Chennai Court December 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.
T. Sekar Vs. the Secretary to Government, Home Department and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ510
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Pursuant to an advertisement, the appellant applied for recruitment to the post of Constable, Grade-II and was provisionally selected by Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). He was directed to appear on 26.8.03 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, for medical test and was found fit on such medical test. All other formalities were complied and while he was waiting for the letter of appointment, the respondent issued the impugned letter on 19.1.04 as per Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1978) and refused to appoint the appellant on the ground of doubtful antecedent.2. The appellant preferred W.P. No. 16375/04 and brought to the notice of the learned single Judge that S.C. No. 3/01 in which he was made an accused ended in his acquittal by judgment dated 30.10.01 passed by the 2nd Addl. Court of Sessions, Tirunelveli and thus...
V. Selladurai Vs. Chief Cit (Osd) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: [2007]295ITR293(Mad)
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above writ petition are set out below:2. An order of assessment for the assessment year 2001-02 in respect of the petitioner's income came to be passed by the second respondent on 31-3-2004. While completing the assessment, the second respondent had obtained a valuation of the cost of construction of the marriage hall constructed by the petitioner from the inspector and allowed a deduction of 10 per cent, from the estimated cost of construction for personal supervision. The first respondent in the exercise of his power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), issued a show-cause notice dated 8-3-2006, proposing to revise the assessment, since the first respondent considered that the grant of deduction at 10 per cent, for personal supervision is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The said notice was received by V. Selladurai, the son-in-law o...
Y. Steebachen Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Mad240
ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. The petitioner who has suffered an order in his application in I.A. No. 62 of 2004 in A.R.O.P. (Sr) No. 1268 of 2004 on the file of the District Judge Kanyakumari at Nagercoil is before this Court.2. The short matrix of the case is as follows:(a) The respondent has filed Original Petition before the District Judge Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, against the order passed by the Arbitrator dated 16-10-2002. The said Original Petition has been filed with an application to condone the delay of 180 days in filing fresh Original Petition, which has been stoutly opposed by the petitioner. The learned District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, by his order dated 19-10-2004, allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, condoning the delay of 180 days in filing the said original petition. The said order is questioned by the respondent in this revision petition.(b) The respondent in his affidavit filed in support of the application und...
Sakthi Durga Builders and Developers, Rep. by Its Managing Partner, Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC163
P.K. Misra, J1. The defendants have filed this appeal against the order dated 23.8.2001 passed by the learned single Judge in Application No. 1066 of 2001 arising out of C.S. No. 839 of 1999, whereunder the learned single Judge has passed an order of interim mandatory injunction directing the defendants to handover two flats to the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff's case in brief is as follows:Plaintiff is the owner of the land bearing site No. 72 in Thiruvengada Nagar, Ambattur. Second defendant, who is a relation to the plaintiff's wife, and third defendant are the partners of the first defendant company, which is a builder and developer concern. Defendants 2 and 3 approached the plaintiff in order to develop 5625 sq.ft. of the plaintiff's plot. The defendants offered to dismantle the shed and compound wall and return the materials to the plaintiff. Even though the plaintiff had some doubt regarding the contents of Memorandum of Understanding drafted by the defendants, in good faith, the p...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC160; 2007ACJ2105; 2006(5)CTC254; (2007)1MLJ676
1. At the time of hearing the Miscellaneous Petition C.M.P. No. 8699 of 2005, on request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. The appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Namakkal Town, Namakkal District, the second respondent before the Tribunal, challenging the award dated 23.2.2004 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 335 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Dharmapuri, granting compensation at Rs. 3,05,200/- with interest at 9%.3. It is the case of fatal accident. The brief facts of the case of the respondents 1 to 4/claimants is that on 4.2.1998 at 6.30 p.m. the deceased Kasi was asked by one R. Govindaraj, son of Raju Naidu, to load 10 bags of paddy in the Tempo Van bearing Registration No. T.N. 09-C-9113 belonging to the fifth respondent herein and insured with the appellant, the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal and to accompany him to unload the same at Olapatti. Acco...
Vicnivas Agency Rep. by Its Managing Partner Mr. Pon Kumar Vs. the Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: (2007)8VST53(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in his proceedings K. Dis. No. 3645/A8/99 dated 9.8.1999, quash the same and direct the respondents to grant State Capital Subsidy and Sales Tax Waiver to the petitioner Company.2. By his order dated 23.7.1999, the Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce by referring the letter of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Tuticorin dated 22.6.1999 informed him that the subsidy cannot be extended to an asset, which has been partly created by one entrepreneur and completed by the other one. Hence the claim of the petitioner was rejected. By the order dated 9.8.1999, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Thoothukkudi by stating the reason as stated by the Industries Commissioner rejected the request of the petitioner for capital subsidy and the sales tax waiver.3. The facts are as follows...
G. Manoharan Vs. the Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC501
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. W.P. No. 19349 of 2003:This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent pertaining to his proceedings Rc. No. 16/2002/CCA.1, dated 30.6.2003 and quash the said order, dated 30.6.2003 and consequently direct the respondents to settle all the retiral benefits to the petitioner.W.P. No. 34352 of 2004:This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in proceedings No. Na.Ka.16/02 Po.Pa.Ku.1, dated 3.8.2004, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to settle all the retirement benefits, which the petitioner is entitled to. The brief facts of the cases, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:2. The petitioner had joined service in the South Arcot District Central Cooperative Bank Limited in the year 1968-69 as an Assistant Manager. After subsequent promotions, he was promoted to the post...
Tmt. S. Radha Mony Vs. the Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC273
ORDERS. Tamilvanan, J.1. The writ petition seeking mandamus, directing CBI or CBCID to investigate the case, that was registered in Cr. No. 24/02 on the file of the Inspector of Police, B9 S.S. Colony police station, Madurai has been preferred by the petitioner, mother of K. Ramesh Kumar and mother-in-law of Gayathri, who died on 06.01.2002 under mysterious circumstances.2. Heard, Mr. V. Bhiman, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Subramanian, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.3. According to the petitioner, on 07.01.2002, while herself and her husband had been to their native place, in Kerala, received information that her son Ramesh Kumar and his wife Gayathri had expired. Immediately, she rushed to Madurai, along with her husband, but she was not permitted to have a glimpse of the dead bodies of her said son and daughter-in-law, though the dead bodies were kept in the mortuary of the Hospital.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Co...
Jayalakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Chinnasamy Gounder S/O. Manjini Gounder ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC449
P.K. Misra, J.1. Legal heirs of the original plaintiff are the appellants against the reversing judgment.2. The suit was filed by one Sarangapani Gounder, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants for specific performance of the contract in alternative for payment of damages. The allegations in the plaint are as follows:Plaintiff and the first defendant entered into an agreement for the purchase of suit property by the plaintiff on 14.7.1984 in Kumarakuppam village and an agreement was executed on the same day indicating that the plaintiff should pay a sum of Rs. 30,500/- out of which Rs. 4,000/- would be paid as advance and the balance would be paid within two months, whereafter the sale deed should be executed by the first defendant. It was further provided that if the plaintiff fails to pay the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 26,500/- within the stipulated time, he had to forego the advance of Rs. 4,000/- paid as per the agreement. On the date of the agreement, the f...
K. Chandrababu and ors. Vs. K. Maithili W/O. Kasinathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC776
P.K. Misra, J.1. Defendants are the appellants against the reversing decision.2. The plaintiff / respondent had instituted the suit for declaration of title, delivery of possession and for mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The disputed property belongs to Kothandapani Naidu. Plaintiff is the natural daughter of one Chinnaponnu Ammal and Srinivasan. After the death of Srinivasan, the husband of Chinnaponnu Ammal, sometimes in 1953, Kothandapani was supporting Chinnaponnu Ammal. Kothandapani had no issues and he had affinity towards the plaintiff. In 1957, Kothandapani requested Chinnaponnu Ammal to give the plaintiff in adoption and accordingly during the month of 'Thai' in the year 1957, Kothandapani took the plaintiff as his adopted daughter as per Hindu Customary rites. Subsequently, Kothandapani also performed the marriage of the plaintiff with one Kasinathan. After such marriage, the plaintiff used to come down to Chidambaram Town to stay in the house of her ad...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »