Chennai Court March 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.
Dr. S. Magalingam Vs. A. Ganesan S/O. Annamalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC278
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The petition is filed by the petitioner/respondent to recall the orders passed by this Court on 17.11.2005 in Crl.O.P. No. 31531 of 2005 and Crl.A. No. 897 of 2005.2. This Court was pleased to grant special leave in Crl.O.P. No. 31531 of 2005 to prefer the Criminal Appeal No. 897 of 2005 as against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. The petitioner has contended in the petition that this Special Leave Petition in Crl.M.P. No. 350 of 2006 was entertained and allowed by this Court without there being any application to condone the delay in preferring the special leave petition as against the judgment of the Trial Court passed on 29.7.2005. It has been contended that the appeal itself should not have been numbered even before the Special Leave Petition was disposed of by this Court. Simultaneous numbering of the Special Leave Petition as well as the Criminal Appeal is against the spi...
K. Kabali @ Kabalesswaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2074; (2006)2MLJ28
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.08.2000 made in Writ Petition No. 12633 of 19 99, in and by which the learned Judge directed the writ petitioner to approach the civil Court for compensation.2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed in the writ petition.3. According to the petitioner, he is a resident of No. 93, Madhav Rao Garden, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004, living with his wife, three daughters and one son. On 12.04.1997, at about 8.00 p.m. when his son Ramesh with his two friends was crossing the road near Luz Corner Signal, Mylapore, Chennai, he was taken by the Traffic Police Constable forcibly threw him into a standing Police Jeep. This was informed to the petitioner by the nearby shop owners. Immediately, i.e., at 9.1 5 p.m. he went to E.1 Mylapore Police Station and enquired about his son. They informed him that his son escaped from the Police Jeep. He left the police station on the pre...
R. Varadhan Vs. M. Harigopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC645; 2006(2)CTC707; (2006)2MLJ146
ORDERT.V. Masilamani, J.1. This revision has been filed by the defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 3691 of 2003 on the file of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai questioning the legality of the order passed by the trial court in refusing to grant leave to defend. 2. Heard Mr. N.Anand Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. G.N.Ashoklal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that even though the suit promissory notes were executed by three persons, the respondent filed the suit only against the revision petitioner and therefore the revision petitioner was constrained to file the petition before the court below seeking leave of the court to defend. Further, according to him, the other two promisors are the principal debtors and the revision petitioner stood surety for the due repayment of the loan. Hence he has urged that he has got a valid defence in the suit. 4. In support of his ...
P. Gopalasamy Vs. Dishnet Wireless Ltd., Formerly Known as Dishnet D.S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1744
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. Plaintiff is the revision petitioner. He has filed a suit in O.S.6850 of 2005 on the file of V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, for declaration that the alleged Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 30.03.2004 in between the parties to the suit as null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the alleged MoU for any other purpose. 2. The suit was filed on 14.10.2005 against the first defendant company and the second defendant describing as its Managing Director. Vakalat was filed for the second defendant on 25.10.2005. Suspecting the signature in the vakalat as not belonging to second defendant and apprehending that the later is attempting to mislead the court, comparison of the signature of second defendant was sought to be made in the signature found in the vakalat. For which purpose, appearance of second defendant in court was prayed for to take his admitted signature. This was prayed in the application fi...
Pavulmanickam Vs. M.S. Jeyachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC435
ORDERR. Regupathi, J. 1. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru, passed an order in C.M.P. No. 639/2006 on 6.2.2006, returning the petitioner's complaint without taking cognizance. Aggrieved against that, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition. The impugned order has been passed on the following grounds:(a) At the time of Re-presentation of the complaint/additional grounds have been raised.(b) The statutory notice has been returned as unserved, as door locked for several days and it cannot be construed as constructive notice.(c) There is contradictory plea taken by the complainant as to why and under what circumstances cheque has been given by accused.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no irregularity in the private complaint and the reasons given by the learned Magistrate in dismissing the private complaint at the initial stage itself is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied ...
Counter Point Advt. P. Ltd., Rep. by Its Director, Mr. Naresh Purushot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas435(Mad); 2006CriLJ2289; 2006(2)CTC501
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. These petitions are filed to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. Nos. 250 of 2003 and 5024 of 2002 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai.2. The petitioners are the accused in the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. It has been alleged in the complaint that the complainant-company financed the first accused company for the purchase of plant and machinery and the second accused in his capacity as a Director of the first accused company issued cheques to discharge the liability of the first accused company. It is further alleged in the complaint that when the cheques were presented, the same were returned with the endorsement 'Accounts Freezed'. After issuing the statutory notice calling upon the first and second accused to pay the cheque amount, the complaints were filed against the first and second accused for the offence under Section 138 of t...
R. Nagarathinam Ammal Vs. M. Raja @ Govindaraj and S. Shanmugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC785; (2006)2MLJ260
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. R. Nagarathinam Ammal, landlady of the petition premises, filed a petition for eviction against the first respondent, namely, M.Raja @ Govindaraj, who is the tenant, and the second respondent, namely, S.Shanmugam, who is the sub-tenant, on the grounds of owner's occupation and subletting. The learned Rent Controller, holding that the ground of subletting has been proved, ordered for eviction of the respondents, by an order dated 28.06.2002. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, which, in turn, allowed their appeal and set aside the order of eviction, passed by the learned Rent Controller. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition, by the landlady.2. According to the petitioner/landlady, the petition premises was let out in the year 1980 to Raja @ Govindaraj, first respondent herein, on the condition that there should not be any subletting without her permission; despite that, the petition premises ...
M. Rangasamy Vs. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Public Wor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CTC727; [2006(110)FLR996]; (2006)2MLJ376
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the third respondent dated 17.12.1996 and direct the respondents to accept the date 1.7.1945 as correct date of birth of the petitioner.2. The facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Head Mazdoor in the Public Works Department on 1.1.1965 and was holding the post of Works Inspector Grade-II and working in the Lower Bhavani Basin Sub-division, Kangayam, Erode District at the time of filing the original application. According to the petitioner at the time of joining into the service petitioner had produced the Transfer Certificate issued by the Government High School, Perundurai, Erode District, and the ESLC certificate, which was equivalent to Class VIII, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 10.9.1940.3. The case of the petitioner is that at the time when he left the school after completing Class VIII, his age...
State by the Inspector of Police Vs. Anandan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3234
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The State has preferred these criminal original petitions seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondents/accused in Crl.M.P. Nos. 11534 and 11535 of 2005 in Crime No. 694 of 2005.2. The respondents in both the criminal original petitions stand charged with the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 109, 201(a) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The respondents in both the criminal original petitions move applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for bail on the ground that the investigation was over and chargesheet also was laid. Their judicial custody for more than 80 days was also projected before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu as ground for obtaining bail.4. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, accepting the plea of the respondents and rejecting the contention of the State, chose to grant bail to the respondents in both the criminal original petitions considering the fact that the char...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indo Matsushita Carbon Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Mad)493; [2006]286ITR201(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ITA Nos.698/Mds/2003 dated 10.8.2005.2.1. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involved is 1993-94. The assessee is a company in which public are substantially interested. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 1993-94 claiming a relief on interest on over dues from trade debtors under Section 80HH and 80I. The assessing officer disallowed the same on the ground that the interest was not derived from industrial activity and therefore, the assessee company is not eligible for deduction under Section 80HH and brought the same to tax. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner of Income Tax, who, by an order dated 10.1.2003, confirmed the assessment order and held the issue in favour of the Revenue. Hence, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which, s...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »