Chennai Court June 2006 Judgments
R. Natarajan, S/O. C. Rameswaralingam Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ799
P.K. MISRA, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed to quash G.O.Ms. No. 1365 dated 10.9.2004 under which the present petitioner was compulsorily retired under Fundamental Rule 56(2) on completion of the age of 50 years. Such order of retirement issued by the Government was based on the recommendation of the High Court. 2. The petitioner joined in service as Judicial Magistrate in November, 1988 and worked in different capacities in different places. In March, 1998, he was promoted as Subordinate Judge and initially worked as Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi in Tirunelveli District upto September, 2000 and thereafter as the Chairman of Taxation Appellate Tribunal, Tirunelveli Corporation. Subsequently he was promoted as District Judge and posted as Fast Track Court Judge with effect from 21.2.2002. The Administrative Committee of the High Court in its meeting dated 22.3.2004, while recommending continuance of several other Judicial Officers, recommended that the present petit...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ravichandran Vs. the State of Tamilnadu rep. by Deputy Superintende ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4123
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.One R. Ravichandran, friend of Uthirapathy, s/o. Shanmugam, accused No. 8 in C.C. No. 9 of 1994 on the file of Designated Court No. II under TADA (P) Act, 1987, Chennai-104, has filed the above Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondent - Deputy Superintendent of Police, 'Q' Branch, C.I.D, Cuddalore, to produce detenu Uthirapathy and set him at liberty.2. The above Petition has been filed only on the allegation that though the detenu was arrested on 09.08.2000, he continues to be kept in jail for over five years, and such prolonged custody is unjust, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.3. Heard Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, 'Q' Branch, C.I.D., Cuddalore, it is stated that accused No. 8/detenu...
Tag this Judgment!G. Jayaraman and ors. Vs. Ranganayagi,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ633
P.K. Misra, J1. These two appeals have been filed against the common judgment passed by the learned single Judge dated 29.1.2001 in C.S. No. 1779 of 1993, hereinafter referred to as 'C.S.' and T.O.S. No. 34 of 1999, hereinafter referred to as 'T.O.S.'.2. C.S. No. 1779 of 1993 has been filed by three daughters of late Govindasamy Naidu claiming partition in respect of the property of Govindasamy Naidu, in whose name admittedly the property stood. Defendant No. 1 and late G. Madhavan were two sons of late Govindasamy Naidu. The legal heirs of G. Madhavan were impleaded as Defendants 2 to 5. According to the plaintiffs' case, their mother Mrs. G. Abranji Ammal, wife of Govindasamy Naidu, died intestate on 10.5.1982 and subsequently their father Govindasamy Naidu died on 15.3.1984. It has been stated in the suit for partition that the late parents of the plaintiffs had not executed any Will out of their own free will and volition and the first defendant in connivance with his brother late ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. A. Ravikumar Vs. M. Savithiri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CTC720; (2006)4MLJ113
P.K. Misra, J1. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are described in this Appeal.The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in T.O.S. No. 28 of 1999, rejecting the application of the present appellant for issuance of probate in respect of the Will dated 8.4.1993, purportedly executed by one P.G. Arunachalam.2. Admittedly, late Arunachalam through the first wife had one son late A. Srinivasan and one daughter, Respondent No. 4. Two sons and widow of late A. Srinivasan are the Respondents 5 to 7. After the death of the first wife, the aforesaid Arunachalam had married Respondent No. 1. Through Respondent No. 1, there are three sons, the present Appellant and Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. The appellant claims that Arunchalam executed a Will dated 8.4.1993 whereunder the disputed property and movables and cash deposits, etc., were bequeathed in favour of the appellant, Respondents 1 and 2 and the present appellant was appointed as the E...
Tag this Judgment!Sporting Pastime India Limited and K.K. Shivakumar Vs. Kasthuri and So ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR99(Madras); II(2007)BC263; [2007]141CompCas111(Mad); 2006(4)CTC377; (2006)4MLJ1112; [2006]70SCL158(Mad)
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. Against the Company Petition filed by Kasthuri & Sons Limited ('KSL') before the Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench, Chennai, under Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of Sporting Pastime (India) Limited ('SPIL'), the respondents 1,2,5,8,9 and 10 in the Company Petition have filed C.A. Nos. 154, 155 and 160 of 2005 before the Additional Principal Bench of the Company Law Board ('CLB') under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act, 1996') to direct the parties for arbitration and dismiss the Company Petition as not maintainable on the ground that the grievances of KSL form part of Clause 21 of an agreement dated 19.07.2004 which provides for resolving the disputes by arbitration and that KSL has already instituted the arbitration proceedings to resolve certain disputes, which are inter-connected with the acts complained of in the Compa...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Tayarammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC754; (2006)4MLJ249
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. The defendant/Hindustan Petroleum Corporation in O.S. No. 110/1986 is the revision petitioner. 2. O.S. No. 110/86 was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant-corporation for a judgment and decree directing the defendant-corporation to deliver possession to the plaintiff of the plaint schedule property, namely, land situated at Coimbatore bearing New Town Survey No. 932 admeasuring 146 ft. x 146 ft. x 105 feet and also for other reliefs.3. The defendant-corporation filed I.A. No. 257/1986 under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter called 'the Act') praying for an order that the plaintiff be directed to sell for a price to be fixed by the court for the suit schedule land. This I.A. No. 257/86 was allowed on 6.4.1994 and thereafter the defendant/corporation filed I.A. No. 409/1994 praying for deciding the market value of the suit schedule property. When the suit was pending, the plaintiff passed away and respondents 2 and...
Tag this Judgment!S. Victor Vs. the Labour Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ264Mad; (2006)3MLJ576
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. This writ petition arises out of the order of the first respondent passed in Beedi Case No. 414 of 1991 dated 13.6.1994 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 31(2)(a) of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, and to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with backwages, continuity of services and other benefits.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit are as follows.(a) Second respondent is the manufacturer of Sidco Balagan Poo Mark Beedi and it has various branches. The third respondent is an employee of the second respondent. The second respondent, to evade excise duty, made the third respondent as benami for the branch activities in Vagaikulam in Tirunelveli district. The third respondent has been working as Works Manager and also looking after the excise matters and labour matters. The branch at Vagaikulam is the branch of the second r...
Tag this Judgment!Elgi Finance Ltd. Vs. Essrope Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC667; (2006)3MLJ809; [2006]70SCL308(Mad)
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. The above Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the fair and decretal order in I.A. No. 636/1998 in O.S. No. 768/1998 dated 7.4.2002 passed by the learned I Addl. Sub-Judge, Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.2. The petitioner/plaintiff, ELGI Finance Ltd. is a Public Limited Company at Coimbatore dealing in the business of finance and Hire Purchase Leasing. The respondent being a Private Textile Mill, approached the petitioner-plaintiff to hire purchase 22 machineries. The same was agreed to by the petitioner/plaintiff and 22 Hire Purchase Agreements were executed between 1997 and 1998. Due to defaults committed by the respondent, the arrears got accumulated and the respondent as on 6.6.1998, was to pay a sum of Rs. 73,70,584/- to the petitioner/plaintiff towards the monthly instalments and hired purchase of the plant and machineries. The legal notice issued by the petitioner/plaintiff did not evoke proper response. The right of the petitioner/pl...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajam Ramaswamy and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2006
Reported in: [2008]298ITR325(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 14.7.1999 made in ITA No. 1619/Mds/1993 for the assessment year 1989-90.2. The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1989-1990. The claim of the assessee for a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- paid to the partner was disallowed by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act and was added as the income of the firm. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), following his earlier year's order, allowed the appeal directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition, which was, on further appeal, confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.3. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has filed the above appeal raising the following question of law. 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the payments made to the partners a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- by the assessee firm were not disa...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sengodan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to the G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ771
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to initiate action against the third respondent under Section 16B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and forfeit the lands in old Survey No.34 (New Survey No.92/2B) of Iveli village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District to an extent of 2.67 Acres granted as per G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 12.9.2001 and consequently reconvey the lands to the petitioner herein.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's lands were acquired for mining operation by the second respondent. Since, the second respondent unable to continue the mining operation, he sought permission from the Government to transfer the same to the third respondent for mining operation, which was also ordered in G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 12.9.2001. The third respondent, contrary to the purpose for which the lands were acquired is attempting to convert the said lands as house site, hence, the first respondent i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »