Chennai Court March 2005 Judgments
Dr. P. Vijayakumar Vs. Tata Finance Ltd., Represented by N.K. Vasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC474; [2005]126CompCas912(Mad)
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. These criminal original petitions are filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.7129 and 7128 of 2002 respectively on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, which were for an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Counsel for the petitioner / accused pointed out that the two complaints contemplated seven bounced cheques and they are cheque Nos. 224697 dated 01.10.2001, 224698 dated 01.11.2001, 224699 dated 01.12.2001, 224700 dated 01.01.2002, 224701 dated 01.02.2002, 224702 dated 01.03.2002 and 224703 dated 01.04.2002 drawn on Union Bank of India, Mylapore, Chennai-4. They were said to have been issued by the petitioner/accused to M/s. Tata Finance Limited, the respondent / complainant towards payment of installments due under Hire Purchase Agreement between the parties. Those cheques were bounced for insufficient funds in the said account of the petitioner / accused. The complaints were filed on 08.05.2002.3. Counsel for the pe...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. N.V. Shanmuganathan and S. Jey ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC666; 2006ACJ2276; 2005(2)CTC269
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the Appeal and the Cross Objection arise from the very same award of the Tribunal, they are being disposed of by the following common order.2. CMA. No: 993 of 1997 is preferred by M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd., questioning the quantum determined by the Tribunal in MACTOP. No: 2413 of 1995, dated 27.2.1997. Admittedly, the Appellant has not obtained permission U/s.170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to contest the claim on all aspects. In such circumstances, as per the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rahtagi and Ors.), the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.3. Coming to the Cross Objection filed by the injured-claimant, in view of the latest Division Bench decision of this Court in M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Sathiyanarayanan and Anr., reported in 2005 (1) L.W. 358, we constrain to dispose of the same on merits.4. I...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, theni Allinagaram Municipality and Revenue Inspector ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC683; (2005)2MLJ443
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. We have perused the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 13.07.2004.3. The respondent herein filed the writ petition alleging that the building bearing Survey No. 501/1D situate in the Theni Bus Stand belongs to the Theni Allinagar Municipality. The writ petitioner's husband Mr. A. Chakravarthy had taken the said building on lease from the municipality for the purpose of running a vegetarian restaurant. He entered into a lease agreement on 01.10.1986 with the Municipality and had also taken possession of the property, and was running a vegetarian restaurant called 'Kavitha Restaurant'. The total extent of the area taken on lease is 1135 sq.ft.4. It is alleged in paragraph-2 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that at the time of entering into the agreement, the Commissioner, Theni Allinagar Municipality (respondent no. 1 in the writ petition) had requested the petitioner's husband to giv...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Kumar Bagmar, Vs. State by Inspector of Police and Nagina @ Swa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC61
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J1. This Criminal Revision Petition arises against the order dated 06.04.2004 in Crl. M.P. No. 115 of 2004 in C.C. No. 14285 of 2003 by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.2. Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 and 5 in C.C. No. 14285 of 2003 pending before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai for offences under sections 498A, 406 IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Second respondent is the defacto complainant at whose instance the complaint was preferred which culminated into the above calendar case. The complaint was lodged on 20.08.2001 by the second respondent wife against the 1st petitioner/ 1st accused/husband and her in-laws for alleged cruelty and demand of dowry. Initially, there was no proper action taken upon her complaint and so, the second respondent/ wife waited till January 2002 to move for a transfer of the investigation from the file of All Women Police Inspector-Mrs. Rajeswari to some other officer. Agai...
Tag this Judgment!M.E.A. Mohamed Ali and ors. Vs. the District Revenue Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC9
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20.9.20042. The dispute relates to entries in the revenue records. It is well settled that entries in the revenue records does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value vide M.T.W. Tenzing Namgyal and Ors. v. Motilal Lakhotia and Ors., , Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, and Smt. Sawarni v. Smt. Inder Kaur and Ors., 1996 (7) JT S.C. 580. Such entries are only for the purpose of payment of land revenue. Hence the parties aggrieved by such entries in the revenue records should get their rights adjudicated in a civil suit. Ordinarily writ petitions should not be entertained against orders for making entries in the revenue records, as such orders do not affect the rights of any one.3. We make it clear that the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge does not create any right in favour of the parties in that case. We further make it clear that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Nikky Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy Cit, Central Circle-1(5)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)4SOT112(Chennai)
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 6-3-2002 for the above block period on the ground that the CIT(A) erred in sustain ing the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs towards repayment of dues with Catholic Syrian Bank, Pondicherry.The brief facts of the case are that there was a search action in the case of Smt. A.V. Shanthi, who was one of the Directors of the assessee company on 11-9-1997. Consequent upon the search, notice under section 158BD of the Income Tax Act was issued on 22-6-1999 to the assessee-company to file a return of income for the above block period.In response to the notice, the assessee filed return of income on 2-9-1999. After hearing the parties, viz., Smt. A.V. Shanthi, the Director of the assessee-company and the authorized representative of the assessee, the assessing officer passed the block assessment order on 28-6-2001, determining the income at Rs. 59,40,762 as against the declared income of Rs. 3,56,363 and made impugned additi...
Tag this Judgment!Justice Y. Venkatachalam, Judge, High Court (Retd.) Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ465
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Government of Pondicherry dated 21.8.2003. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 4.11.94 and thereafter was transferred to the Madras High Court, where he assumed office on 23.11.94, and continued as such till he attained the age of superannuation of 62 years on 16.12.2000.3. After his retirement the petitioner, with his consent, was appointed as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry by the G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 16.10.2001 on part time basis.4. It was alleged by the petitioner that under Section 16(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, the term of office of the President has to be 5 years or till attaining the age of superannuation of 67 years whichever is earlier, and the provision does not contemplate appointment on part time basis. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Rep. by Its M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC390; [2006(107)FLR317]; (2005)IIILLJ276Mad
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 17-6-2004.2. The appellant-Management had filed an application under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short 'I.D. Act') for approval of its' action of dismissal against the second respondent-workman. That application was rejected, but against that order the writ petition has been filed which was partly allowed by the learned single Judge. Hence this appeal.3. The second respondent-workman was a conductor in the services of the appellant. He was absent from duty without leave for about a month. His explanation was that he was sick with jaundice. However, that explanation was not accepted and an enquiry was conducted and he was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. The Management sought approval of its' action under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, which has been rejected.4. Learned single Judge has rightly held that ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Nazia Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2925
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the orders of detention passed in the case of N. Santhanameeran and S. Sahul Hameed under Section 3(1)(i) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, detaining them in Central Prison, Chennai, the above petitions have been filed respectively by one Mrs. Nazia, niece of Santhanameeran and S. Sahul Hameed, the detenu himself.2. It is seen from the grounds of detention that in pursuance of Intelligence Report that red sanders, a prohibited item for export were being attempted to be exported by M/s. Suriya Coir Products, Products, Pollachi and the same were being brought to Tutitcorin Port in Container No.CRXU-013525-8 loaded in Trailor No.AP-16-W-0084, under Shipping Bill No.1290088 dated 28.04.2004, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted the above container at Tuticorin Port. After seizure of the contraband and based on the statements of various persons connected there with, both Santhana...
Tag this Judgment!The Airport Officer, Salem Airport and Airport Authority of India, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ778Mad
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 19.06.1998. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. In Writ Petition No. 3412 of 1998 (which we are taking as leading case) the petitioner has alleged that the 2nd respondent in the writ petition (2nd appellant herein) is a quasi-governmental organization having control over all airports in India, and in charge of maintenance, operation and administration of airports. The respondent -1 (1st appellant herein) is the Airport Officer in charge of Salem Airport.4. The airport authority recruited contract labourers for watch and ward and conservancy services in the Salem Airport through a contractor viz., M/s. New Everest Security Services in the year 1994. It is alleged that the airport authority has not recruited any employees of their own for sweeping, dusting and watching of the buildings, even though these are works said to be of a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »