Chennai Court August 2005 Judgments
D.V. Athisayaraj Vs. Tirunelveli Diocese Trust Association
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ404
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor, who failed in his attempt to resist the petition filed by the decree holder/respondent to amend the E.P. successfully.2. The factual matrix, which are necessary for the disposal of the CRP are as hereunder.3. The respondent in this CRP, as plaintiff, has filed O.S. No. 11 of 1986 for recovery of sum of Rs. 2,74,010.05 with interest @ 6% p.a. from 20.1.1986, which was decreed on 15.6.1992. Pursuant to the decree obtained by the respondent, in order to realize the decree amount by bringing the property of the judgment debtor by attachment and sale, E.P. No. 27 of 1995 was filed under Order 21, Rule 54 of Civil Procedure Code, hereinafter called 'the Code', wherein the attachment was made on 25.10.1995. The E.P., after undergoing certain process or proceedings, came to be dismissed for default on 19.8.2002. It appears, at the time of the dismissal for default, the Executing Court has not passed any order with resp...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. A. Arulmozhi Vs. the Govt. of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ497
M. Karpagavinagayam, J.1. Tamil feature film 'New', produced by Annai Mari Madha Creations, third respondent herein, was released for public exhibition in the second week of July, 2004, throughout Tamil Nadu.2. Ms. Arulmozhi, an advocate practising in this Court, after seeing the movie, wondered as to how the film was certified for public exhibition by the Central Board of Film Certification, even though the film was full of dual meaning dialogues and obscene visuals, appended by vulgarity and depravity, obviously catering to the baser instincts of the viewers. As the certificate for public exhibition had been issued in gross violation of the: provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, she sent a representation to the Government of India, the first respondent herein, on 23-8-2004, bringing to its notice about the violations, requesting to revoke the certificate, by invoking the revisional powers under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act. Since she felt that the action on representation ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ulaganatha Reddy Vs. D. Nandagoppal Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC426
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This second appeal arises out of the concurrent Judgment and Decree of the Courts below: Judgment and Decree, dated 11.12.1997, made in A.S. No. 19/1995, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chingleput, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated, 30.6.1994 made in O.S. No. 166/1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram.2. The facts relating to the second appeal could be briefly stated thus:O.S. No. 106/1988.-- The suit property was originally owned by one Devathi Munirathina Chetty, father of Defendants 1 to 4. D-5 is the son of D-1. Offering to sell the suit property to the Plaintiff for Rs. 23,000, D-1 to D-4 have executed an Agreement of Sale on 15.7.1984 in favour of the Plaintiff (Ex.A-1). Under the said agreement, Defendants 1 to 4 have received an advance of Rs. 20,101 and agreed to receive the balance and execute the Sale Deed. On 28.11.1984, D-1 received a sum of Rs. 8,000 from the Plaintiff for himself and on behalf of the Defendants...
Tag this Judgment!T. Kalyanasundaram Vs. M.S. Arumuganayakar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC451
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. This appeal was admitted on 24.6.2005. Having regard to the controversy involved in the appeal we wanted to find out from Mr. T.P. Manoharan, learned counsel, who had entered caveat for the respondent, as to whether we can dispose of the appeal itself on merits after calling for the records. Mr. T.P. Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, readily agreed. Therefore, we directed the office to call for the records on 24.6.2005 itself when the appeal was admitted. Heard the learned counsel on either side.2. The defendant in O.S. No. 44 of 2002 on the file of Additional Sub-Judge, Pondicherry is the appellant in this appeal. In that suit he filed LA. No. 341 of 2003 under Order 9, Rule 13, to have the decree dated 13.10.2003, which according to him had been passed ex parte, set aside. The learned Trial Judge dismissed that application on the ground that as the suit stands disposed of on merits, the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Cod...
Tag this Judgment!Aminjikarai Lorry Owner's Welfare Association, rep. by Its President V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ524
ORDER: Taking cognizance of the indiscriminate quarrying in the river systems of Tamil Nadu in a public interest litigation, the Hon'ble High Court in their order dated 26.7.2002 had directed the State Government to constitute an Expert Committee consisting of geologist, environmentalist and scientists to study the river and river beds in the State with reference to the impact of sand quarrying. Accordingly the Government in the G.O. read above constituted a six member High Level Committee. The Committee after extensive touring of the State has submitted its report to the Government. A copy of the report has been furnished to the Hon'ble High Court. The High Court had while ordering the Government to constitute the High Level Committee also directed :- ' The Government on receipt of the report from the Committee shall act in conformity with the Guidelines and take all necessary further steps to arrest the exploitation and to protect and improve the situation and restore status quo-ante...
Tag this Judgment!A. Gopal Vs. Airports Authority of India, International Airports Divis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ208
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 18.7.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 22940 of 2005.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and find no merit in this appeal.3. The petitioner/appellant challenged Clause 3 in a tender condition imposed by the first respondent in the notice inviting tenders published on 24.6.2005 in the Newspaper 'Dhinathanthi'. The contract in question was for management of Car Park services at Kamaraj Domestic Terminal and Anna International Terminal at Chennai Airport.4. Clause 3 of the aforesaid notice states:' The parties fulfilling the following criteria are eligible to participate in the Tenders:-Parties having 2 years experience of managing a Car Park with Govt. Departments/Public Sector/ 5 &4 Star Hotel/Hospital/Municipal Corporation /Airport/Sea Port/Railways/Bus Terminals.Having minimum Annual Turnover of Rs. 4.44 Crores (Rupees Four Crores ...
Tag this Judgment!The Members, the Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department, Vs. H. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Mad)415; [2005]278ITR271(Mad)
Markandey Katju, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed by the Income-tax Department against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 27.03.2000.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.3. The writ petitioner was an owner of certain immovable property at Chennai, and he had entered into an agreement with Banque Nationale de Paris on 4.6.1997 for the sale of the property for a total consideration of Rs. 3,23,27,500/-.4. The first respondent in exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act (in short 'the Act') ordered purchase of the said property by order dated 13.10.1997 by the Central Government. 5. The consideration was paid to the writ petitioner on 06.11.1997, and the writ petitioner did not object to the purchase of the property by the Government. The only grievance of the writ petitioner is regarding the discount made amounting to Rs. 9,01,500/- in the order dated 13.10.1997. 6. Before dealing with the submission ...
Tag this Judgment!Albert Raj Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad444; 2005(4)CTC171
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard both sides.2. By consent, the writ petitions are taken for hearing.3.1. In W.P. No. 16804 of 2003, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent dated 31.3.2002 in RC. No. 66444/99 (C3) and quash the same as illegal and unlawful and direct the first respondent to accord permission to construct the Panavilai C.S.I. Church Building in R.S. No. 183/3 of Colachel Village, Kanyakumari District.3.2. In W.P. No. 21187 of 2005, the petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to forbear respondents 1 to 5 or their subordinates or anybody claiming under them from disturbing or obstructing from conducting marriages in Panavilai C.S.I. Church in Kanyakumari District.4. Concededly, planning permission for construction of the Panavilai C.S.I. Church Building in R.S. No. 183/3 of Colachel Village, Kanyakumari District was already sanctioned by the third respondent in W.P. No. 16804 of 2003 and the same is also supported ...
Tag this Judgment!Vivekananda English Academy and ors. Vs. Amoha Education Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC393; [2006]66SCL309(Mad)
N. Kannadasan, J.1. The appellants are the respondents in Original Application Nos. 344 to 346 of 2005 and the defendants in the suit. The respondents herein are applicants in the said applications and plaintiffs in the suit.2. The applicants filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner passing off or attempting to pass off or causing, enabling others to pass off the services not of the plaintiffs as and for the services of the plaintiffs by use in connection therewith or in course of trade including through the use of prospectus, name boards, signages, advertisement materials etc., under the brand name of 'Vivekananda English Academy' or any other deceptively similar name or a colourable imitation of the plaintiffs services that is likely to cause confusion in the minds of the public which would be directly or indirectly associated with the plaintiffs VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTES and/or VETA and for other reliefs as stated therein. In the said suit...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sumathi Process Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Mad)236; [2006]284ITR109(Mad)
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J. 1. This is an Income-Tax reference on behalf of the Department under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year 1984-1985, in which the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion: -1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to carry forward of business loss relying on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Kulu Valley Transport Co. Ltd 77 ITR 158 (which was rendered under the old Act?)2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in allowing carry forward of loss when as per the amended provision of Section 139(3) by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, the loss return filed beyond the time prescribed by Section 139(3) cannot be considered as having been filed within the time allowed under Section 139(4)?2. Heard the learned counsel for the Department. None has appeared for the assessee, althoug...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »