Chennai Court June 2005 Judgments
G. Krishnan S/O Govindan, Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Its Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3811; (2005)3MLJ299
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ declaring Sections 3 and 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989) as ultra vires the Constitution.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.3. It is alleged in the writ petition that a false FIR has been lodged against the petitioners by respondent - 4, who belong to the Scheduled Caste Community, on the basis of which respondent - 3, the Sub Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police Station, Salem District has registered a criminal case under Sections 323/427 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. but that application was dismissed by the District and Sessions Judge, Salem as not maint...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. D. Kuttiyappan, S/O. Dhanapal and ors. Vs. Meenakshiammal Polytech ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC676; (2005)4MLJ592
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 19.07.2004 passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur in I.A. No. 127 of 2004 in O.S. No. 59 of 1999, dismissing the application under Order XXIV Rule 9 C.P.C filed for Appointment of Advocate Commissioner. Defendants are the Revision Petitioners. 2. Facts necessitated for disposal of this Revision could briefly be stated:-Plaintiff - Meenakshiammal Polytechnic Unit of M/s.Meenakshiammal Trust has filed O.S. No. 1180 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram. Later the suit was transferred to District Munsif Court, Uthiramerur and re-numbered as O.S. No. 59 of 1999. The Suit Property relates to S. No. 383/3A - 3.17.5 H of Perunkuzhi Village, Uthiramerur Taluk. Case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff Trust had purchased the Suit Property in S. No. 383/3A under the Sale Deed dated 05.09.1984 from one Parthasarathi Battachariyar for valid consideration. The s...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Anantharaman Vs. Mahalingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC392
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Pondichery at Karaikal in A.S. No. 47 of 1988 dated 1.9.1989 reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.7.1988 in O.S. No. 36 of 1985 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikal. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the Appellant.2. Case of the plaintiff is that the suit property in Survey No. 192/5, Patta No. 384 to an extent of 19 acres 5 ca in Soorakudi Village, originally belonged to one Periyanayagathammal, w/o Muthusamy Sasthirigal. Periyanayagathammal purchased the suit property and other properties through a Notarial Deed dated 16.9.1897. She was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till her death on 16.1.1935. After her death, her only heir Lakshmi Ammal became the owner of the property. On 4.11.1968, the said Lakshmi Ammal in a sound disposing state of mind executed her last Will and Testament before the Notaire Sundaramurthy. On the extension of Indian Registration...
Tag this Judgment!Lucky Valley Investments and Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Chennai)491
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Coimbatore, dt. 2nd July, 1999. The relevant assessment year involved in this appeal is 1987-88.2. In this appeal of the assessee, two issues are raised by way of three grounds which read as under : "1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of reopening and in confirming the addition of Rs. 19,57,500 being interest income for which the assessee adopted the cash system of accounting. He ought to have observed that to reopen the assessment under Section 147, the AO should have "reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment" and the invoking of the provisions of Section 147 (either under the old provisions at the time of filing the return or under the new provisions) is not tenable in law. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have observed that the AO has not brought on record any new material or new information warranting a reopening of the assessment and hence the reopening is only consequent t...
Tag this Judgment!Kandasamy and Venkatesh Vs. M. Palanisamy,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC250; (2005)3MLJ306
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the District Munsif, Mettur, dated 31-03-2003 in I.A.No. 208 of 2003 in O.S.No. 48 of 1997 allowing the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. The defendants 2 and 3 are the Revision Petitioners.2. The brief facts necessitated for disposal of this revision petition could briefly be stated thus:The suit property relates to a house with the vacant site thereon in Amani Surapalli Village, Ist Ward in East Alamara Theru, Jalakandapuram Sub-Registration District. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property has been purchased by the plaintiff and his brother Madaiyya Chettiar by a sale deed dated 27-4-1953. From the date of purchase both of them were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The brother of the plaintiff Madaiyya Chettiar died about 10 years ago. Even after his death, the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit property as absolute owner. House tax assessment has been l...
Tag this Judgment!Kasiappa Gounder, S/O. Manthiriappa Gounder Vs. Karuppan, S/O. Karuppa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC412
R. Banumathi, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions are preferred against the order of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore dated 4.2.2003 in I.A. Nos. 1588 and 1517 of 2002 in O.S. No. 1641 of 1994, allowing the Application in I.A. No. 1517 of 2002 to deposit the Mortgage amount and allowing the Amendment in I.A. No. 1588 of 2002. The First Defendant is the Revision Petitioner. 2. Case of the Respondents/Plaintiffs is that the Suit Property and other properties comprising the total extent of 8.88 acres originally belonged to Chinnavadukan, who is the great grandfather of the Plaintiffs. He owned the said Properties under Inam patta No. 3 dated 01.10.1910. After the death of Chinnavadukan, the Property devolved upon his four sons. Chinna Sadayandi, who is the grandfather of the Plaintiffs had got 2.22 acres, out of which, the Plaintiffs' father Karuppan had acquired 74 cents. Plaintiffs' father Karuppan was the absolute owner of the said 74 cents, which the suit property herein and ...
Tag this Judgment!Loganathan Vs. Kaliappa Gounder,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ294
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Court of Additional District and Sessions cum Fast Track Judge I, Coimbatore, made in I.A. No. 34 of 2003 in O.S. No. 187 of 2002 dated 10-2-2003 dismissing the amendment petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner. 2. The brief facts necessitated for disposal of this revision petition could briefly be stated thus:- The suit property relates to site Nos. 17 to 22, 24 and 25 surrounded by the boundaries stated in the plaint schedule. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff has purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 30-5-1994. The suit property assumed importance as the same was developed as a residential area. The first Defendant is a close relative of the Plaintiff, who has offered help to the Plaintiff to develop the suit land. Hence, the Plaintiff has entrusted the work to the first Defendant and executed a general Power of Attorney on 15-7-...
Tag this Judgment!Plydham Vs. the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: [2005]141STC288(Mad)
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 20.3.2003 passed by the first respondent in O.P. No.1102 of 2002.2. It appears that an assessment order was passed against the petitioner by the third respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai, against which a first appeal was preferred by the petitioner to the second respondent, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner-CT III KC 102. The second respondent rejected the first appeal by his order dated 17.1.2002.3. Thereafter, at the relevant time, the assessee had two options, either to file a second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or to file a revision before the Special Tribunal under Section 38A of the Act. The petitioner opted for the second alternative, viz. filing a revision before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal under Section 38A of the Act. By the impugned ord...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chandra and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ370; 2005(3)CTC403
ORDERT.V. Masilamani, J.1. The revision petitioner M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd is the 4th respondent in the Motor Accident Claim Petition.2. The first respondent filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 235 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Vellore for compensation in respect of the grievous injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. A goods vehicle bearing registration No. TN-23-B-7273 and insured with the revision petitioner herein and another bus bearing registration No. TN-27-Z-6565 and insured with the 3rd respondent herein were involved in the accident.3. While the claim made by the first respondent was allowed, it was held by the learned Principal District Judge that the accident occurred on account of contributory negligence of both the drivers and therefore apportioned liability at 50% each and directed the respective insurance companies liable to pay the compensation amount.4. This revision is mainly bas...
Tag this Judgment!Madammal Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4748
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This appeal has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri.2. Madammal, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for having murdered one Devika, who was the paramour of her husband. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.3. The short facts leading to the conviction are summarised as follows:(a) The accused Madammal is the wife of one Krishnan. The deceased Devika is the concubine kept by the said Krishnan. The houses of both these people are situated on the same road in the adjacent place.(b) When the said Krishnan developed illicit intimacy with Devika, who was a widow, this was objected to by the accused. P.W.1, the mother of the deceased also objected for the said Krishan visiting the house of Devika to have affairs.(c) One day prior to the date of occurrence, Krishan was reprimanded by P.W.1, the mother of Devi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »