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.
G. Eva Mary Elezabath Vs. Jayaraj,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad452
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. G. Eva Mary Elezabath has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition, seeking for a direction, directing the respondents to produce the minor male child Samuel Rily Macon before this Court and pass suitable orders for custody.2. According to the petitioner, she and her family members are members of the Church of Christ situated at Kottur, Chennai. Jayaraj, first respondent herein, was also a member of the Church. The first respondent and his wife Tmt. Mallika used to visit the Church frequently. The first respondent's wife Mallika delivered a male child on 10.08.2002. The said Mallika committed suicide on 17.09.2002; thereupon, Jayaraj, father of the child, abandoned the one month old male baby in the Church premises and left the place. Thereafter, one Vasanthi took care of the child for about 15 days. However, she handed over the child back to the Church, since she was not able to maintain the child. Then, Pastor of the Church handed over the child to the petitio...
Padmanabhan Vs. Krishnamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC619
R. Banumathi, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, made in I.A. No. 1242 of 2003 in O.S. No. 60 of 1991 dated 28-11-2003, scrapping the earlier report of the Advocate Commissioner and directing the second Defendant to file a separate petition to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for division of the suit 'A' Schedule property.2. O.S. No. 60 of 1991:- The Plaintiff and Defendants are brothers and sisters. Their father L.Jayaraman died intestate in the year 1970. Their mother Chandra Bai also died intestate in the year 1986. Their brother Murali also died intestate and unmarried in the year 1983. Claiming 81/378th shares in 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties and 1/7th share in the 'C' Schedule property and to render account of the income, the Plaintiff has filed O.S. No. 60 of 1991. A preliminary decree for partition was passed in O.S. No. 60 of 1991.3. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to divide the 'A' Schedule property and t...
Ayyanar and Allimuthu Vs. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC174
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Ayyanar (A1) and Allimuthu (A2) were tried for the offences under Sections 341 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. The trial Court, ultimately, convicted both the accused finding them guilty in respect of the offence under Section 341 I.P.C. and acquitted them in respect of the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. However, A1 alone was convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part I I.P.C. Challenging the above conviction, both the accused have filed appeal in C.A.No. 150 of 1998 before this Court. The State, on being aggrieved by the acquittal of both the accused in respect of the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C., has filed appeal before this Court in C.A.No. 969 of 1998.2. The factual scenario, according to the prosecution, is as follows:'(a) Ayyanar, the first accused married one Poongodi, who is the daughter of Allimuthu, the second accused. The deceased Kannan is the son of P.W.2 Natesan who is the co-brother of A2 Allimuthu. Both the fam...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Micromax Systems P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Mad)578; [2005]277ITR409(Mad)
Markandey Katju, C.J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been filed by the Department challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated March 19, 2003, by which the appeal of the Revenue has been dismissed by the Tribunal.2. The appeal was admitted by the court on the following substantial questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee's claim for a bad debt, when the bad debt had not actually been written off in the books of account ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the claim for bad debt on the ground that the provision had been shown under the head 'Expenditure' in the annual report of the assessee-company ?3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii), an assessee other than a banking company can be allowed a claim for a bad debt on the basis ...
K. Gopal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Chief Secretary,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC241; (2005)3MLJ456
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition illustrates an alarming phenomenon which has arisen in the State of Tamil Nadu over the last decade or so, which is gaining momentum, and which must be nipped in the bud now otherwise it will create serious law and order problems and anarchy in the State. This phenomenon is the mushrooming, particularly in the rural and coastal areas of the State, of wholly illegal and extraconstitutional institutions called Katta Panchayats which hold illegal kangaroo courts, issue unlawful decrees of excommunication from the village and imposition of huge fines against persons who have displeased them in some way, and commit acts of violence on such person if they disobey such decrees.3. The writ petitioner K.Gopal has alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that he is a practicing Advocate in the Madras High Court. He has alleged that he has been a victim of the Kattapanchayat system preval...
A.N. Srinivasan Vs. C.N. Sivakolundu Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC190
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. These revisions are preferred against the order made in I.A.Nos.817 and 818 of 2003 made in O.S.Nos.255/2003 and 257/2003 on the file of the District Munsif Kanchipuram dated 04.11.2003, allowing the petitions filed under Or.1 R.10(2) CPC to implead Respondents 1 to 4/Landlords as Defendants 2 to 5. The first Defendant/Tenant is the Revision Petitioner.2. O.S. No. 255/2003 and 257/2003 :- In both cases, case of the Plaintiffs is that they are cultivating tenants under the Defendant Srinivasan. M/s. Sivakozhundu Chettiar, Namasivaya Chettiyar, Thirunavukkarasu and Sambanthamoorthy Chettiyar of Kanchipuram are the owners of a number of items of suit properties and the vast extent thereon. Plaintiff is cultivating tenant under the original tenant - Defendant. Defendant has been trying to dispossess the Plaintiff from schedule mentioned properties. Hence the Plaintiffs have filed the suit against the original tenant viz., the Defendant - Srinivasan.3. Defendant - Sr...
P. Rama Srinivasa Rao Vs. Dr. N. Ragavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ625
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This revision is preferred against the order made in O.S. No. 8165/1997 on the file of the XVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 6.11.2003, allowing the marking of the Document/ Photograph during the cross-examination of PW-1. The Defendant is the Revision Petitioner.2. O.S.No. 8165/1997:Plaintiff has filed the suit against his own vendor viz., the Defendant, for Permanent Injunction and for declaration. Case of the Plaintiff is that he has purchased the suit property along with a small dilapidated superstructure in R.S. No. 42/2., Block No. 37, Ayanavaram village in Pursawalkam-Perambur Taluk by a Sale Deed dated 26.10.1995. Since then, the Plaintiff is in possession of the said property. The Plaintiff had obtained planning permit from the Corporation of Chennai in 1996. The Plaintiff has put up construction in the suit property. The Defendant and her husband had been causing interference to the progress of the construction work. The Defendant has no...
Yanaimal Thottam Trust Rep. by Its Trustee G.N. Chandrabalan Vs. B. La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC638; (2005)3MLJ439
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. In both these revisions, the petitioner questioned the correctness of the order passed by the lower appellate Judge in C.R.P. No. 13 of 2005 and the trial Judge in C.R.P. No. 14 of 2005 condoning the delay of 165 days in former case and 972 days in the latter case, in seeking to set aside the ex parte order. However, in C.R.P. No. 13 of 2005 the trial Judge, non-suited the respondent for condoning the delay of 165 days on the ground that he was not satisfied with the reasons stated for condoning the delay to set aside the ex-parte decree. However, the respondent herein took the matter on appeal in C.M.A. 1 of 2004 before the Subordinate Judge, who reversed the order on the ground that the respondent herein has to be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits. That order is put in issue before this Court on the ground that an appeal against the order dismissing the application to condone the delay is not maintainable before the Subordinate Judge, i...
Palaniappa Gounder and anr. Vs. Nallusami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC635; (2005)3MLJ367
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 7 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramathi. The revision is filed challenging the rejection of the amendment petition General Number 1227 of 2002 filed under Sections 151 and 152, C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint and consequently to amend the judgment and the decree dated 28.2.2001 in the suit.2. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S. No. 7 of 1998 for declaration and permanent injunction and also for possession as sought in the plaint. The suit was resisted by the defendants, viz., the respondents herein and after trial, the suit was decreed as prayed for on 28.2.2001 granting two months' time to hand over possession and directing the plaint plan Ex.A-1 and two plans of the advocate-commissioner Exs.C-2 and C-3 to form part of the decree.3. After obtaining certified copy of decree and judgment, the plaintiffs filed amendment petition in General No. 1227 of...
Venkatramani N. Vs. Indian Bank Rep. by Its Chairperson and M.D. and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ703Mad; (2005)3MLJ614
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the second respondent dated March 22, 2003 denying pension to the petitioner.2. The petitioner joined the services of the first respondent bank on April 24, 1986 as a Clerk-cum-Shroff after his service in the Indian Air Force as a Warrant Officer for 24 years. When the petitioner was called upon to exercise his option for pension in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund, he is stated to have opted for pension which option was also acknowledged by the bank on February 15, 1996. Subsequently, he was promoted as Officer of the Bank in Junior Management Grade, Scale-I. The Bank introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (in short, 'VRS') in 2000 which scheme contained a provision that those who opt for VRS, their provident fund and pension would be determined as per Indian Bank Voluntary Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 and Provident Fund Rules. The petitioner applied to go under the said scheme and he was rel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »