Chennai Court October 2006 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.
Pandi Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1850
K.N. Basha, J.1. Pandi alias Pandian is a sole accused in this case has come forward with this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, made in S.C. No. 31 of 2002 dated 29-11-2004 convicting him for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also imposing a fine of Rs. 5.000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also convicting him under Section 323, IPC and sentencing him to 15 days simple-imprisonment. The learned Trial Judge acquitted him in respect of the charges framed against him under Section 324, IPC (two counts) and under Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The accused faced trial under the following backdrop:(a) It is the case of the prosecution that the accused hails from Vadipatti village of Madurai District. On the date of occu...
R. Dhanasundari @ R. Rajeswari Vs. A.N. Umakanth and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC440; (2006)4MLJ1435
ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The civil revision arises out of an order passed by the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu, allowing an application filed by defendants 3 to 6 for transposing them as plaintiffs in the suit, in the wake of an attempt on the part of the plaintiffs to withdraw their suit.2. In view of the fact that the scope of the dispute involved in the revision is limited, I have taken up the civil revision petition itself for final disposal, with the consent of all the parties, though only the petition for stay was posted for hearing today.3. I heard Mrs. Uma Ramanathan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.P. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. M. Devendran, learned Counsel for the 5th respondent. The other respondents have not chosen to enter appearance, despite service of notice on them.4. The facts leading to the present revision, as they emerge from the pleadings of the parties before the trial court are as follows:(a) One A....
Sree Murugan Engineering Products Rep. by Its Partner, A. Muruganandha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: [2006]148STC419(Mad)
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. Admit. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent waives service. By consent, the writ appeal is taken up for hearing.2. The appellant/assessee is a dealer in machinery spares. For the assessment year 2003-2004, the appellant has reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 73,88,596/- and Rs. 73,69,588/- by filing Form A1 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant's accounts were called for by the assessing authority for scrutiny. Though the assessing authority has accepted the turnover reported by the appellant and also mentioned that the purchases were covered by proper bills, yet, rejected the turnover relating to concessional rate of tax against Form XVII on a turnover of Rs. 5,78,734/- and assessed at 12% on the ground that the purchasers have not purchased the goods for the use in manufacture of other goods as either raw materials or consumables. Consequently, the assessing authori...
Mrs. Dhanalakshmi and R. Anantha Kumar Vs. Standard Chartered Bank Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: [2007]137CompCas946(Mad); 2006(5)CTC436; [2007]74SCL233(Mad)
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The petitioners before the revision petition are the respondents/borrowers before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, in an application filed by the applicant therein in Crl.M.P. No. 2741 of 2006, under Section 14 of the Secrutization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The case in brief is as follows:The respondent/applicant, at the request of the petitioners/respondents, had advanced loan to the tune of Rs. 12,92,000/- to them. The petitioners/borrowers have executed various documents in favour of the respondent/applicant and also had created equitable mortgage by way of depositing title deeds of the immovable property mentioned in the schedule. The petitioners/borrowers have failed to repay the amount due to the respondent/applicant in spite of repeated request and demands, and hence, the respondent/applicant issued notice to the borrowers under Section...
J. Uma Maheswari Vs. S. Peter
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC568
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. Aggrieved over the order of injunction granted by the learned DistrictMunsif, Poonamallee made in I.A. No. 1470 of 2006 in O.S. No. 414 of 2006, this civil revision petition has been filed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:The respondent/plaintiff has filed O.S. No. 414 of 2006 and the same is pending before the DistrictMunsif, Poonamallee. The prayer in the suit is for bare injunction. The respondent has also filedI.A. No. 1470 of 2006 for ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant/petitioner herein, his men and agent from interfering with the possession of the respondent.3. The learned District Munsif, Poonamallee passed an order as follows:Heard. Perused the documents. prima facie made out. Hence injunction till 18.9.2006. Notice to the respondent including private notice also. 4. Aggrieved over the said order, this civil revision petition has been filed.5. Mr. R. Gandhi, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would c...
M.S.D.C. Radharamanan Vs. M.S.D. Chandrasekara Raja and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: [2007]138CompCas897(Mad); [2007]80SCL254(Mad)
G. Rajasuria, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents.2. This C.M.A. is directed as against the order dated August 16, 2004, passed by the Company Law Board in C.P. No. 2 of 2004 See M.S.D. Chandrasekara Raja v. Shree Bhaarathi Cotton Mills P. Ltd. [2007] 138 Comp Cas 81 (CLD), which was filed by the first respondent herein - M.S.D. Chandrasekara Raja as against M/s. Shree Bhaarathi Cotton Mills P. Ltd., Rajapalayam - the second respondent herein and M.S.D.C. Radharamanan, the appellant herein, under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking the following directions:(a) to appoint one or more suitable persons to act as directors of the company;(b) to amend Article 5 of the articles of association of the company to the effect that until otherwise decided by the general meeting, the company shall have not less than three and not more than nine directors;(c) to direct the company to redeem the preference shares in accordance with Article 3...
Janardhanam Vs. Kalaiselvan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ406
C. Nagappan, J.1. Both the above appeals have been preferred against the common judgment, dated 24.11.1992, rendered in O.S. No. 219 of 1991 and O.S. No. 242 of 1991 respectively, by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. The defendant is the appellant in both the appeals.2. Plaintiff Kalaiselvan filed the suit in O.S. No. 219 of 1991 seeking a decree for Rs. 31,624/- with costs and further interest and the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of one Mangalakshmi Ammal on 1.8.1988 for a valid consideration of Rs. 25,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum and no amount was paid either for principal or for interest and on 7.2.1991, Mangalakshmi Ammal assigned the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for a valid consideration and the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant on 2.4.1991 calling upon him to pay the entire amount and the defendant sent a reply with false allegations and hence the suit.3. Plaint...
Karumpandi Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1922
K.N. Basha, J.1. Karumpandi alias Muthupandi is a sole accused in this case has come forward with this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Tirunelveli, made in S. C. No. 63 of 2002 dated 29-4-2003 convicting him of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also imposing a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and also convicting him under Section 397, I.P.C. and sentencing him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment.2. (a) It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused said to have entered into the house of the deceased-Pandi, who is the husband of P.W. 2. the injured witness in this case and thereafter attacked the deceased and also removed the ear studs of P. W. 2 viz., M, Os, 1 to 3, The occurrence in this case said to have taken place on 12-5-2001 at 3,30 a.m. and at that time, the deceased was sleeping with his wi...
Gowri Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)ILLJ140Mad
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. The short but important issue which falls for our consideration in the present appeals is whether the action to recover the dues payable under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, is maintainable when the employer, who is sought to be proceeded against is an industrial company in respect of whom a proceeding is pending under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.2. The appellants in the aforesaid writ appeals are sick companies within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'the SICA').3. The facts leading to these appeals are undisputed and need to be noted in brief.Writ Appeal No. 230 of 2006:4. The admitted facts are that the appellant-company had committed defaults in remitting the amounts due to the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme to the tune of Rs. 10,96,676 during the period from September 2000, to December 2000. Therefo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ayesha Hospitals P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: [2007]292ITR266(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order dated June 30, 2003, made in I.T.A. No. 665 (Mds) of 1996 on the file of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench. On February 3, 2004, this Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the expenditure incurred on flooring and partitions, etc., for the newly extended area of space, as revenue expenditure, when very clearly new infrastructures have been provided and the space and capacity of the hospital has been increased ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the expenditure incurred on flooring and partitions, etc., for the newly extended area of space, co-owners of the property and the directors of the assessee-company are same persons ?2. The brief facts arising ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »