Chennai Court January 2006 Judgments
Balagovinda Rao Vs. the Deputy Chairman, Chennai Port Trust and the Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ666
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner hails from Dharmavaram in Vizianaragam District of Andhra Pradesh. According to the petitioner, he belongs to 'Konda kappu' community, which is notified to be a Scheduled Tribe. On the strength that the petitioner was issued with a community certificate dated 1.7.1983 issued by the Tahsildar, S-Kotta, certifying himself to be belonged to 'Konda Kappu' community, which is notified to be a Scheduled Tribe, he secured appointment as Mazdoor (PW) in Chennai Port Trust on 17.7.1984. It appears that thereafter he was promoted to higher post and presently he is working as Maistry.2. Chennai Port Trust, on verification of the certificate produced by the petitioner, came to a prima facie conclusion that the said certificate was bogus/fake, called for a report from the District Collector,Vizianagaram as to the fact whether such certificate was issued to the petitioner by the authority competent to issue the same in the letter dated 23.11.1995. By the procee...
Tag this Judgment!Raoul Vs. Thierry Sandammalle
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad190; (2006)1MLJ442
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order dated 11.06.2004 in I.A.No.32 of 2004 in HRCOP No.46 of 2003 by the Rent Controller at Pondicherry, in and by which, the Rent Controller has permitted the landlady to file proof affidavit as a substitute of her statements in the chief examination. This act of accepting proof affidavit is disputed by the revision petitioner / respondent / tenant.2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner / tenant submitted that Rule 5 of Order 18 C.P.C. contra to Rule 4 of the same, requires evidence and not proof affidavit in appealble cases of this nature. Even if provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to Rent Control process as was so held in Sakunthala and Ors. v. A.Devi , Rule 13 (2) of Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1980, also requires notes of evidence.3. What is contained in Rule 13(2) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1980 is as follows:13 Proce...
Tag this Judgment!Thiruvenkada Gounder (Died), Vs. Ammaiappan @ Kothandaraman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad152; 2006(1)CTC390; (2006)1MLJ533
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. First defendant in O.S. No. 646 of 1985 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tindivanam, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam in A.S. No. 55 of 1990 dated 7.1.1992, filed the present second appeal. During pendency of the second appeal, the first defendant died and hence his legal representatives were impleaded as appellants 2 to 4 vide orders of this Court dated 25.8.2005 in C.M.P. Nos. 16946 to 16948 of 2004. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 2 and 3 in the original suit are respondents herein.2. The facts that are necessary for the disposal of the second appeal, as could be seen from the plaint and written statement, are as follows.(a) The suit properties originally belonged to the joint family consisted of one Hariputhiri Gounder, the grandfather of the plaintiffs, and his sons Munusamy Gounder and Elumalai Gounder, the third defendant in this suit. In an oral partition, the western half of item...
Tag this Judgment!Lingappa Gounder Vs. Palanisamy Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad192; 2006(2)CTC36; (2006)1MLJ423
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The appellant herein is the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 764 of 1987 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Erode, who challenges the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Erode, in A.S. No. 136 of 1994 dated 6.3.1995 reversing that of the Trial Court in O.S. No. 764 of 1987 dated 22.11.1993. Respondents 1 to 5 herein are defendants 1, 3, 6, 4 and 5 respectively in the original suit. Respondents 4 and 5/defendants 4 and 5 are given up as they were set exparte in the first appellate Court.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. The brief facts as could be seen from the plaint and written statement are as follows.(a) The cart track in old survey No. 940/3 and re-survey No. 1074 is the suit property. The plaintiff purchased 84+ cents of land in old survey No. 940/3 and re-survey No. 1074/2 along with the right of using the said cart track and since then he is using the cart track. Plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Velu Vs. Anna Transport Corporation by Its Managing Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: II(2006)ACC570; 2007ACJ79; 2006(2)CTC179; (2006)1MLJ621
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The claimant in the claim petition is the appellant. The challenge in this appeal is to the award of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (I Additional District Court) Salem, dated 30.6.1997, made in MCOP. No.455/1995.2. According to the appellant, on 5.12.1992, he met with an accident, when he was getting down from the bus belonging the Respondent/ Corporation at about 10.25 a.m. in the Salem Old Bus Stand. The appellant would contend that while the bus came to a halt in the bus stand and while he was getting down after two other passengers got down from the bus, the driver of the bus suddenly moved the bus with a jerk and because of that, he fell down, while the front wheel of the bus ran over his left leg. Due to the accident, his left leg had to be amputated below the knee. The appellant made a total claim for Rupees Three Lakhs. 3. The Tribunal, relying upon the statement said to have been contained in the First Information Report, Ex.P1, took the view t...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Sri Jayajothi and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Mad)485
P.D. Dinakaran J.The above tax case appeals are directed againsi the order of the Tribunal dated 28-3-2005 made in ITA Nos. 736/Mad/2001, 1471 to 1474/Mad/2003, 327/Mad/1997, 880 to 884/Mad/2000 and 1941/Mad/2000 for the assessment years 1995-96, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1998-99. 1999-2000, 1986-87 to 1990-91 and 1991-92.2.1 The revenue is the appellant. The assessment years involved are 1995-96, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 1986-87 to 1990-91, and 1991-92. The case oil the appellant is that the assessee is an industrial domestic company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton yarn and blended yarn. For various assessment years the assessee has not included the excise duty and sales-tax collection for the computation of total turnover, for computation of deduction under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessing officer negatived the contention of the assessee, added the excise duty and sales-tax to the total turnover while computi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri Jayajothi and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: [2007]290ITR660(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Tribunal dt. 28th March, 2005 made in ITA Nos. 736/Mad/2001, 1471 to 1474/Mad/2003, 327/Mad/1997, 880 to 884/Mad/2000 and 1941/Mad/2000 for the asst. yrs. 1995-96, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 1986-87 to 1990-91 and 1991-92.2.1 The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment years involved are 1995-96, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 1986-87 to 1990-91 and 1991-92. The case of the appellant is that the assesses is an industrial domestic company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton yarn and blended yarn. For various assessment years the assessee has not included the excise duty and sales-tax collection for the computation of total turnover, for computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The AO negatived the contention of the assessee, added the excise duty and sales-tax to the total turnover while computing income for the purp...
Tag this Judgment!Sigrid Agarwal Vs. Anjappar Chettinad Restaurant Rep. by Its Partner M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ182
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J.1. This Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 22.1.2003 rejecting the unnumbered execution petition of 2002 in I.A. No. 20612 of 2001 in O.S. No. 6980 of 2001 on the file of XVI Asst City Civil Court, Madras. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit.2. It is seen that pending consideration of the suit, the petitioner herein prayed for an interim injunction restraining the defendant in any manner interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the common area an also access to the exclusive car park of the petitioner. By order 6.12.2001, the Court below, satisfied of the prima facie case and the balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner, granted an interim injunction by order dated 20.12.2001 and directed compliance of Order 29 Rule 3, C.P.C.3. Subsequently, the interim order granted originally was made absolute by order dated 6.6.2002. The petitioner preferred an Execution Petition fo...
Tag this Judgment!A. Doulath Nisha Vs. the District Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ552
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. The above writ petition relates to the challenge of the proceedings of the District Collector, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Devar District's special publication in W1/2627/96 dated 28.08.1996 (No.77) directing the publication of Section 4(1) notification. Section 4(1) notification was published in the District Gazette notification on 17.09.1996. The acquisition of land in question is in survey Nos.422/2 and 422/5 of Paruthiyur sub-village, Thidakottai Village, Devokottai Taluk, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Devar District. A notice dated 09.12.1996 was issued in Form III under Rule 5(i) of the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act XXXI of 1978) to the petitioner on 12.12.1996. The writ petition was admitted on 24.12.1996 and interim stay of dispossession was granted and the same was made absolute on 08.09.2003. The possession of the properly is with the writ petitioner.2. The only contention raised by the learned Co...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Krishna Ginning Factory, a Regd. Partnership Firm Rep. by Mrs. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR322(Mad)]; (2006)4MLJ221
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Appellant is the plaintiff. It filed a suit in O.S. No. 747 of 1990 on the file of Sub-Court, Coimbatore, for declaration of its title to the suit properties and, consequently, to hold the attachment and Court auction sale effected in E.P. No. 95 of 1978 in O.S. No. 403 of 1974 as void and for other consequential reliefs mentioned in the plaint. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, and renumbered as O.S. No. 2977 of 1996. The suit was dismissed. Hence, the appellant filed an appeal in A.S. No. 148 of 2001 on the file of I Additional District Court, Coimbatore, and the said appeal was also dismissed. Hence, this Second Appeal. 2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is as follows :(i) The suit properties were acquired by purchase on 22.11.1975 by P.Somasundaram Chettiar under a registered sale document. Somasundaram Chettiar had an adopted son by name P.S.Sathappa Chettiar. Somasundaram Chettiar created 1/8th ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »