Chennai Court August 2005 Judgments
Sarda Precesion Products Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Director, C.M. Sarda V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2005
Reported in: II(2007)BC10
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 25.11.2004.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.3. By means of W.P. No. 9461 of 2003, the writ petitioner had prayed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to BO (CHN)/477/SN/16/2001-2002 dated 11-07-2001 and quash the same, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to re-credit the current account of the petitioner bearing No. 8812 at the 2nd respondent bank by Rs. 46,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 20% compounded quarterly from 29.08.2000. 4. The facts of the case have been mentioned in detail in the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge, and hence we are not repeating the same, except where required.5. The writ petitioner/appellant, namely, M/s. Sarda Precision Products Private Limited has dealings with the third respondent, namely, M/s. Theepa Pressed Components ...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator, R.P.S. Benefit Fund Ltd. Vs. Mrs. K. Tamilselvi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2005
Reported in: [2008]82SCL414(Mad)
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. This application has been taken out by the official liquidator, seeking for the following reliefs:(a) to direct the respondents to pay Rs. 7,82,312 being the amount due in respect of loan account No. H.O.264 and H.O. No. 265 respectively with interest and penal interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum from 7-9-1999 to 11-11-2002, amounting to Rs. 12,90,677 aggregating to Rs. 20,72,989 with subsequent interest on balance of principal amounts of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 2,49,312 from 8-11-2002, till the date of realisation;(b) to permit the official liquidator to sell the mortgaged property as per mortgage deed. In the event of non-payment of the amount due within ninety days from the date of order of the Hon'ble High Court, permit the official liquidator to adjust the sale proceeds of the property against the decretal amount and further interest; and(c) to order for payment of costs.2. In the report of the official liquidator filed in support of the applicati...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Baalu Vs. S. Purushothaman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad17; (2005)4MLJ310
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Election Petition No.6 of 2004 has been filed by the first respondent herein seeking a declaration that the election of the returned candidate namely the first respondent therein (petitioner herein) for No.3, Madras (South) Parliamentary Constituency in the election held on 10.5.2004 is void. 2. Now, the instant original application has been filed by the first respondent in the Election Petition No.6/2004 seeking rejecting of the said election petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:(a) The election petition is not maintainable in law. The pleadings in the election petition do not project any cause of action and do not contain any material facts constituting any cause of action and a triable issue. Under the circumstances, the election petition is, therefore, liable to be rejected in limini under Order VII Rule 11(a) C.P.C.(b) The entire averments in the election petition project only one...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajasekar Vs. the Commissioner of Police and the Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC669
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Challenge is to the order of detention dated 8.4.2005 passed by the first respondent herein in exercise of the powers conferred under sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act 1982, branding the detenu Srinivasan, brother in law of the petitioner herein, as a goonda, under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.2. According to the detaining authority, on 4.3.2005 at about 8.30 p.m. one Vijayachandran, who was working as Office Boy in M/s. V.K.S. Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Company, as usual, collected Rs. 11,14,094.00 from M/s. Kanchi Steels at Sembudoss Street and put the said money into a cloth bag and kept the same in the front dikky of the scooter and locked the same. While he was proceeding towards his office, at Royapuram Old Bridge, one Srinivan, the detenu herein, Saravanan @ Sevittu Saravanan and...
Tag this Judgment!G. Chandrasekaran Vs. Palaniappa Company and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad104; (2005)4MLJ549
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Auction-purchaser is the revision-petitioner aggrieved against the order of dismissal of the application in E.A. No. 98 of 2000 in E.P. No. 34 of 1988 in O.S. No. 90 of 1977, dated 7-8-2003 of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, the auction-purchaser has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.2. The simple mortgage decree has assumed manifold dimensions resulting in war of litigations between the parties. The litigation is now centered around the land in 31220 sq. ft., in the area said to be of commercial and residential importance in Tanjore. The disputed property 31220 sq. ft. (about 13 grounds) comprised in T.S. No. 3074/IA. IB, IC bearing Door No. 12-A, Selvam Nagar, Tanjore Town. The said property belonged to one Pakkirisami Pillai. Respondents 2 to 7 are related as under :-TABLE No. 1Pakkirisamy Pillai (died on 2-4-81)= Gamathi Ammal (R-2)____________________|_________________________________| | | | |Prema Manoharan Ravichandran Mohan Kalai...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Vijayan, Senior Advocate Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad408; 2005(4)CTC337; (2006)3MLJ684
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order.2. The petitioner in W.P.No. 35545 of 2004 is a senior Advocate and he seeks to issue a writ of declaration, declaring Section 4(1-A)(a) of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, introduced by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 27 of 1998, as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 1 3 of 2003, by substituting Schedule III, Part-I and Section 3-A levying Green Tax in respect of vehicles mentioned under the Fourth Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 as ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in so far as it amounts to levy of life tax for new registration of vehicle of the petitioner is concerned.3. For convenience, we shall refer the case of the petitioner in W.P.No. 35545 of 2004:(a) According to the petitioner, he placed an order for purchase of SKODA Car with Millinem Motors, Chennai, and th...
Tag this Judgment!P. Panneerselvan Vs. A. Baylis S/O. V. Anbumani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC17; (2005)4MLJ198
P.K. Misra, J.1. Defendant is the appellant against a confirming decision of the learned single Judge in A.S. No. 600 of 1987.2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract to execute the sale deed in respect of 1 acre 30 cents in R.S. No. 174/5 in Uthangudi Village within Madurai District.3. The plaintiff's case is as follows :-The defendant had purchased R.S. No. 174/4 measuring 60 cents and 174/5 measuring 1 acre 30 cents in Uthangudi village. The defendant intended to purchase another 4 acres 15 cents of land adjacent to the aforesaid land and had paid advance for the said property. The defendant required further funds to complete such transaction and contacted the plaintiff, who was his friend. The defendant offered to sell 1 acre 30 cents either out of land bearing R.S. No. 174/5 or an equal extent of 1 acre 30 cents out of 4 acres 15 cents, which the defendant intended to purchase, for a total consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On the basis of the aforesa...
Tag this Judgment!Surana Industries Ltd. Vs. Good Earth Maritime Ltd., Owners of the Ves ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad93; (2005)4MLJ375
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. Writ Appeal No. 1616 of 2005 has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 29.06.2005 in W.P.No.20761 of 2005.2. Admittedly the appellant viz., Surana Industries Limited, Chennai in W.A.No. 1616 of 2005 was not impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition which was decided by the learned single Judge. The only party impleaded in the writ petition as a respondent was the Trustees of the Port Trust of Madras. The appellant Surana Industries Limited, Chennai who filed Writ Appeal No. 1616 of 2005 before us was granted leave by our order dated 09.08.2005 to file this writ appeal.3. The other writ appeal being W.A.No. 1626 of 2005 has been filed by the Board of Trustees of the Port Trust of Madras.4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We are of the opinion that the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 29.06.2005 deserves to be set aside on the short ground that the appellant in W.A.No.1...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager (Telecom) Madurai Secondary Switching Area, Depart ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC437; (2005)4MLJ210
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the orders passed by Hon'ble Chief Justice or his nominee Judge in Original Petitions filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), appointing Arbitrators, Central Government organisations, namely, Telecom Department, Southern Railway, Western Railway, Rajiv Gandhi National Institute, etc., have filed the above writ petitions.2. When the above Writ Petitions came up for final hearing before K.P. Sivasubramanian, J., on 7-6-2005, the learned Judge, after referring to the several grounds raised by the petitioners as well as contesting respondents and the decision of the Supreme Court on the issues raised, found that the questions raised for consideration pertain to very important issues of interpretation of the provisions of the Act as well as interpreted by the Supreme Court and have impact not only on all these writ petitions, but also several Original Petitions pending before this Court for...
Tag this Judgment!Joint Cit, Spl. Range 11 Vs. Tablets (India) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2005
Reported in: (2006)8SOT1(Chennai)
The appeal by revenue and cross objection by the assessee relate to assessment year 1993-94 and for the sake of convenience are disposed of by this consolidated order. The assessee is a pharmaceutical manufacturer.In the revenue's appeal the first ground raised relates to deletion of addition of Rs. 58,930 claimed to have been paid by the assessee to various Government officials to procure orders for supply of medicines. The assessing officer disallowed the claim on the ground that sales were made directly to Government as also the claim of commission was not supported by any evidence excepting the vouchers given by the field employees. In other grounds the revenue is aggrieved due deletion of other two additions by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of commission amounting to Rs. 4,10,269 and Rs. 6,91,771 paid to M/s.Rahul Enterprises and M/s. Rahul Steels Industries. The assessing officer disallowed the above commission payments stating that the assessee was not able to produ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »