Chennai Court March 2006 Judgments
Ravichandran Vs. the Sub Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC827
J.A.K. Sampath Kumar, J.1. This revision is filed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur in Crl.M.P.No. 9017 of 2003 in C.C.352 of 2003 dated 26.3.2004 in and by which he has granted the permission to the police to perform DNA typing test on the accused as well as the complainant and her child.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Advocate (Criminal side). 3. The point for consideration is that whether the order of the trial Court in permitting the police with a direction to perform D N A typing test on the accused as well as the complainant and her child can sustain.4. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Ravichandran and the victim Kalaiyarasi are the resident of Arumbavur village. From the child-hood onwards they are friendly, approached with each other and for the past 2 years, the accused Ravichandran is closely related to the victim Kalaiyarasi and the accused Ravichandran told the victim that he had 3 daughters from th...
Tag this Judgment!D. Varadharajan and V.R. Raghavendra Rao Vs. Special Crime Branch Cent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas537(Mad)
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The Criminal Original Petition No. 14679 of 2001 is filed by the seventh accused in C.C. No. 225 of 1997. The third accused in the said case has filed Criminal Original Petition No. 31357 of 2002. Both the Criminal Original Petitions are filed seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No. 225 of 1997. Both the petitioners have been charged for offences under Sections 120(b) r/w. Section 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.2. The allegation as against the third accused is that he introduced the first and second accused to avail DABP credit facilities by A.1 and A.2, by furnishing fabricated documents to the Indian Bank. The charge as against the seventh accused is that he facilitated fabrication of documents produced to the said Bank for availing credit facilities.3. The petitioners have contended that in as much as the entire loan transaction was liquidated by the borrowers and a letter was add...
Tag this Judgment!Nilakantan and Brothers Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Government of T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad272; 2006(4)ARBLR87(Madras); (2006)2MLJ497
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. This Review Application has been filed for reviewing the Division Bench decision dated 29.7.2005 in O.S.A.No.8 of 2000.2. The Chief Engineer (Highways) had been appointed as Arbitrator pursuant to the order dated 19.8.1983, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.S.No.765 of 1980. Subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court appointed a retired Judge of the High Court as arbitrator to resolve the dispute by order dated 27.11.1986. The present applicant filed claim petition claiming various amounts under different heads as indicated hereunder :-Claim No. 1 : Compensation for loss suffered on account of overheads and profits due to breach of contract including termination - Rs. 226.351 lakhs.Claim No. 2 : Compensation for loss due to Cyclone - Rs. 29,92,166.08Claim No. 3 : Compensation for taking over the infrastructure and materials at site - Rs. 76,36,090/- corrected later to Rs. 89,23,722.45Claim No. 4 : Compensation for loss on account of idle labour...
Tag this Judgment!A. Rajendran Vs. the Assistant Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: [2007]291ITR178(Mad)
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. Tax Case Nos. 74 to 76/2002 stand admitted on the following questions of law:(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances, the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law to accept the principle of preponderance of probabilities in holding that the claim of the appellant that the sum of Rs. 15,62,500/- received by him by way of gifts through normal Banking Channels was not genuine and that it was liable to be assessed under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?(b) Whether in the light of the law established and based on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in concluding that the burden of proof cast on the appellant under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 19 61 has not been discharged and the ingredients for invoking section 68 of the Income Tax Act are present?(c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the claim of gift is not genuine...
Tag this Judgment!A. Rajendran Vs. Astt. Cit, Special Investigation, Cirecle Iii, Coimba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: [2006]155TAXMAN364(Mad)
R. Balasubramanian, J. Tax Case Nos. 74 to 76/2002 stand admitted on the following questions of law:'(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law to accept the principle of preponderance of probabilities in holding that the claim of the appellant that the sum of Rs. 15,62,500 received by him by way of gifts through normal Banking Channels was not genuine and that it was liable to be assessed under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?(b) Whether in the light of the law established and based on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in concluding that the burden of proof cast on the appellant under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has not been discharged and the ingredients for invoking section 68 of the Income Tax Act are present?(c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the claim of gift is not genuine is ...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Engineer (General), Highways and Rural Works Vs. P.R. Govind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ562
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. E.Sampath Kumar, the learned Government Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. K. Raja, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.2. Even though the matter was listed for considering the question of vacating the stay order, since the very same question is involved in the writ petition, the writ petition is taken up for disposal on merits by consent of both counsel appearing for the parties.3. In order to appreciate the question raised in this writ petition, it is necessary to notice in detail some of the preceding facts.4. The first respondent in the writ petition was involved in a case of corruption and in connection with the said case, he was arrested on 08.08.1998 and remanded to custody on 09.08.1998 and he was in custody till 21.08.1998. In view of the provisions containing in Rule 17(e)(i)(ii) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, he was placed under suspension with effect from the date on which he was arrest...
Tag this Judgment!Kaveri Silks and Jute Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director P. Chhag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(203)ELT18(Mad)
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit clearance of Mulberry Raw Silk consignments covered under Bills of Entry Nos. 967644 dated 22-2-2006 and 980161 dated 14-3-2006 imported by the petitioner under the Sales Contract No. 25 SZHCS 026 dated 26-1-2005 by assessing the same.3. Mr. K. Jayachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the CESTAT, Chennai, has rejected the Appeal filed by the Department against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) by its order dated 20-3-2006, confirming the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in a matter relating to similar goods.4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the same goods, for the other importer the value declared at 13.94 US $ per kg, has been confirmed by the Tribu...
Tag this Judgment!V. Perumal Vs. the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, Healt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ339
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the G.O.D.No.841 dated 27.06.1995 in so far as granting relaxation for not possessing the 8th standard qualification to the petitioner only with retrospective effect from 27.06.1995 instead of the petitioner's date of appointment from 01.09.1974 is concerned.2. The grievance of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit is that the petitioner was appointed as Hospital Servant on regular basis with effect from 19.03.1965 and the petitioner completed his probation in the said post on 25.03.1966. The petitioner was thereafter, temporarily appointed as Nursing Assistant Grade II. The petitioner underwent training prescribed for Nursing Assistant and also passed a test at the end of training on 30.08.1975. The qualification prescribed for the post of Male Nursing Assistant was a pass in 8th standard and nursing training. However, since the petitioner worked in the Hospital...
Tag this Judgment!V. Sampath Vs. the Officer-in-charge, Sena Seva Corps Abhilekh, Yantri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ781
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 25.7.2001 made in W.P.No.4028 of 1995, in and by which, the learned Judge after finding that the claim made in the writ petition is a belated one and that on merits also, there is no material on record to establish that the disability suffered by the petitioner is due to the military service, dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner claiming disability pension.2. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, we shall refer the parties in the order as they were arrayed before the learned single Judge.3. The writ petitioner, an ex-serviceman was appointed as a Sepoy-cum-Driver in Defence Services on 02.3.1978. As he was found unfit by the Medical Board to be retained in service on the ground that he had been suffering from a disease, by name, Neurosis, he was discharged from service on 15.9.1985. On a complaint that the petitioner had been suffering from Neurosis, he ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kolandaisamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary, Department ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ157
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pass orders accepting voluntary retirement of the petitioner, pursuant to the representation dated 24.9.2005, from the due post of the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Education Service.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Physical Director (Higher Secondary) on 23.2.1981. According to the petitioner, he had to be promoted as Director of School education, but he was not considered for the said promotion. Hence he made a representation on 15.9.2004 and the same having not been considered, petitioner filed W.P.No.5728 of 2005. This Court by order dated 22.2.2005 directed the respondents to consider the representation dated 15.9.2004 within eight weeks.3. Subsequently, on 24.9.2005, petitioner made an application for voluntary retirement after giving three months of statutory notice and the said period came to an end on 31...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »