Chennai Court July 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.
Thangamalar Transports Vs. K.A.G. Travels, Rep. by Its Partner A. Muth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC403; III(2006)ACC375
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 15.6.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.1826 0 of 2005 etc. Batch.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The writ petitions were filed against the timing conference notices under Rule 248 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Admittedly, after the notices, order has been passed by the Regional Transport Authority.4. Against every order of the Regional Transport Authority there is a right of appeal/revision under Sections 89 or 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence in our opinion the writ petitioners should have availed of the alternative remedy and should not have rushed to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as observed by us in Salam Khan v. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and Ors. 2005 I L.W. 676. Entertaining writ petitions by High Courts directly without insisting the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy, has contribu...
Mohammed Nawaz G Vs. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ528
ORDER PASSED3. While admitting these writ petitions on 19.07.2005, this Court passed the following interim order:'All those candidates who have been called for counselling shall attend the interview. However, as undertaken by the learned Additional Advocate General the results of the same shall not be taken till 22.7.2005.' and posted the matter today. Since the matter was not included in the list, on mentioning by the learned Senior Counsel that the last date for counselling for the selection of the candidates for admission to the Medical and Dental courses falls on Sunday 24.07.2005, all the matters are taken up for hearing today. IV - IMPUGNED CLAUSES4.1. It is appropriate to extract the following relevant clauses in the information booklet of the Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Entrance Examination conducted by the Anna University, Chennai during the year 2004 as well as 2005 and the relevant clauses of the Prospectus of the Tamil Nadu Admission to Medical and Dental courses for th...
Thiru Alankadu Immudi Ahora Dharma Sivachariar Aiyra Vaisya Madam Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC664; (2005)4MLJ258
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Thiru Alankadu Immudi Ahora Dharma Sivachariar Aiyra Vaisya Madam, petitioner herein, filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of possession, damages and mesne profits in the year 1998. Respondent filed a written statement in the year 2000, denying the title of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the plaint, claiming the relief of declaration of title over the suit property as well. The said application was opposed by the respondent/defendant, on the ground that it was barred by limitation, as the application was filed after three years. Accepting the said objection, the trial Court dismissed the application on 28.01.2004. Hence, this revision by the petitioner/plaintiff.2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, delay in filing the application cannot be a ground for rejecting the application at the threshold and the amendment seeking for declaration is quite esse...
Selvam Antony Marie (incorrectly Mentioned in the E.P. Selvam Marie) a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ500
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. By consent, the main civil revision petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the dismissal of their application filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to declare the final decree passed on 29.10.1998 by the Principal District Munsif, Karaikal as inexecutable.3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the decree as it stands cannot be executed since it only declares the shares and cannot be executed in the form in which it is drafted, and unless the decree also gives directions for specific allotment of shares and handing over of possession, there can be no final decree in the eye of law. Reliance was placed on Ramanuja Naicker v. Seethalakshmi Ammal : (1958)2MLJ512 , learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the memorandum of compromise, based on which the final decree was passed, was obtained by fraud and therefore, there can be no final decree on the basis of su...
iqbal Abdul Kareem, by His Power of Attorney, Salaiman Abdul Kareem Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ569
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The landlord, who was successful in getting an order of eviction before the Rent Controller, in R.C.O.P. No. 202 of 1993, was unable to sustain the same, when it was challenged by the tenant before the Appellate Authority and the result is this revision petition by the landlord.2. Neither the fact that the property described in R.C.O.P.No. 202 of 1993, bearing Door No. 169, situated at East Masi Street, Madurai belongs to the revision petitioner nor that the same is in occupation of the respondent/ tenant is disputed. The owner of the building thought it fit to demolish the above said building since the same was more than 50 years old, for the purpose of constructing a new building. When the landlord approached the respondent/tenant, he refused to vacate the premises, and therefore, the landlord has moved the Rent Controller, invoking the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'), f...
New Karpagam Hotel, Represented by Its Proprietor Poovai K.S. Ambikapa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR23]; (2005)4MLJ169
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court holding that the appellant is a factory for the purposes of the Act and bound to make contributions. The only objection that the appellant has to the impugned order is that the appellant-hotel/restaurant/ canteen is not subject to the provisions of the Act since G.O. Ms. No. 360, Labour and Employment, dated 2nd May 1978 extends the provisions of the Act only to hotels or restaurants employing 20 or more persons on wages and not to other hotels.2. In the absence of a notification under Section 1(5) of the E.S.I. Act, the amendment brought by Central Act 29 of 1989 amending the definition of 'Factory' would not by itself make the provisions, of the Act applicable to the establishment in question was the point raised before the E.S.I. Court in order to avoid the liability of making statutory contributions. This was answered against the establishment by the E.S.I. Court. In ot...
Royal Insulation (P) Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: [2006]147STC246(Mad)
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The above writ appeals have been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.6.2005 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 19370 and 19371 of 2005.2. Heard Ms. Hema, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. T. Ayyasamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent.3. The grievance of the appellant is that since the factory was on strike they could not furnish the declaration forms which ultimately resulted in the assessing authority passing the impugned order of assessment by imposing tax liability to the tune of Rs. 7,88,440/-. Since the grievance of the appellant appears to be genuine the learned Judge has also set aside the order of assessment, but however, imposed a condition that the appellant should deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) towards the TNGST assessment apart from paying the entire tax component in respect of the CST assessment. In such circumstances, we only modify that part of the order of the learned...
Orchid Chemicals and Vs. the Jt. Commissioner of I.T.,
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Chennai)32
1. The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the C.I.T.(Appeals)-IV, Chennai dated 8.9.2000. The relevant assessment year involved in this appeal is 1997-98.2. Before us, the assessee has raised 12 grounds in this appeal which are argumentative in nature and each of the grounds will be discussed in this order. The only issue raised before us for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the interest earned by the assessee in consequence of letters of credit for import of raw materials, margin money deposit set apart and earmarked by the Bankers from the overdraft account is essential part of the business activity or not. The briefly stated facts are that the assessee company engaged in the business of manufacture and export of Pharmaceuticals. The assessee claimed its business income as exempt under Section 10B of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The assessee claimed the interest income ear...
Viswaas Films Private Ltd., Rep., by Its Managing Director, V. Sundar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC148
P.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated4.5.2005 in Original Application No.540 of 2005 in C.S.No.448 of 2005. Thesaid order was to the following effect:-'Learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, appearing for therespondents 1 to 3 submitted that before release necessary notice will begiven to the applicant one week prior. The same is recorded. Post thismatter after vacation. In case of any urgency, liberty is given to theapplicant to move the vacation Court.'Thereafter, in the appeal an exparte order was passed on 31.5.2005.3. After hearing the counsels for both sides, we do not thinkthat the order passed on 4.5.2005 is appealable as no right of any party hasbeen decided in the said order. As per the order, simply the matter wasadjourned beyond vacation with liberty given to the applicant to move thevacation Court, in case of any urgency. 4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted thatund...
Sivaraman @ Harikrishnan, S/O. Late Govindarassou and anr. Vs. Rajeswa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC733; II(2005)DMC581
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. C.R.P. No. 15 of 2002.-- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 2.11.2001 passed by the First Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry in I.A. No. 1984 of 2001 in O.S. No. 370 of 2001, partly allowing the Petition, ordering to implead the First Petitioner Devaradjou. In this Civil Revision Petition, the Plaintiffs are the Revision Petitioners.2. C.R.P. No. 283 of 2003.-- Aggrieved over the order dated 2.11.2001 passed by the First Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry in I.A. No. 1984 of 2001 in O.S. No. 370 of 2001 declining to implead Canagame as Legal Representative of Govindaradjalou Naicker, the proposed parties have filed this Revision Petition.3. The parties are related as under: Govindaradjalou Naicker Died on 5.12.1989 Vislatchy Canagame Died on 12.11.1997 (2nd proposed party) | | (Second Wife) | (Status in dispute) | | | Devaradjou | | _____________________________________________________ | | | | Sivaraman Pakkialatchumi Kr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »