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.
P. Baskeran Vs. the Chief Engineer, (Distribution) Chennai Division, T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ500
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari directing the respondents to call for all connected relevant records relating to the impugned order issued in proceedings in Ku.No.Ma.Po/Sa.Me.Pa.Va/North/Ni.Pi.2/OU Tha.4/No.308/02, dated 29.5.2002, passed by the Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/North, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Chennai -2, the second respondent herein, and quash the same as arbitrary, unreasonable, improper, illegal, against the established rules and regulations of the respondents and in violation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had joined the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as a Casual Labourer in the year 1985 and he had worked in various sections as well as the Department in several divisions and he was carrying on his duty sincerely and without any lapses. Based on the recom...
K. Rajasekar Vs. Indian Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC211
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Petition filed for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the notice issued by the respondent under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, the SRFAESI Act) and forbearing the respondent from taking possession of the house in Ward No. 4, Block No. 3 in T.S. No. 42, Rajenderan Road, Palani measuring 9248 sq. ft.2. The petitioner and his mother - Sivakami (since dead) have availed the following loans from the respondent Bank:___________________________________________________Nature of facility Limit___________________________________________________1. Minor Irrigation .... Rs. 1,15,0002. Sericulture .... Rs. 10,0003. STPL - A/c K. Rajasckar ... Rs. 25,0004. STPL - A/c K. Sivakami ... Rs. 25,0005. Coconut Plantation ... Rs. 40,000___________________________________________________The petitioner and his mother have executed the loan documents in respect of each...
J.B. Ubaidullah Vs. Adhilakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC639
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 12.12.2005, passed in E.A. No. 5087 of 2005 in E.P. No. 2005 of 2005 in O.S. No. 5681 of 1991 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.2. It is the case of the petitioner that one Krishnan, who is the father of respondents 1 to 5, had filed a suit against him in O.S. No. 5681 of 1991 on the file of the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for a permanent injunction restraining him from putting up unauthorised construction in suit B-Schedule property and also for a direction by mandatory injunction to respondents 6 and 7 herein , who are defendants 2 and 3 in the suit to demolish the alleged unauthorised construction put up by the petitioner in the suit B-Schedule property. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing a detailed written statement contending that he had not put up any new construction in the suit property and that there...
M. Kollappan Vs. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC715
Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The appellant is the sole accused in Special C.C.No.2 of 1994 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Coimbatore. The appeal is filed against the judgment dated 10.6.1997 convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which are to run concurrently, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 3000/- for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) respectively of the Act, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months each. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') was a Bill Collector in Samalapuram Town Panchayat; that he being the Public Servant, when P.W. 2 Selvamani met the accused on 01.3.1993 in conne...
Mohideen Packir Vs. the Director of Employment and Training,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ522
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.2. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 5076 of 1992 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal claiming the following relief:.the applicant prays for a direction to the respondents to promote the applicant to the post of Junior Training Officer with reference to his seniority in the post of Workshop Asst. Grade I.3. The claim of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that he became eligible for promotion as Junior Training Officer after he passed S.S.L.C. in October, 1991. In the said Original Application, no counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal, by order dated 23.12.2003, observed as follows:In fact, the applicant has been promoted in the year 1993 as Junior Training Officer. So, the prayer has been conceded. Now, the applicant would turn round and say that he must be deemed to have been promoted as Junior Training Officer from the date on which he has passed SSLC. This cannot be granted. T...
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its Chairman and Chief Executiv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC97; (2006)2MLJ171
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since all the appeals arise out of the very same order of the learned single Judge, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment. 2. Questioning the order dated 28.09.2005 of the learned single Judge made in Contempt Petition No.28 of 2005, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank through its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer has filed LPA.No.21 of 2005. Questioning the same order, B. Ramachandra Adityan, Director of the Bank filed LPA.No.22 of 2005; and V. Baskaran, another Director filed LPA.No.23 of 2005. LPA. No. 24 of 2005 is filed by one N. Balasubramaanian and LPA. No. 25 of 2005 is filed by A. Narayanan, against the very same order of the learned Judge. In all these appeals Tamilnad Mercanti1e Bank Shareholders Welfare Association is the first respondent and the Bank is the second respondent. As said earlier, since all the appeals are filed against the order dated 28.09.2005 made in Contempt Petition No.28 of 2005, for convenience, we shall refer the facts...
Yadavalaya Films, Represented by Its Proprietor C.R. Ravi Yadav Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ108
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The writ petition relates to the certification of a Tamil film titled 'KUTRAPATHRIKAI' for public exhibition.2. The petitioner launched the production of a Tamil feature film with the above title during July, 1991 and completed the same during December, 1992. The film basically revolves around the assassination of the former Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi. As the petitioner is required to obtain a censorship certificate for public exhibition of the film, it applied to the Chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-6 (for short 'the Board') on 11.12.92. The Examining Committee of the said Board consisting of a Regional Officer and four other members, though viewed the film on 3.2.1993, did not pass any orders. Hence, the petitioner had to approach this Court by filing W.P. No. 1102 of 1993 and this Court by order dated 3.2.94, directed the Board to consider and pass orders on or befo...
Eastern Produce Co. Vs. the Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Mad)104; [2006]286ITR353(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This Tax Case Appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29.11.2002. The above appeal came up before this Court and this Court admitted the appeal on 14.10.2003 and formulated the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in negativing the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80HHC ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the benefit of Section 80HHC deduction would not be available to a block assessment for the computation of undisclosed income, since it is not the same as a regular assessment ?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in dismissing the petitioner's appeal without dealing with the...
Kadiravan and K.G. Krishnasamy @ Appu Vs. State by Additional Superint ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2803
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The petitioner in Crl. O.P. No.9883 of 2005 is the sixth accused and the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 9885 of 2005 is the fifth accused in PRC No. 2 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kancheepuram.2. The petitioners along with the other accused have been charged with the major offence of murder.3. They filed criminal miscellaneous petition Nos.1901 and 1904 of 2005 in PRC No. 2 of 2005 praying to furnish a copy of the statement of the accused Kadiravan given before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kancheepuram on 24.11.2004.4. Learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kancheepuram, having observed that the remand accused Kadiravan made some representation only before the said Magistrate and that the same was not a confession or a statement of an accused as contemplated under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, dismissed the application seeking copies of such a statement under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ga...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. C.S. Kothari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)259; [2006]286ITR397(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This Appeal is by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The above appeal came up for hearing before this Court on 20.10.2003 and this Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that interest paid Under Section 234B & 234C forms part of the tax paid to be deducted to arrive at the taxable income ?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the question whether interest Under Section 234B & 234C forms part of the tax is a debatable issue, and cannot be adjusted in proceedings Under Section 143(1)(a) ?2. The facts relating to the above questions of law are as under:-The assessment year involved is 1991-92 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.1991. The assessee is an individual and his main income is the shar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »