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.
R. Kaliyamoorthy Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Kumbakonam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ51
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge made in an application filed under Section 47 of C.P.C., dated 29/9/2005 in E.A. No. 168 of 2004 in E.P. No. 83 of 2003 in M.C.O.P. No. 440 of 1997.2. According to the petitioner, pending the earlier execution petition, the respondent Corporation deposited a sum of Rs. 1,10,706/- into the Court, pursuant to an order of attachment. The petitioner was also paid a sum of Rs. 1,38,344/- pursuant to the said compensation of Rs. 1,10,706/- deposited by the respondent Corporation and on receipt of the said payment, the Execution Petition itself was not pressed and dismissed. Subsequently, when the petitioner preferred the present execution petition No. 83 of 2003, the respondent Corporation filed the present application in E.A. No. 168 of 2004 contending that the petitioner having agreed to receive the sum deposited in the previous execution petition and thereby did not press the s...
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. Vasantha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC190; (2006)2MLJ816
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 330 of 1996, dated 9.12.1997, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- Principal District Judge, Sivagangai. The State Transport Corporation is the appellant herein.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:On 11.7.1996, at about 10.15 p.m., when the deceased was proceeding on Madurai-Mandapam National Highway Road on the extreme left hand side of the road, a bus bearing registration No. TN 45-N 0329 belonging to respondent, State Transport Corporation, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Ulaganathan, causing his instantaneous death. At the time of the accident, the deceased Ulaganathan was working as a supervisor in a spinning mill by name, Somasundaram Super Spinning Mill and drawing Rs. 3,000 per mensum towards his salary. Claimants have filed the claim petition claiming Rs. 4,00,000 towards compensation.3. Th...
P. Varadarajan and ors. Vs. G.K. Mani, Member of Legislative Assembly, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2302
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. Crl.O.P.No.844 of 2006 is filed by the first and second accused, Crl.O.P.No.1604 of 2006 is filed by 4th to 9th accused and Crl.O.P.No.1856 of 2006 is filed by the 10th accused seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.19039 of 2005 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.2. The private complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners and others herein reads as follows:-The complainant is the President of 'Pattali Makkal Katchi' (hereinafter referred to 'P.M.K.'). The accused are the Chairman and Managing Director, Publisher, Printer, Reporter and Photographer of the Tamil bi-weekly 'Kumutham' Reporter. In the issue dated 20.10.2005 of Kumutham Reporter Tamil bi-weekly it has been alleged that Indian Red Cross Society received Rs.50 crores from Foreign Red Cross Societies. The said amount collected for the purpose of spending for the welfare of the Tsunami victims is kept unspent du...
Cg Igarashi Motors Ltd. Rep. by Head Hrd and Admn. Vs. Deputy Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2006
Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ733Mad
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. By this writ petition, the Management challenges the order dated 25-1-2005 passed by the competent authority under the Payment of Minimum Wages Act, directing the petitioner Management to pay a sum of Rs. 74,673.25 as minimum wages to one J. Renuka.2. The facts in brief are: Petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of DC Permanent Magnet Micro Motors used in electrical work. Petitioner employs persons initially as Trainees and such persons, after successful completion of the training, are absorbed as permanent employees.One Ms. J. Renuka was taken as a Trainee on 1-9-1998 for a period of one year and the traineeship was extended on 1-0-1999 for a further period of one year. She resigned from the services of the petitioner on 25-10-2002 and her resignation was accepted. After resigning, she raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act alleging that she was forced to submit her resignation. The said dispute is still pending.The second responden...
Selvi J. Jayalalithaa and anr. Vs. R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal @ Nakkhee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad197
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. This order shall govern the above two applications. The former was taken by the plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from publishing in future publications, articles, caricatures, news items, cartoons, etc., defamatory or derogatory in nature in the Tamil bi-weekly Nakkheeran or in any special editions thereof or any publications of the respondents/defendants without prior verification with the plaintiffs, pending the suit, while the latter was taken by the defendants for vacating the order of ad-interim injunction ex parte granted by this Court.2. Affidavits in support of the applications and counter affidavits are perused. The averments in the plaint are also looked into. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.3. Advancing the arguments for the applicants/plaintiffs, the learned Counsel would submit that this is a suit for recovery of damages and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants f...
Surendra Mal Mehta and Deepak Mehta Vs. Gillette India Limited, Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2006
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas412(Mad)
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The petition is filed seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 26715 of 2004 pending on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.2. The petitioners are the accused in a case under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act launched by the respondent/complainant.3. The respondent/complainant has alleged that the second accused/second petitioner is the authorised distributor of the products of the complainant-company and the first accused/first petitioner is none other than the father of the second accused/second petitioner. The first accused signs cheques regularly on behalf of the second accused for business transactions which is being run under the name and style of Padmodaya Agencies. The second accused has authorised the first accused to determine the contracts between the parties and issue negotiable instruments to discharge the liabilities incurred by the second accused.4. It is further alleged by the ...
K.Ve.M. Geeva Vs. the Commissioner, Kodaikanal Municipality and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ542
P. Jyaothimani, J.1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. This writ petition is filed challenging the notice issued by the first respondent dated 16.7.2005. The said notice is issued under Section 217-J of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. The petitioner has purchased a property in T.S. No. 2, Block No. 27, Ward B, bearing Door No. 11/201, Kodaikanal Town from one Abubackar and his wife Mumtaj through an unregistered sale deed on 4.4.2000.3. According to the petitioner, the property is a revenue land not vested with the first respondent. The predecessors in title of the petitioner have been paying penalty under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and were in continuous possession followed by the petitioner.4. Further, the case of the petitioner is that the predecessors in title of the petitioner have been in occupation and enjoyment of the property for 30 years along with a house situated therein. S...
Regupathi Vs. Govindan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4232
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition, praying to grant anticipatory bail for him on the ground that he is facing trial in C.C. No. 324 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kallakuruchi, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act wherein a Non-Bailable Warrant is issued against him.2. Heard both sides.3. Mr. A. Balaguru, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not able to appear before the trial Court on 15.7.2005, though he was regularly appearing for all the dates of hearing, as a result of which, the learned Magistrate has issued a Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner.4. The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a bailable one, since the same is punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of two years. But, unfortunately, the learned Magistrate has issued non-bailable warrant without a preceding bailable warrant where the offence is b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Elgi Finance Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Mad)241; [2006]286ITR674(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J. 1. The present Appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, dated 12.12.2002 in ITA No. 355 & 356/Mds/2002. These appeals came up before this Court and this Court admitted the appeals on 17.10.2003 and formulated the following Substantial Question of Law:-Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating the reassessment under Section 147, as time barred?2. The facts leading to the above question of law are as follows:-The assessee is a company engaged in the business of finance and leasing. The return filed by the assessee company for the assessment year 1992-93 was initially processed under Section 143(1)(a) on 11.11.1 993. Thereafter it was converted into a scrutiny assessment and the said assessment was completed under Section 143(3) by the order of assessment dated 07.03...
R. Sridharan, Vs. Ammaniammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC377; (2006)2MLJ87
C. Nagappan, J.1. The appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.12.1988 made in O.S. No. 68 of 1982 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the suit.2. The appellants filed the suit seeking for a decree for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 11.5.1972 executed by the defendants 1 and 2 to the extent of the plaintiffs 9/16 th share value and for partition of the suit properties into sixteen equal shares and allot nine shares to the plaintiffs and for costs. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the sons of first defendant who as kartha of joint family was looking after the ancestral lands measuring a total extent of 13 acres and 28 cents in two villages and the lands were fertile yielding a net income of more than Rs. 15,000/- per year which was sufficient for maintaining the family and the first defendant was leading a wayward, immoral life and did not look after the cultivation properly and...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »