Chennai Court September 2005 Judgments
Dhanalakshmi, Vs. S. Thangavelu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad1; 2005(5)CTC33; (2005)4MLJ300
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This Second Appeal has been brought forth by the plaintiffs in a suit seeking to set aside the judgment of the learned VI Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, in A.S. No. 12 of 2002 wherein the Judgment of the trial court granting a decree in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants was set aside.2. The appellants before this Court as plaintiffs filed the suit with the following allegations:In respect of the suit property, the defendant executed a settlement deed on 9.7.1986 in favour of the plaintiffs. The said property was purchased by him under three different sale deeds on 15.4.1982, 20.6.1984 and 14.6.1984 respectively. While the absolute right was given to the plaintiffs 2 to 4, the power over the property was given to his wife, the first plaintiff herein, till her life time. The possession was also given to her that day. She was maintaining the family out of the income derived from the property by way of rent. She borrowed money and constructed the building. Pla...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy Vs. State Rep. by Special Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ445(1)
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the third respondent to ban all agitations in Evening Bazaar Road near CLS permanently. 2. We are afraid we cannot pass any such direction. In a democracy, it is a fundamental right of the people to hold peaceful demonstrations as long as they are not violent or disorderly vide Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. It is for the authorities to see to it that there is no breakdown of law and order or disorder in such demonstrations. The Court must maintain judicial restraint in this connection as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Rama Muthuramalingam v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mannargudi (2004 (5) CTC 554) : . The writ petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!V. Natarajan Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ366
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. We have two connected Writ Petitions, namely, W.P. No. 28886 of 2004 and W.P. No. 25937 of 2005, and we are deciding both the Writ Petitions together by this common order.2. In W.P. No. 28886 of 2004, V. Natarajan, the petitioner, who is working as Inspector of Police in Tamil Nadu Police, was charged for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The VII Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, after trial, by Judgment dated 30.06.2004 rendered in C.C. No. 16 of 2002, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 3 months, for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and t...
Tag this Judgment!A. Anand, S/O. Late Ayyalusamy Vs. A. Perumalsamy, S/O. Late Ayyappa N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ379
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. C.R.P. No. 148 of 2004 is preferred against the Order dated 16.10.2003 of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti in I.A. No. 193 of 2003 in O.S. No. 70 of 1996, dismissing the Application filed under Order 13, Rule 10(1) and (2), C.P.C read with Rule 74(1) and (2) of Civil Rules of Practice declining to send for the documents pertaining to M.C. No. 6 of 1991 said to be available in Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2001 on the file of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.2. C.R.P. No. 441 of 2005.-- This Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 6.4.2005 of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti in I.A. No. 82 of 2005 in O.S. No. 70 of 1996, dismissing the Application under Section 151, C.P.C filed by the Revision Petitioners/ Defendants seeking permission of the Court to mark the deposition of the witnesses in M.C. No. 6 of 1991.3. For better appreciation of the Parties of the Applications and other contentious points, it...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Gandhi Vs. the Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ504
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner by name S.V. Gandhi, a resident of Soorappa Naickenpatti, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District, has filed the above writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation against Circular dated 9.8.2004 of the District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin/2nd respondent herein which prescribes certain conditions/procedure for transfer of patta, intending to neglect the records maintained by the Village Administrative Officers like Adangal Extracts, etc. He also prayed as a consequential relief directing the respondents to follow the procedure regarding effecting transfer of patta in respect of agricultural lands transferred under registered documents in accordance with the (T.N.) Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 and the (T.N.) Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:According to him, in respect of transfer of agricultural lands in the State of Tamil Nadu, provision is made to submit a transfer of patta application even while...
Tag this Judgment!The All India Council for Technical Education, Rep. by Its Secretary V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad463
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against an interlocutory order of a learned single Judge dated 22.8.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 37016 of 2003.2. Instead of deciding the writ appeal, we are disposing off the writ petition itself finally.3. The writ petition has been filed challenging the communication dated 8.12.2003 from the All India Council for Technical Education to the Registrar, Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology (A Deemed University), Jeppiaar Nagar, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai-600 119, and forbearing the appellant from inspecting the respondent (writ petitioner) institute.4. We have carefully perused the communication dated 8.12.2003. The said communication only asks for the following details:'Name of the courses conducted.Intake of admissions made in each course.Details of land, building and other infrastructural facilities available.Details of teaching staff, qualifications, pay scales paid, method of appointments and service condit...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Venkatesa Paper and Boards Vs. the Dy. Commissioner of I.T.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2005
Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Chennai)450
1. These appeals of the Assessee are directed against the common order of the C.I.T. (Appeals)-II, Coimbatore dated 10.6.2002. The relevant assessment years involved in these appeals are 1995-96 and 1996-97.2. The only common issue in these appeals of the Assessee is as to whether the Assessee is entitled for condonation of delay of 1447 and 1454 days for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively on the advice of Assessee's Chartered Accountant. The briefly stated facts are that the assessments for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 were completed under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide orders dated 27.2.98 and 17.3.98 respectively. The assessment orders under Section 143(3) of the Act were received by the Assessee on 12.3.98 and 18.3.1998 for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively.The Assessee preferred appeals before the C.I.T.(Appeals) against the orders of the Assessing Officer on 28.3.2002 resulting in delay of 1447 and 1454 days for the a...
Tag this Judgment!S. Velayudham S/O. G. Sekar and U. Vijayalakshmi (Minor) Rep. by Her F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC271
P.K. Misra, J.1. Both these writ petitions are based on similar facts and circumstances and raise a common question of law. Therefore, both the writ petitions were heard together and shall be governed by this common judgment.2. The writ petitions have been filed by the children of two employees of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited in short ONGC, seeking admission to MBBS course against Government quota. The question relates to admission for the academic year 2004-05. The main issue relates to eligibility of the candidates on the basis of paragraph 2.6 of the Information Bulletin issued by CENTAC. The relevant portion of paragraph 2.6 is extracted hereunder:-'2.6 Pondicherry UT CandidatesCandidates who are residents of Pondicherry UT are eligible for admission to all the degree courses. A candidate is considered to be of Pondicherry Resident (Pondicherry UT Candidate) provided he/she is an Indian national and satisfies at least one of the following criteria..3. Children of Central...
Tag this Judgment!Ravichandran Vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ894
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence under Section 302 IPC, Ravichandran, the appellant herein, has filed this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:'(a) Chinnappa, the deceased in this case, is the husband of Rajeswari, P.W.1. P.W.2 Sundari is their daughter. The accused Ravichandran is related to the deceased. Ten years prior to the incident, the deceased arranged for the marriage of the sister of the accused Suseela with one Paulraj. Immediately after the marriage, Suseela, the sister of the accused, committed suicide, since there was no cordial relationship between the husband and wife. Therefore, the accused developed an impression that Chinnappa is the root-cause for his sister's suicide. The accused also used to declare that he would kill the deceased one day or the other.(b) The fateful occurrence had taken place on 20.7.2001 at about 12 Noon. In the early morning, at 6.00 a.m., the decease...
Tag this Judgment!N. Neela Vs. the Joint Director, Higher Secondary School Education,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC513
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.2. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for quashing the records of the third respondent in Na.Ka. No. 3330/AA1.2001 dated 19.2.2004 and consequently directing the third respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner since 1968 and to pay the backwages and other service benefits.3. The petitioner who had studied upto Class-V was appointed to work as part-time Sweeper under the fourth respondent school with effect from 8.8.1966. She was being paid only a consolidated pay by the Government and the Management was also paying some amount. It is stated that the petitioner had represented to the Management on several occasions for regularisation of services, but to no avail. Subsequently, on 29.8.1991, the petitioner made a representation to the Government for regularisation of her services and several other similar representations were made, including a representat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »