Chennai Court March 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Madras Fertilizers Limited, Rep. by Its Chairman and Managing Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC15; 2005(101)ECC194; 2005(191)ELT114(Mad)
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 11.06.2001.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the impugned judgment and the records.3. The appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking, and 51% of its shares are held by the Central Government. It is engaged in the manufacture of fertilizers. The relevant period in this case is from 05.03.1976 to 29.2.1977, for which period the appellant cleared complex fertilizers claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification No.25/70-CE dated 01.03.1970. The Assistant Collector had initially allowed the exemption on 05.03.1976, but the Department took the stand that the appellant was not entitled for the benefit of this notification and accordingly, a show cause notice dated 07.06.1976 was issued. The Assistant Collector subsequently passed an order confirming the denial of exemption against which order W.P.No.152 of 1977 was filed before this...
Rethinam Alias Anna Samuthiram Ammal and ors. Vs. Syed Abdul Rahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ94
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. The plaintiffs have filed the present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 27th August, 2004 passed by the Trial Court, rejecting their application for amendment of the plaint. Initially, the suit was filed for permanent injunction. After commencement of trial, the plaintiffs filed an application for the amendment of the plaint praying that their title should be declared and a decree for recovery of possession should be granted in their favour. Such application was rejected by the trial Court by placing reliance on the decision of this Court P. Subba Naicker v. Veluchamy Naicker 2004 (2) CTC 742 and observing that after the Amended C.P.C. had come into force, no amendment of the plaint can be allowed after commencement of the trial unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the plea could not have been raised before the commence...
iqbal Mohammed Bijili Vs. K. Arumugam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC420; (2005)2MLJ411
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The second appeal was admitted on 13.12.2004 on the following substantial questions of Law:1. Whether the findings of the Courts below are vitiated by its failure to consider the absence of any evidence on the side of the respondents 1 and 2 regarding possession except the recitals under Exs.A-3 and A-4 which came to be registered pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in O.S. Nos. 358 and 360 of 1991 without notice to the appellant ?2. Whether the Courts below are right in not considering the question on the indisputable fact that the suit is barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code especially when the cause of action in the present suit is the same as that of in the previous suits in O.S. Nos. 358 and 360 of 1991 ?2. When the application for interim order was moved, both the counsel submitted that they would argue the main second appeal itself and therefore the second appeal was heard.3. The suit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein. The ...
P. Erajan, Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Vs. the Deputy I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC202; [2005(107)FLR535]; (2005)2MLJ360
S.K. Krishnan, J.1. Aggrieved by the order, dated 5.5.2004, of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the above two Writ Petitions. Since the issue involved and the parties in the above two Writ Petitions are one and the same, these two Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common order.2. The facts, leading to the filing of these petitions, are as follows:a. The petitioner is working as Inspector of Police. He was served with a Charge Memo dated 18.11.2002 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range and subsequently, by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range on 2.1.20036. The Charge Memo Contains the following two allegations:'a. Reprehensible conduct in having demanded and accepted a bribe amount of Rs. 5000 at his residence D.No. 23 (Old No. 29) Rama Lakshmana Nagar, Erode, on 6.5.2002 at 16.00 hrs. from one K. Selvaraj s/o. Kumarasami, threatening him he would be arrested in Erode E.O.W.Cr.No. 3/2000 and assured him that no...
T. Panchavarnam Vs. Regional Transport Authority and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC378
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned. Single Judge dated 1.4.2004 in Writ Petition No. 8729 of 2004.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.3. The writ petition was filed against the impugned order of the Regional Transport Authority, Dindigul dated 27.12.2003.4. Every order of the Regional Transport Authority is appealable/revisable under Sections 89/90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Hence the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The writ appeal is consequently dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy W.A.M.R No. 736 of 2005 is dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›