Chennai Court March 2005 Judgments
Khyrunnissa and ors. Vs. Rose Nissa and Abibullah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC377
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The tenants are the revision petitioners and they have lost before both the courts below. The relevant facts in each of the R.C.O.P. are as follows :R.C.O.P. No.8 of 1999 (C.R.P. No.459 of 2005)The tenancy is residential. The monthly rent is Rs.120/-. Eviction was sought for on the ground of demolition and re-construction and also for own use and occupation. R.C.O.P. No.9 of 1999 (C.R.P. No.460 of 2005)The tenancy is residential. The monthly rent is Rs.70/-. Eviction was sought for on the ground of demolition and re-construction and also for own use and occupation. R.C.O.P. No.11 of 1999 (C.R.P. No.461 of 2005) The tenancy is residential. The monthly rent is Rs.110/-. Eviction was sought for on the ground of demolition and re-construction and also for own use and occupation. R.C.O.P. No.13 of 1999 (C.R.P. No.462 of 2005)The tenancy is non-residential. The monthly rent is Rs.300/-. Eviction was sought for on the ground of demolition and re-construction and als...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Ramanujam, S/O. V.R. Seshadri (for Himself and Representing: Su ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC432; (2005)2MLJ382
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J.1. The above revision is filed challenging the order dated 23.7.2004 passed by the VI Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in C.M.P. No. 615 of 2004 in A.S. No. 36 of 2003 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners herein seeking to amend the plaint.2. The petitioners herein have filed a suit in O.S. No. 4589 of 1990 on the file of the First Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai claiming the relief for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs of the suit B schedule property. The suit was dismissed on 19.9.2002. One of the reasons among the other reasons for the dismissal of the suit was that the plaintiffs have not chosen to claim declaration of title in the suit property. Under the said circumstances, the application to amend the plaint was filed during the pendency of the appeal in A.S. No. 36 of 2003. Even though the appeal was filed during the month of Decemb...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Suresh Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Mad)392
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Writ Petitions Nos. 10608, 10629 and 10630 of 2005 are filed challenging the notices even dated November 18, 2004, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') proposing to reassess the income of the petitioners for the assessment year 2000-01 on the ground that the respondent in each of the writ petitions has reason to believe that the petitioners income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2000-01 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act.2. Writ Petitions Nos. 10607, 10628 and 10631 of 2005 are filed challenging the proceedings even dated November 25, 2004, served on the petitioners passing an order of provisional attachment under Section 281B of the Act pending proceedings of the reassessment notices even dated November 18, 2004, initiated under Section 148 of the Act, which are challenged in Writ Petition Nos. 10608, 10629 and 10630 of 2005, referred to the above.3. While Writ Petit...
Tag this Judgment!M. Tirupati Reddy (Huf) Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)6SOT276(Chennai)
Both these appeals are by assessees, who are husband and wife. There was search and seizure action in case of M/s. Samyukata Foundation (P) Ltd., Chennai in which the M/s. Tirupati Reddy (HUF) is the Managing Director of the Company and Smt. Mastanamma is one of the Promoter and shareholder. Consequent to search it was noticed that M/s. Tirupati Reddy (HUF) has made some undisclosed investment out of undisclosed income and accordingly, section 158BD proceedings were initiated.Initially notice dated 8-7-1996 was issued under section 158BC to assessees. It followed by another rectification letter dated 9-8-1996 wherein the assessing officer asked the assessees to treat the notice issued under section 158BC dated 9-7-1996 as notice issued under section 158BD of the Income Tax Act. The same was received and acknowledged by the assessees on 13-8-1996. In response to these notices, the assessees filed their respective return of income on 10-9-1996 admitting the undisclosed income. The asses...
Tag this Judgment!Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited, Proprietors of Dalmia Magnesite Corpor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad457; (2005)2MLJ584
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The plaintiff, who was successful before the trial Court and lost his case before the first Appellate Court, is the appellant in this second appeal. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the suit.3. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration, possession and for mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff as per the averments in the plaint is as follows:-The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property bearing Survey No. 125/2 of Chetti Chavadi Village comprised in patta Nos. 1 and 2 in Salem Taluk measuring 0.48.0 Hectares dry land in which the defendant unlawfully occupied the portion measuring about 1.20 acres. The suit property was originally portion of Chetti Chavadi Jaghir in Salem Taluk, which is a Sarva Inam. The entire Jaghir was purchased by the Magnesite Corporation of India under two sale deeds dated 31.8.1945 and after purchase, the Magnesite Corporation of India has been in enjoyment of both Melwaram and Kudiwaram rights in t...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Railways, Rep. by Its Chief Engineer (Construction) Vs. S. Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC721; (2005)2MLJ475
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. Since, we have decided W.P.Nos.37373 and 37376 of 2003 today, the above Writ Appeals arising out of the common interlocutory order passed in the said writ petitions are dismissed as infructutous. 2. The above writ petitions have been filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in G.O.Ms.No.164, Transport (I.1) dated 03.12.2003 and to quash the same. By the aforesaid order dated 03.12.2003 passed under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Government of Tamil Nadu has withdrawn from the acquisition of land in question. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.4. In paragraph - 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition No.37373 of 2003 it is alleged that the petitioners therein own land covered under the Section 4(1) notification dated 01.06.1999 in various town survey numbers as mentioned therein situate in Namakkal town within the limit of Namakkal Municipality. There were houses and bui...
Tag this Judgment!Prasad Film Laboratories Vs. G.V. Films Limited, Represented by Its Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC372
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. The above Original Side Appeal has been filed against Order of learned Single Judge dated 25-2-2005 made in O.A.No. 789 of 2004 in C.S.No. 749 of 2004 in and by which the learned Judge appointed the first respondent therein/appellant herein and the counsel for the fourth respondent therein as Joint Receivers for the Tamil Film 'Ullam Ketkkume'. The plaintiff/first respondent herein, namely, G. V. Films, instituted Civil Suit No. 749/2004 on the file of the Original Side of this Court against the appellant herein as first defendant and 17 others praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the absolute Copyright of the plaintiff over the Tamil cinematograph film, 'Ullam Ketkkume' by preventing in any manner the release and exploitation of the said film. The plaintiff has also prayed for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant laboratory to deliver prints of the Tamil cinematograph film ' Ullam Ketkkume' to the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Navodaya Mass Entertainments Ltd. Rep. by Its Chairman Vs. M. Vaidyana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: [2006]129CompCas697(Mad); (2005)3MLJ131
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 7.2.2004.2. The writ petition was filed praying for a writ of Certiorari against the order of the Arbitrator dated 27.10.2003. By that order, the preliminary objection of the writ petitioner that the proceedings are barred by Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') was rejected. The writ petitioner also raised an objection before the Arbitrator that there was no valid agreement for arbitration.3. In our view, the writ petition was rightly rejected by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has followed the earlier order of this Court in M/s. Mangayarkarasi Apparels Pvt. Ltd. v. Sundaram Finance Limited 2002 (2) CTC 585. We agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge.4. Apart from the above, we are of the opinion that Section 22 of the Act has no application as the proceedings b...
Tag this Judgment!Velvette International Pharma Products Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Direc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2006(196)ELT143(Mad)
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The petitioners filed the above criminal original petitions praying to call for the records, respectively, in EOCC Nos. 299, 297 and 298 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and to quash the same.2. The above criminal original petitions are filed to quash the complaint dated 16.04.2003 preferred by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Prosecution Unit against the petitioners.3. The complaint was preferred on the ground that the A1-Company was managed by A2 and A3 and that they have been found to have contravened Central Excise Rules as indicated in paragraph 18 of the complaint; that the complaint was filed in the year 1993-94 and the duty amount involved was said to be Rs. 29,80,530/-; that the amount of Central Excise Duty evaded by the petitioners/accused for the period from 1991-92 to 1993-94 was said to be Rs.84,44,286/-; that along with the complaint, a memo of evidence was furnished detailing the ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Forest an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad304
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These three writ appeals have been filed against the common order in three writ petitions being W.P. Nos. 26363 of 2001 and 1511 and 40350 of 2002 dated 30.04.2003.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the records.3. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the notification dated 11.7.2001 issued by the first respondent, Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi. By that notification, the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been amended by including various species to the schedule. The species with which we are concerned are as follows: -' Part IV A - Coelenterates1.Reef Building Coral (All Scleractinians)2.Black Coral (All Antipatharlans)3.Organ Pipe Coral (Tubipora musica)4.Fire Coral (All Hillipora species)5.Sea Fan (All corgenians)'4. The petitioner in W.P. No. 26363 of 2001 is a Company registered und...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »