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.
Mohamed Gani, Secretary Gani Beebi Darga Mosque Vs. the Superintendent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad359
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A. Sirajuddin, and learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and perused the record. This writ petition was admitted by the Court on 07.04.1998. On that date learned Public Prosecutor accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. Notice was issued to respondent - 5, and it was served on him on 19.03.2001. However, none has appeared for respondent - 5.2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner, who is a Muslim, has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to give adequate security to the Muslims of Balasamudram village in Dindigul District while they take out the dead bodies to their graveyard in the said village in S.No.53/1 in accordance with the agreement piloted by the fourth respondent dated 25.1.1998 between the Muslims and Harijans of Balasamudram village.3. The petitioner has alleged that there are about 2000 Muslims living in the said village and the...
D. Kulasekaran S/O. K. Dhuruvan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ639
P.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement dated 12.4.2001 passed by the first respondent, namely, the Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary in the Home Department.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :-The petitioner was initially appointed on 14.12.1974 in the Revenue Department. Subsequently, the petitioner passed B.L., and was transferred to Law Department with effect from 6.3.1982. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the post of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate for recruitment by transfer and being so selected, he was posted as Judicial Magistrate with effect from 10.8.1992. The petitioner, however, retained his lien in the Law Department. On 2.3.1998, the Law Department called upon the petitioner to indicate his willingness to be absorbed in the Judicial Service or to be reverted back to the Law Department. On 27.3.1998, the petitioner requested for three months time to express his w...
Bhuvaneswari Vs. Saraswathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ626
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. The respondent has been served. She is neither appearing in person nor has engaged any counsel. The plaintiff is before this Court challenging the order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.2. The plaintiff went before the learned trial Judge in O.S. No. 166 of 1990 seeking a decree of prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from in any way interfering with her such possession. Voluminous oral as well as documentary evidence was let in before the trial Judge. The trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed in A.S. No. 286 of 1996. The learned appellate Judge, after going through the entire materials placed on record, found that a need had arisen for the appointment of an Advocate Commissoner so that the property forming the subject-matter of the suit could be identified and with that view in his mind, passed the order of remand which is now under challenge.3. We w...
Shri T.T. Narasimhan (Deceased) Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of Wealth
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2005
Reported in: (2006)280ITR65(Chennai)
1. This appeal of the assessee relates to Assessment Year 1985-86.During the pendancy of this appeal, the assessee expired. The legal representatives of the deceased assessee filed an application to bring them on record and permit them to continue the appeal proceeding before this Tribunal. After hearing both the representatives of the assessee and the Revenue, we bring the legal representatives on record.2. The only issue arises for consideration is regarding reopening of the assessment after expiry of four years from the end of the Assessment Year merely for adopting another method for valuation of shares.3. Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the direction of this Tribunal and CWT(Appeals), the shares were valued on yield basis adopting the value of per share at Rs. 230/-. However, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and repeated the very same addition made in the order of assessment on the ground that a Reference Application ...
Dy. Cit, Special Range Ii Vs. Sundaram Finance Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2005
Reported in: (2006)7SOT309(Chennai)
I.T.A. No. 1341/97 is filed by the revenue for the assessment year 1994-95 and I.T.A. Nos. 278/(Mad.)/95, 1257 and 2165 (Mad.)/96 and 804 (Mad.)/97 are filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1988-89, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 respectively. Since common issue arises for consideration in all the appeals, we heard the same together and disposing of the same by this common order.Let us first take the assessee's appeal for the assessment year 1988-89 in I.T.A. No. 278 1 (Mad.)/95. The first issue is regarding deduction under section 32AB of the Income Tax Act. Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessing officer set off the carried forward unabsorbed investment allowance and thereafter rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that there was no positive profit for grant of deduction under section 32AB.According to the learned counsel, deduction under section 32AB should be computed before setting off of carried forward unabsorbe...
Minor Arumugam @ Logesh and anr. Vs. State Bank of India Rep. by Its C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2005
Reported in: I(2007)BC430; (2005)4MLJ239
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. Defendants 4 & 5 in O.S. No. 532/2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Karur are the revision petitioners.2. Facts warranted for the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition:(a) The first respondent in this revision petition as plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,37,911 based upon a mortgage deed dated 28.3.1990 said to have been executed by the first defendant in favour of the bank, mortgaging the suit properties, for which respondents 2 & 3 stood as guarantor and that a portion of the property was purchased by the revision petitioners/defendants 4 & 5 and in this view, all are liable to pay the amount, in addition to the properties.(b) The third defendant, by filing a written statement, opposed the claim, that the plaintiff bank at the first instance, has to proceed for the recovery of the mortgage loan only from the first defendant, then entitled to proceed as against 'B' Schedule properties and as such, the claim mad...
PNL Depositors' Welfare Association, Registered No. 94/2005, rep. by S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC469; [2005]64SCL115(Mad)
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions and Writ Petition Miscellaneous Petitions, the controversy centres around the proceedings initiated by the Indian Bank (Petitioner in W.P. No. 10077 of 2005) (hereinafter referred to as 'Indian Bank') under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, 'SARFAESI Act').2. W.P. No. 9834 of 2005 has been filed by PNL Depositors' Welfare Association. The prayer is for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 therein to initiate necessary action to safeguard the interest of the depositors of the sixth respondent, namely, PNL Nithi Limited, Pondicherry by taking appropriate action under the provisions of law. In this Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No. 14620 of 2005 has been filed by the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (in short, 'IREDAL') for getting itself impleaded as one of the party-respondents. A sim...
S. Bhuvaneswari Vs. S. Gowthaman Bhaskaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC156; (2005)3MLJ441
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioner is a landlady, who was unsuccessful before the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The landlady filed a rent control original petition in RCOP No. 2879 of 1995 under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 read with Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for eviction of the respondent from the residential flat No. 5 on the southern side in the second floor of complex of residential flats known as G.S. Flats bearing door No. 25-A, Second Street, East Abhiramapuram, Mylapore, Madras-4. The said flat is required for her own use and occupation. The flat was purchased by the petitioner under a registered Sale Deed dated 12.07.1995 from Mrs. Nandhini Bharath. The respondent became a tenant under the previous owner Mrs. Nandhini Bharath in Septe...
M. Ravi and ors. Vs. Mr. Elumalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: III(2007)BC170; 2006CriLJ1059
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The petitioners are the accused 1 to 13 in C.C.No.15 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram. The petitioners have filed this original petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.15 of 2003.2. The financial company in the name 'T.M.C. Finance & Investments' was started by the first petitioner taking the other petitioners as partners of the firm. The petitioners 2 to 13/accused 2 to 13 are not having any role to play in the finance company and only they contributed the capital, which is mainly run by the first petitioner. The respondent borrowed money from the finance company, but when the respondent failed to repay the said amount, the first petitioner has filed a private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which was taken on file in C.C.No.128 of 2001, since the cheque issued by the respondent for Rs.5,64,000/- was dishonoured when it was put for collection for insufficiency of funds and the case is...
S. Loganathan Vs. Manmal Surana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ466
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J. 1. The revision petitioner is the tenant, who was successful before the Rent Controller but lost his case before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority reversed the eviction order of the Rent Controller on three grounds viz., the tenant/revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent for the months of July 1996 to September 1996; the revision petitioner is using the premises other than the purpose for which it was leased to and that the requirement of the premises by the landlord for the purpose of parking his car is bonafide. Such order of the Appellate Authority is under challenge in this revision. 2. The respondent is the landlord for the building in Door No. 37, Bangaru Reddy Street, Ayanavaram. The revision petitioner is the tenant in a portion of that building for monthly rent of Rs. 600/-, which according to the landlord is for residential purpose. It is further the case of the landlord that the tenant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »