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.
The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(202)ELT233(Mad); 2008[9]STR599
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He is aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the preliminary ground of territorial jurisdiction. The fifth respondent-Company, which has since merged with the first respondent-Company, was issued with a show case notice under the provisions of Sections 28(1), 114-A and 28-AB the Customs Act, 1962 for violation of the statutory provisions in Sections 58, 59, 68, 71 and 72 of the Customs Act to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.1,71,91,550 should not be demanded and also the mandatory penalty along with interest. The show cause notices were received by the first and fifth respondents. The Revenue Authorities discovered, while checking the 'Input Output Ratio', that there was a systematic, meticulous and willful evasion of duty by the fifth respondent in collusion with the first respondent. According to the appellant, the fifth respondent had inflated the quantity of raw materials re...
Andhra Bank Financial Services Limited, Rep. by Its Managing Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad276; (2006)4MLJ392
P.K. Misra, J.1. This appeal is filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge of this Court passed in C.S. No. 2035 of 1995 dated 25.1.1999.2. The plaintiff/Respondent had filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 10,32,24,989/-together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on Rs. 6,63,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till date of realisation. The suit was decreed as prayed for except in respect of the transaction covered under Ex.A-4 for which direction has been made for calculation of pre-suit, pendente lite and future interest at 21% and not 24%.3. The main contentions which have been pressed before us relate to the questions of jurisdiction of the trial court to deal with the suit, the justification on the part of the plaintiff in appropriating certain repayments made by the defendants towards interest and the question of calculation of pre-decree, pendete lite and future interest. For the purpose of deciding these que...
Dr. P. Sivanesan Vs. the Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ775
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of transfer in G.O.(Rt) No. 1636, Health and Family Welfare (L2) Department, dated 30.12.2005, issued by the first respondent and to direct the first respondent to allow the petitioner to continue in the same post.2. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition, are as follows,(a) Petitioner herein, after passing M.B.B.S., and M.D. (General Medicine) degrees, joined the Medical Services of the State Government as Assistant Surgeon and was initially posted at Cheyyar, North Arcot District. Petitioner was then posted as Medical Officer in the Primary Health Centre at Manakudayan, Trichy District. From 1989 to 1990 he served as District Health Officer at Virudhunagar; from 1991 to 1996 as Municipal Health Officer at Kodaikanal and in 1997 at Palani. From 1998 till May, 2005, he served as Municipal Health Officer, Didigul and in May, 2005, he was transferred from Dindigul and posted as Ass...
P. Panneerselvan Vs. A. Baylis (Deceased by L.Rs.) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad242
R. Sudhakar, J.1. The appellant before this Court is the defendant in the Original Suit in O.S. No. 1956 of 184 before the Sub-Court, Madurai. The present L.P.A. is against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge in A.S. No. 600 of 1987, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 156 of 1984 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Suit.2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract to execute the sale deed in respect of 1 acre 30 cents in R.S. No. 174/5 in Uthagudi Village in Madurai District or in the alternative, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 18% interest from the defendant. 3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows The plaintiff and the defendants were good friends. The defendant was engaged in development and sale of land and he is the owner of the land in R.S.No. 174/4 measuring 60 cents, R.S. No. 174/5 measuring acre 30 cents in Uthangudi Village, Ma...
K. Balaraman and ors. Vs. Pattammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad260; 2006(4)CTC326
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The defendants 1, 3, 5 to 10 in O.S. No. 874 of 1988 before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvallur are the appellants in the second appeal. The said suit was filed by respondents herein for specific performance of the agreement dated 20.08.1980 and for permanent injunction. The trial court decreed the suit and on appeal, the first appellate court confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial court, hence, the present second appeal has been filed.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court.3. The case of the plaintiffs as set out in the plaint are as follows:-4. The first defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property, entered into an agreement, Ex.A1 dated 20.08.1980 with the first plaintiff for total sale consideration of Rs. 9,060/- and on that day entire amount was paid. In and by the said agreement, Ex.A1, the first defendant agreed to execute the sale deed forthwith on request made by the ...
Yesudass (Died) and ors. Vs. Henry Victor,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ651
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The legal heirs of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 304 of 1984 and O.S. No. 217 of 1986 respectively are the appellants in these second appeals. The said two suits were filed for specific performance. The trial court, by common judgment and decree dismissed their suit and the appeal filed by them were also dismissed by common judgment and decree, hence the present second appeals.2. For the sake of convenience, the plaintiff (Chandrakanthan) in O.S. No. 304 of 1984 shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff; the defendants 1 and 2 in both the suits shall be referred to as defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff (Yesudass) in O.S. No. 217 of 1986 shall hereinafter be referred to as third defendant.3. The case of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 304 of 1984 are as follows:-(a) The defendants 1 and 2 are the owners of the suit property, they agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 9,225/- and accordingly, they have entered into an agreement of...
Brick Steel Enterprises, a Registered Partnership Firm Rep. by Its Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC519; (2007)1MLJ488
ORDERP.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J. 1. The petitioner herein, is a registered Partnership Firm having its office at No. 1, Om Sakthi Buildings, State Bank Colony-III, Salem-4 and the respondent herein, invited a tender on 18.09.1986 for the construction of office buildings in two blocks for the Collectorate, Vellore in Vellore District. The petitioner was the successful tenderer. The petitioner and respondent entered into an agreement on 09.06.198 7. The value of the work was estimated at Rs. 1,57,59,319/-. As per the agreement, the work has to be completed within 17 months from the date of handing over the site. The site was handed over by the respondent to the petitioner on 11.06.1987. As per the terms of the agreement, the work entrusted to the petitioner should be completed on or before 10.11.1988. The petitioner did not complete the work within the stipulated time. The petitioner had completed the work only on 2 5.07.1990, after a lapse of 37 = months. After completion of the work, fi...
Raghavan and ors. Vs. the Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ763
ORDERS.K. Krishnan, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee passed in R.C.A. No. 12 of 1995, dated 29.3.2001 confirming the order of the Rent Controller, Poonamallee passed in R.C.O.P. No. 150 of 1985, dated 17.10.1994, the petitioners have come forward with this revision petition. 2. The petitioners are the legal representatives of one Sivalingam, who was the tenant under the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Madras, which filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No. 150 of 1985 under Section 10(2)(i) of the Rent Control Act for evicting the respondent/tenant from the premises. 3. Initially, the said Sivalingam was a tenant under the Corporation of Madras for the monthly rent of Rs. 20/- and after the formation of the respondent Board in the year 1978, the said premises was taken over by the Board. Since the said Sivalingam has committed default in paying the rent Rs. 20/- per month from 1.8.1978 to 1.9.1984 amounting to Rs. 1440/-, a notice was sent ...
Cit T. Nadu-i Vs. V. Pradeep Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: [2006]153TAXMAN138(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'A' Bench, referred the following question of law at the instance of revenue, under the direction of this court in TCP Nos. 77 & 78 of 1998, dated 29-7-1998, for opinion of this Court:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal had valid materials to give a finding that the assessee had constructed a residential house before 21-6-1988 and thus eligible for exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act?'2. The facts leading to the above question of law are as under :The relevant assessment year is 1986-87. The assessees are individuals, assessed by the Income Tax Officer, City Ward II(4) on 22-6-1985. They sold a house property at No. 40, Moore Street, Madras- 1, which was jointly owned by them and each claimed exemption under section 54F in respect of 50% share of capital gain of Rs. 8,25,957 in the original returns which were filed on 12-9-1986 declaring their intention to ...
K. Damodaran Vs. the Registrar, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CTC665
ORDERP.K. Misra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3.2. Even though the matter has been listed for considering the question of continuation of interim order of stay, since the very same question is involved in the writ petition, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal on merits.3. The writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal in T.A. No. 877 of 1993, dated 20.6.2003. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:The petitioner was serving as Police Constable. A charge memo was issued in the year 1978 in P.R. No. 164/78 on the allegation that the petitioner had conducted himself in highly reprehensible and indisciplinary manner in having effected unauthorised prohibition raid on 2.3.1978 at Kanakanthal and Thimmachur in mufti while on sub-jail guard duty. After enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal from service. However, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »