Chennai Court June 2005 Judgments

Chellakannu, Son of Pichamuthu Vs. Kolanji, Wife of Shanmugam

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2005Mad405; 2005(5)CTC190; (2006)4MLJ285

ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the Fair and Decretal Order dated 14.02.2003 passed by the District Munsif, Jeyankondam in I.A. No. 396 of 2002 in O.S. No. 167 of 2002, allowing the Petition filed under Section 151, Order VII Rule 11(b) C.P.C, directing the Plaintiff to pay the Court Fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner. 2. Case of the Revision Petitioner is that the Suit Property belonged to his Father - Pichamuthu. Pichamuthu had two wives, through whom he had Three Sons. Earlier, there was Partition in the family of the Plaintiff on 04.08.1971 wherein the Plaintiff and the Sons through the First Wife have partitioned the family properties. There was further partition between the Plaintiff and his Brothers in 1977. Item 1 of the Suit Property was allotted to one Poomalai. Items 2 and 4 - S.Nos.155/3 and 339/13A were allott...

Rajaji Vs. R. Krishnaji

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2005)3MLJ379

ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This revision is preferred against the Fair and Decretal Order made in I.A. No. 540/2001 in I.A. No. 283/2001 in O.S. No. 34/2000 dated 2.11.2001 by the Subordinate Judge, Maduranthakam, dismissing the petition filed under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC declining to set aside the exparte order to appointment of Receiver passed in I.A. No. 283/2001.2. The Plaintiffs/Defendants 1 and 2 - sons of D-3 - Raja Ram Reddiar, claim that the suit properties 'A to E' schedule properties are the ancestral properties. The Plaintiff has filed the suit O.S. No. 34/2000 for partition and allotment of 1/4th share. The suit property relates to a number of items of immovable properties comprised in A to E Plaint Schedule Properties.3. Defendants 1 to 3 have filed Written Statement. D-1 has filed the Written Statement contending that the Preliminary Decree for partition could be passed in respect of the suit properties excepting 'B' Schedule Property, which is to be allotted as three equal sh...

Perumal and ors. Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2005(4)CTC141

ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Accused 1 to 3 in S.C. No. 97 of 1998 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Madras are the appellants herein. They have been convicted for the offences under Sections 341 and 302 read with 34, I.P.C., by the Trial Court. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.2. The short facts are as follows:(a) A-1 to A-3 are brothers. The deceased Srinivasan and PW-4 Rathinavelu are friends. On 11.6.1997, there was a quarrel between the deceased and PW-4 Rathinavelu on the one side and A-1 Perumal on the other side. During the scuffle, A-1 took away the ration card belonging to PW-4. Therefore, next day morning i.e., on 12.6.1997, both the deceased and PW-4 went to the house of A-1 in order to get back the ration card. A-1 was not available in the house. Therefore, both the deceased and PW-4 warned the wife of A-1 that unless the ration card is returned, her husband would face serious consequences. Thereafter, they came back home.(b) The fateful occurrence...

S. Vijayalakshmi W/O. Late Venkataramanan Vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2005)3MLJ322

P.K. Misra, J.1. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :-One L. Venkataramanan, the deceased husband of the present petitioner, was appointed as contingent watchman in the office of the Executive Engineer under the Board. He was in duty since 5.2.1983. On 24.8.1986, while traveling for the purpose of official duty, he met with an accident and subsequently expired on 25.8.1986. The petitioner was aged about 27 and had completed SSLC. She had applied to the Board for appointment on compassionate ground. The Board, however, vide letter dated 23.3.1989, rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the services of the husband of the petitioner had not been regularised. It is the contention of the petitioner that since her husband had worked for about 3+ years and had completed more than 480 days of continuous service, he was entitled to be made permanent as per Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status ...

Paul Sudhindran Vs. the State of Tamiil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2005)3MLJ651

P.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the land acquisition proceedings as per G.O.Ms.No.88 dated 17.1.1989, followed by declaration under Section 6 as per G.O.Ms.No.488 dated 6.6.1990 so far as it relates to the land comprised in R.S.No.3189 to an extent of 19 grounds and 909 sq.ft. and R.S.No.3185/45 of an extent of 1 ground and 1708 sq.ft. in Block No.56, Purasawalkam Village, Purasawalkam, Perambur Taluk, Madras District and to forbear the respondents from interfering with the right of the petitioners in respect of the said land comprised in R.S.No.3189 and the access property in R.S.Nos.3185/45, 3185/46, 3185,59 and 3185/60.2. Petitioner is the Secretary of the Priyadarshini Apartments Residents Welfare Association, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Two officers of Reserve Bank of India, namely, J.W. Francis and S. Rajamanito floated a scheme to construct a residential complex for the employees...

Shivashankar Textiles rep. by It's Proprietor Vs. the Union of India ( ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: III(2005)ACC831; 2005(3)CTC534

R. Balasubramanian, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the applicant before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras Bench. Admittedly, he entrusted to the Railways at Coimbatore three bundles of handloom clothes for it's onward journey to Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station at New Delhi. It is also not in dispute that out of the three bundles entrusted to the Railways, only one bundle was delivered at the place of destination. The Railways had also given partial delivery certificate (Ex.A.2). The applicant/appellant made a statutory claim by issuing a notice (Ex.A.4) under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989, claiming a sum of Rs. 22,896/-, being the value of short delivered goods. The Railways replied by Ex.A.7 and Ex.A.10 denying the liability to the extent as claimed by the applicant/appellant. Before the Tribunal, the Railways took the defence that as contemplated under Section 103(2) of the Railways Act read with Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Railway (Extent of Monetary Liability & Prescrip...

Shivashankar Textiles Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 3(2005)ACC831

ORDER1. The appellant in this appeal is the applicant before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras Bench. Admittedly, he entrusted to the Railways at Coimbatore three bundles of handloom clothes for its onward journey to Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station at New Delhi. It is also not in dispute that out of the three bundles entrusted to the Railways, only one bundle was delivered at the place of destination. The Railways had also given partial delivery certificate (Ex. A2). The applicant/appellant made a statutory claim by issuing a notice (Ex. A-4) under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989, claiming a sum of Rs. 22,896, being the value of short delivered goods. The Railways replied by Ex. A-7 and Ex. A-10 denying the liability to the extent as claimed by the applicant/appellant. Before the Tribunal, the Railways took the defence that as contemplated under Section 103(2) of the Railways Act read with Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Railway (Extent of Monetary Liability and Prescription of Percent...

Y. Vijayalakshmi @ Rambha Vs. Manickam Narayanan, Proprietor, Seventh ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)33; IV(2005)BC482; 2005CriLJ3572; 2005(3)CTC480

ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. Criminal Original Petitions No.1225 and 1226 of 2005 are filed to call for the records in C.C.No.7527 and 7764 of 2004 respectively on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and quash the same. Criminal Original Petition No.1668 of 2005 is filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.284 of 2005 in C.C.No.7527 and 7764 of 20 04 on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and quash the same.2. Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.7527 and 7764 of 2004 pending on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. She is alleged to have availed Rs.91,00,000/- as loan from the respondent / complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest. During the above transaction, on 25.09.2003, when the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000 /- on 25.09.2003, she issued three post dated cheques in repayment of the same and had also executed three promissory notes. When the three cheques were presented for collection, they were returned and di...

Jt. Cit, Special Range Ii Vs. Virudhunagar Textile Mills Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

"2.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have held that the conversion charges are part of total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction Under Section 80HHC. 2.2 The CIT(Appeals) ought to have held that the receipt of conversion charges will form part of turnover since it is also trading/revenue receipt. Further, since the profit derived from the conversion charges receipts is also included in the press profits of the business for deduction Under Section 80HHC purpose. 2.3 The CIT(Appeals) ought to have held that since the total turnover is a wider term than the gross sales and hence it will include the receipts of conversion charges." "The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the following sums as forming part of total turnover as defined Under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act.Sale of yarn : Rs. 42,64,575/-Sale of condemned material : Rs. 6,32,125/- 3. The ld. AR submitted that the issues are covered in favour of assessee in respect of sale of yarn...

Jt. Cit Special Range-ii, Modurai Vs. Virudhunagar Textiles Mills Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Reported in: (2005)97ITD306(Chennai)

"2.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have held that the conversion charges are part of total turnover for the purpose of computation.of deduction under section 80HHC.2.2 The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have held that the receipt of conversion charges will form part of turnover since it is also trading/revenue receipt.Further, since the profit derived from the conversion charges receipts is also included in the press profits of the business for deduction under section 80HHC purpose.2.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have held that since the total turnover is a wider term than the gross sales and hence it will include the receipts of conversion charges." "The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the following sums as forming part of total turnover as defined under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act.The learned authorised representative submitted that the issues are covered in favour of assessee in respect of sale of yarn and sale of condemned materials by the order o...