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.
Mr. Sanjay Raghuram and Mr. S.R. Raghuram Vs. Telengana Investments an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2006
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas450(Mad)
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The petitioners are the accused in C.C.Nos.2155 of 2005 and 2154 of 2005 respectively on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-15, launched by the complainant for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The complainant filed the complaint with a delay of 28 days in preferring the complaint. As the proviso under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act contemplates taking cognizance of the complaint by the Court, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within the period of limitation as contemplated under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applications seeking condonation of delay were filed and the same were allowed by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.3. The entire challenge in these criminal original petitions is directed against the entertaining of the applications seeking condonation of delay...
D. Ramanujam Vs. R. Panneerselvam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CTC27
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order in I.A. No.623 of 2004 in O.S. No.113 of 2003 dated 16 .02.2005 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Cuddalore.2. The brief facts necessitated for disposal of this C.R.P. is as under:The Plaintiff is the petitioner. The property described in the schedule belonged to one Anbazhagi, wife of S.K.Velayuda Mudaliar. The plaintiff purchased the said property from the said Anbazhagi on 18.10 .1997 for a sum of Rs. 66,000/-. The defendant is the respondent who is the owner of the Flat No.111 which is situated on the South of Kumar Salai, East of Plot No.112, West of Plot No.110 and North of Plot No.117. The defendant is an adjacent owner. The plaintiff is the owner of Plot Nos.112 and 117. According to the plaintiff, the defendant claims right over the disputed area i.e., a right to the extent of 3 0 feet in Plot No.117 which belonged to the plaintiff. Also, the defendant has ...
Coats Viyella India Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Ex. and Cus.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(204)ELT213(Mad)
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed to quash Board Order, Circular No. 48-2-97-CX. dated 17-4-1997.2. The petitioner manufactures, inter alia, cotton canvas fabrics which are either grey or processed, cotton belting duck fabric etc. These fabrics were classified under Chapter 52 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Necessary classification lists were duly approved from time to time by the Madurai Collectorate from 1986 onwards.3. On 20-9-1990, the Assistant Commissioner issued a fresh show cause notice and proposed to re-classify cotton canvas, cotton belting duck fabrics etc., under Chapter 59 on the ground that these were used for industrial purposes. Further show cause notices were issued for the subsequent periods upto February, 1992. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the revised classification under Chapter 59 and also the differential duty demand by his Order No. 52/92 dated 20-8-1992.4. By a Board Circular addressed to all Collectors of Central Excise dated 10-8-1988...
R. Subramaniam Vs. Canara Bank and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2006
Reported in: [2006]134CompCas363(Mad)
S. Rajeswaran, J.1. Application No. 604 of 2005 has been filed to set aside and rescind the ex parte order dated June 12, 2000, made against the applicant in the above matter declaring him as an insolvent.2. Application No. 605 of 2005 has been filed to stay the operation of the ex parte order of adjudication dated June 12, 2000, passed in the above matter pending final orders.3. The applicant has filed a common affidavit in the above two applications. The case of the applicant is that he came to know that he has been declared as an insolvent on June 12, 2005, by this court, in the news column of the Hindu on July 29, 2005, without giving any details of the case. On verification it was found that he was declared as an insolvent on June 12, 2000, and not on June 12, 2005, as reported in the newspaper. The applicant has stated that the first respondent-bank filed a civil suit O.S. No. 10497 of 1996 against the principal debtors and the guarantors wherein the applicant was the third defen...
S. Chockalingam Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Deputy Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ185
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the impugned order of the first respondent dated 24.4.2002 bearing No. 27007/T-2/2000-14 and direct the first respondent to sanction the remaining amount of pay of Rs. 156.40 treating it as a special or separate pay from the date of petitioner's re-employment as Office Assistant in the office of the second respondent i.e, 14.7.1983, for the purpose of re-fixation of pay at Rs. 796.40.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed as a Soldier in the Indian Army on 25.5.1968 and after 15 years of his unblemished record of service, he was discharged from the Army on 1.6.1983. At the time of his discharge from Army, his last drawn salary was Rs. 796.40. Petitioner was re-employed in the Government Industrial Training Institute at Karaikudi, Sivagangai District on 14.7.1983 as an Ex-Serviceman. Petitioner even...
T. Pitchai Vs. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Ran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ202
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of dismissal passed by the second respondent dated 6.8.2003, confirmed in appeal by the first respondent by order dated 3.11.2003 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the p etitioner in service with all benefits.2. The petitioner was working as Woman Constable Grade-I in All Women Police Station, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District. A charge memo was issued under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in P.R.N o.13/2003 by the second respondent herein. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari, was nominated as Enquiry Officer, who conducted oral enquiry and by his report dated 16.6.2003 held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. The second respondent, who is the Disciplinary Authority, disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and drawn a dissenting note on 14.7.2003, for which t...
Shankar Vs. S. Viswanathan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CTC163
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant, who lost the case before both the courts below. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.239 of 1990 for injunction and also for injunction restraining respondents 1 and 2 / defendants 1 and 2 from executing the decree passed in O.S.17 of 1988 by the District Munsif Court, Nannilam. The suit was dismissed and the plaintiff filed A.S.255 of 1996 before the Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam and the appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the second appeal. 2. The facts which are relevant for disposal of the Second Appeal are as follows:Defendants 1 and 2 are owners of the land, which is the subject matter of the second appeal. Third defendant entered into an agreement for sale with defendants 1 and 2. He was put in possession of the suit properties. 3rd defendant failed to perform his part of the contract. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.17 of 1988 before the District Munsif Court, Nannilam for recovery of possession, which was dismisse...
Panduranga Gramani Vs. Sundaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ225
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. These second appeals are listed today for admission and I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The first defendant in O.S. No. 1067 of 1990 before the Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam is the appellant in Second Appeal No. 269 of 2006. The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs therein for declaration and permanent injunction.3. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 55 of 1990 before the Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam is the appellant in Second Appeal No. 270 of 2006. The said suit was filed by him for declaration of 1/3rd share in the suit A Schedule Well marked as 'W' in the plan annexed with the plaint, for right of channel described in B Schedule property marked 'AB' and for permanent injunction.4. The issues involved in both the appeals are common and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.5. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court.6. (a)The case of the Plaintiff in O.S. No....
Vinbros and Co. Rep. by Its Managing Partner Sri V.C. Raamsukaesh Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Mad)371; [2006]286ITR439(Mad)
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. Mrs. Pushya Seetharaman, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax takes notice for the respondents. By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The short facts for deciding the issue involved, and as set out in the affidavit, are as follows:In respect of the year 2001-02, the petitioner filed its return of income on 30.10.2001. The return was processed and thereafter, after due enquiry, the Assessing Authority made an assessment on the petitioner on 31.03.2004, under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the assessment order, the Assessing Authority concluded that the activity of the petitioner constituted manufacture within the meaning of Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act and, accordingly, the petitioner's claim for relief under Section 80IB was granted. According to the petitioner the tax based on the above said assessment has been duly paid by the petitioner and the pr...
M. Raja Vs. Manakchand Jamath (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ470
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The sole defendant, who lost the case before the courts below is the appellant. The respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed the suit in O.S. No. 3023 of 1988 before the 12th Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras for eviction against the appellant herein, which was allowed, the appeal filed by him before the first appellate Court was also dismissed, hence the present second appeal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court.3. The case of the plaintiffs is that they have purchased the suit property namely land in old Door No. 52, new Door No. 90 and 90/1, Syndenhams Road, Periamet, Madras - 3 comprised in RS No. 1264/15 measuring an extent of 2 grounds and 692 sq.ft., under sale deed dated 25.09.1987, which was registered as document No. 1118/1987 on the file of Sub-registrar, Periamet. Soon after purchase, they have issued a notice, Ex.A3 dated 16.11.1987 calling upon the defendant to attorn te...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »