Chennai Court April 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.
Joseph Robert Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3345
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This appeal by the sole accused arises out of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dindigul dated 30-7-1997 made in Sessions Case No. 26 of 1996 in and by which the trial Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant is hereinafter referred to as accused.3. The charge against the accused is that on 13-8-1995 at about 9.30 a.m., on the suspicion that the deceased Ganesan was having illicit intimacy with one Lakshmi, the accused, with the intention to cause the death of the deceased, cut his left shoulder with aruval as a result of which the deceased died on the spot and thereby committed murder, punishable under Section 302, I.P.C.4. Factual scenario as described by the prosecution is essentially as follows:4.1 P.W. 1 is the mother of the deceased Ganesan, who was running a tailoring shop at Mariamman Koil Street, Vedasanthur. The accus...
Synergy Credit Corporation Limited Vs. Midland Industries Limited and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3267
K.N. Basha, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No, XVIII, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.C. No. 3436 of 1996, dated 20-3-1998, acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The complainant has come forward with the allegation that it is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its Principal Office at Mumbal and a Branch Office amongst other places in India including at Chennai. The complainant has stated that the accused on 9-11-1995 came forward with a written request for discounting a Bill of exchange for a face value of Rs. 15,00,000/- for covering a transaction with M/s. Nalanda Synthetics Limited, Hyderabad.3. A complaint was filed by the complainant through P.W. 1, who has been duly authorised by a power of attorney document, Ex. P, 1, Ex. P. 2 is the letter of request given by the accused to the complaina...
Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Investment Trust of India Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2006
Reported in: (2007)288ITR106(Chennai)
1. All the five appeals of the Revenue relate to the assessment years 1991-92 to 1995-96. We heard all the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order.2. Let us first take I.T.A. No. 119/Mds./99 which relates to the assessment year 1991-92. The only issue arises for consideration is regarding the valuation of the share of Tata Tea Ltd. for the purpose of capital gains.3. We heard both the representatives of the Revenue and the assessee.Tata Tea Ltd. offered to buy majority of the shares in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. Tata Tea Ltd. offered one share of Tata Tea Ltd. and Rs. 100 for every two shares of Consolidated Coffee Ltd. For the purpose of capital gain, the Assessing Officer took the market rate of the Tata Tea Ltd. on the date of exchange at Rs. 320. However, on appeal by the assessee, the first appellate authority found that the market value of Tata Tea Ltd. would become relevant only when the assessee sells the share of Tata Tea Ltd. In this case, since there w...
Shri. B. Prasanna Kumar, Proprietor, Mangalam Enterprises Vs. the Depu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(203)ELT375(Mad)
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed in the following circumstances:The petitioner is one of the registered bidders of the E - auction being held by the Customs authorities for clearing 'uncleared cargo' and the petitioner has been issued with an identity card bearing Registration No.04/03 (Bidder Identity Card).2. The petitioner has participated in the E Auction No.127 (UCC & CCTL), which was conducted on 16.05.2005 for clearing the goods 'Thick Aluminia linings' covered by Lot No.5/05. He was declared as successful bidder for Rs.1,71,000/- and the first respondent accepted the offer made by him and requested/advised him vide their letter dated 28.12.2005 to approach the respective custodian/warehouse keeper, make payment in cash or by demand draft and take delivery of the goods. Pursuant to the receipt of the aforesaid letter dated 28.12.2005, he made payment to the custodian/warehouse keeper of Rs.1,71,000/- towards the full sale value under Receipt No.2124...
Nanjappan and ors. Vs. Kandayammal @ Kandammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC408; (2006)3MLJ87
T.V. Masilamani, J.1. The defendants 1 to 4 and 6 who have lost before the both the courts below are the appellants.2. The respondents/plaintiffs 1 and 2 are mother and daughter respectively. They filed the suit for declaration that the suit 'A' schedule property belonged to the plaintiffs absolutely and for possession of the same from the appellants/defendants and for mesne profits at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per year in respect of 'A' schedule lands and for partition and separate possession of 1/6th share in the suit 'B' schedule property in favour of the first plaintiff and for means profits at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month in respect of 'B' schedule property. 3. The appellants filed the written statement resisting the claim of the respondents and the trial court, after analysing the evidence and upon hearing the argument of both sides, decreed the suit with costs for declaration and possession of 'A' schedule property and passed a preliminary decree for partition as prayed for in ...
R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal and A. Kamaraj Vs. J. Jay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad312; 2006(3)KLT147; (2006)2MLJ689
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. The first appellant, R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal, is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of 'Nakkheeran', a bi-weekly magazine published from Chennai. The second appellant, A. Kamaraj is the Associate Editor of 'Nakkheeran'. During the period from 01.04.2003 to 20.06.2003, the appellants had published certain articles in their magazine in relation to the first and the second respondents. The first respondent Selvi. J. Jayalalitha is the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu. She is also the General Secretary of the political party, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (A.I.A.D.M.K.). The second respondent Tmt. N. Sassikala is a close friend of the first respondent and is interested in the welfare of the first respondent. In all 24 publications made in 21 issues of 'Nakkheeran' are the subject matter of the present proceedings.2. The respondents filed a suit for injunction and damages against the appellants in their capacity as Editor, Printer and Publisher and Ass...
Manimozhiyal Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ359
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the first respondent dated 14.11.2002 insofar as it directs recovery of Rs. 2,15,250/- an direct the respondents to settle all the terminal benefits due to the death of petitioner's husband M.Pugazhendi Pulavar with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, including family pension.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows.(a)Petitioner's husband M.Pugazhendi Pulavar was working as Khadi Assistant Grade-II in the first respondent Board. While he was working under the control of the second respondent herein at Khadi Kraft Stores, Jayankondam, he expired on 26.6.1997. According to the petitioner, her husband had worked for more than 25 years and no disciplinary proceeding was pending against him. Petitioner claims that since the Khadi Board is a Tamil Nadu Government Undertaking and she being the widow of the deceased Khadi Board employee, she is entitled to get the term...
Sudhar and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4541
1. As all the three appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 12-8-1997, made in S.C. No. 129/1996 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, they are heard together and disposed of by the following common judgment.2.1 The appellant in Crl. A. No. 764/1997 is accused No. 4. He challenges his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed on him.2.2 The appellant in Crl, A. No. 839/1997 is accused No. 1. He challenges his conviction under Sections 302 and 324, I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed on him for the former offence and one year rigorous imprisonment for the latter offence.2.3 In Crl. A. No. 694/1999, the State challenges the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3 of the charges levelled against them, namely under Section 323 and Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C.3. For the purpose of convenience, in this judgment the accused will be referred as arraye...
K. Manivannan Vs. the Chairman and Mananging Director, Chennai Port Tr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ289Mad; (2006)2MLJ328
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the order of termination dated 19.01.2006 issued by the respondent and reinstate the petitioner in service.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition is as follows:(i) The petitioner belong to Hindu Sholaga Community which is a Scheduled Tribe community and the petitioner's name was sponsored through the Employment Exchange in the year 1980 for the post of Time Keeper in the respondent Port Trust and the petitioner was selected and appointed as Time Keeper on 17.09.1980 as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. The petitioner, at the time of joining, produced the Community Certificate dated 21.06.1980 issued by the Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk. (ii) The petitioner service was confirmed after completion of his probation. The petitioner was given all promotions in time and in the year 2003, he was promoted as Administrative Officer and at the time of passing the impugned order, he was working...
T. Kochappi Vs. R. Sadasivam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad330; 2006(5)CTC337
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order passed in G.W.O.P. No. 189 of 2001, dated 8-3-2002, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. This appeal has been preferred by the grand-father of the children by name, Raghul and Gokul who are admittedly in the custody of the appellant/the petitioner in G.W.O.P. No. 189 of 2001.2. The appellant is a retired State Government employee. According to the appellant/the petitioner, the respondent who is none other than the father of the children, Raghul and Gokul, had married for second time after the death of the first wife. Only on that ground, the appellant herein had filed G.W.O.P. No. 189 of 2001 before the Additional District Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, for appointing him as a guardian for the minors.3. The respondents remained ex-parte.4. After going through the affidavit to the petition and the documentary evidence let in by the petitioner, the learned...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »