment, it was returned dishonoured. A statutory notice was issued. The cause of action has arisen, since the demand made thereat was not met by the first respondent/accused, and thus, he lodged the pr...
Tag this Judgment!K. Jayasree Vs. State by Inspector of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC31
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Seeking a re-investigation of the case in Crime No. 5 of 2003 on the file of the first respondent police, which was taken cognizance pursuant to the filing of the final report, by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, in C.C.No. 10183 of 2003, by some other investigating agency, the petitioner has brought forth this O.P.2. Affidavit in support of the petition and the counters filed by the respondents are perused.3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that she lodged a complaint against her husband and his family members, on the strength of which a case came to be registered by the first respondent police in Crime No. 5 of 2003 for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; that at the time of the investigation, she requested the Investigating Officer to receive some documents which were essential to prove the guilt of the accused end were in her possession; th...
Tag this Judgment!Xl Visions Vs. the National Highways and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad211; (2005)1MLJ650
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals are filed against the impugned orders dated 2-11-2004 and 20-12-2004 in W.P. No. 6646 of 2004 and Review Application No. 83 respectively passed by the learned single Judge.2. The appellant/writ petitioner challenged the licence granted by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent to display its advertisements in the central median grills on the National Highways No. 67 between kilometers 343 and 344 at different points, railway barricade wall and in the circular park. Admittedly, the appellant was given licence to display its advertisement hoarding on the central median grills on the National Highways No. 67 between 343 km and 344 km. The said licence was valid for one year and could be renewed every year by paying the necessary charges. No doubt, in the letter of the Divisional Engineer (N.H.) Coimbatore dated 8-7-2002, a copy of which is annexed at page No. 19 of the typed set filed in the writ appeals, it is mentioned that the...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: (2006)6SOT200(Chennai)
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-I, Chennai and relates to the assessment year 1995-96.The first issue relates to the disallowance of Euro Issue expenditure.We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. The assessee is a public limited company. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of commercial vehicles, engines and their spare parts. During the relevant period. it claimed Rs. 14,21,52,402 as Euro Issue expenditure. These expenditures were treated by the assessee as of revenue nature. The assessing officer declined to allow deduction under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Alternatively, claim was made under section 35D of the Act.The assessing officer held that there was no extension or setting up of new unit. As such the requirement of section 351)(1)(ii) was not satisfied.Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the case of the ass...
Tag this Judgment!Superintending Engineer, Tiruvannamalai Distribution System, Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC680; (2006)3MLJ975
T.V. Masilamani, J.1. The appellants are the defendants who failed before the Courts below.2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the order in ADE/O & M/N/TL/R II/D6/82 dated 20.1.1982 issued by the appellants is null and void and for mandatory injunction to restore the electric service connection in S.C. No. 35, in favour of the respondents.3. The appellants/defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the electric meter installed in the said service connection was found defective at the time of inspection and therefore on a calculation of the consumption charges payable by the respondents, the appellants were constrained to issue a notice calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs. 2,837/- towards loss of energy.4. The learned District Munsif, having analysed the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced on either side and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, decreed the suit as prayed for. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Tri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »