Chennai Court June 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.
Maharani Avenue Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam, Rep. by Its General Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ719
ORDERK. Suguna, J.1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the approval granted by the 3rd respondent in Ma.Va/Na.Oo.e.No. 590/91.3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the 4th and 5th respondents have promoted the lands comprised in S.F. Nos. 238, 243, 244, 245/C, 249 and 253/P in Veerakeralam Town Panchayat, Coimbatore and DTP approval was obtained for promoting the lands into house sites by putting up plots and laying house sites. While getting approval, the land comprised in S.F. No. 249, measuring 4237 sq.mts was reserved for public purpose, namely, for the purpose of park, children play area, shops, etc. Subsequently, in the year 1991, by the proceedings of the Director of Town and Country Planning dated 28.6.91, approval has been granted for conversion of the area reserved for public purpose into plots. Basing on this, the 4th and 5th respondents, according to the learned Counsel for ...
O.K. Muniyan, Vs. Govinda Chettiar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ958
S. Ashok Kumar1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 309 of 1987 who are defendants in O.S. No. 515 of 1988, having aggrieved against the common judgment of the first appellate court have preferred both these second appeals.2. Both the parties have filed their respective suits seeking the same reliefs of declaration of title and for permanent injunction against each other. As the subject matter of the suit property and the parties are one and the same, both the suits were tried jointly and common evidence was recorded in O.S. No. 515/88 and for convenience, the parties were referred to as arrayed in the said suit. Here also the same thing is being followed.3. The gist of the plaintiffs' case is that the suit properties were purchased by the plaintiffs in court auction in E.P. No. 649 of 1964 in O.S. No. 409 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharmapri by proceedings dated 26.2.1965. One Kuppan Egali who is the father of the defendants namely Munian, Munusamy and Chennakrihsnan mo...
Indian Commercial Pilots Association Rep. by Its President Vs. Union o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ289
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. Aggrieved by the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) dated 1-9-2005 issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation, second respondent herein, requiring the Commercial Pilots to give a notice period of at least six months to their employer indicating their intention to leave the job and the proposed penal action under Rule 39A(2) for non-compliance of the above said requirement, the Indian Commercial Pilots Association has filed the present writ petition, seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the said circular.2. The members of the petitioner-association are Commercial Pilots, holding the Commercial Pilot's Licence issued by the Central Government, working with the Indian Airlines. The second respondent issued the impugned circular dated 1-9-2005 requiring the commercial pilots working for any Air Transport Undertaking to give a notice period of at least six months to their employer indicating their intention to leave the job and shall not refuse to undertake ...
Gurrappa Gowdu (Died) and ors. Vs. Pethanna @ Gurrappa,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ953
S. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The defendant who could not succeed before the courts below has preferred this second appeal. During the pendency of this appeal the sole appellant died and his legal representatives have been impleaded to get along with the appeal.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaring the mortgage by conditional sale deed as wholly been discharged as per the provisions of the of the Tamilnadu Act 31 of 1976 and 40 of 1978, for delivery of possession and for mesne profits. The gist of the plaintiffs' case is that they have mortgaged the suit properties to the defendant and borrowed a sum of Rs. 2000/= on 24.8.1955 for discharging the mortgage debt due to one Thakkala Venkatasamy and other sundry debts and for family expenses and executed a registered deed of mortgage by conditional sale on that date. As per the terms of the deed of mortgage by conditional sale, the plaintiffs should repay the sum of Rs. 2000/= to the defendant in six years and to get back the properties. T...
Easwaramurthy Vs. N. Krishnaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC260; 2006CriLJ4105
K.N. Basha, J.1. The petitioner herein has come forward with the Criminal Revision No. 573 of 2006, challenging the conviction and sentence to undergo one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence Under Section 138 of N.I. Act imposed on him by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pollachi in C.C. No. 73 of 2002 dated 5.7.2005 and modifying the sentence into one of three months SI and confirming the fine of Rs. 5,000/- in C.A. No. 340 of 2005 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Special Judge for EC Act Cases at Coimbatore dated 21.4.2006.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/revision petitioner has contended that in view of various difficulties and circumstances, the revision petitioner was not able to surrender before the Court below and thereafter remanded to the concerned prison on the ground of confirmation of his conviction and sentence passed by the trial C...
Official Liquidator, High Court Vs. Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers' Co-Op ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2006
Reported in: [2008]145CompCas748(Mad); [2009]96SCL25(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman J.1. This application is by the official liquidator praying for fixation of fair rent at Rs. 1 lakh per month from October 1, 1987. Apart from this, there are also other prayers, namely to grant stay of the proceedings in RCOP No. 3831 of 1987 on the file of the Tenth Small Causes Court, Chennai and to direct the first respondent to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises bearing door No. 271, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Madras-18 and to direct the first respondent to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per month being mesne profits until the first respondent vacates the premises and hands over the same to the applicant herein.2. By order dated October 27, 1978, this Court passed an order for winding up of the Pilot Pen Company (India) Private Limited. The official liquidator was appointed to take charge of the affairs of the company. The property owned by the company in liquidation situate at No. 271, Anna Salai, Teynampet, was leased out to the Ta...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Taj Fire Works Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Mad)108; [2007]288ITR92(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The question of law, of course, very interesting to hear and decide, raised in these appeals is,Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is an industrial undertaking eligible for the benefit of Section 80HH and Section 80I of the Income Tax Act?The above two appeals, both preferred by the Revenue, are relating to the Assessment Years 1988-89 and 1989-90.2. The assessee is engaged in the business of fire works on job work basis for labour charges out of the raw materials supplied by its customer, viz., Sri Kaleeswari Fire Works. In the assessment for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90, the assessing officer, inter alia, disallowed the claim made by the assessee for deduction under Section 80HH and 80I on the ground that the assessee is only a labour contractor and not an industrial undertaking eligible for the benefit of Section 80HH and 80I of the Act.3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the asse...
Dr. E. Muralidharan Vs. Venkataraman and Company and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR477(Madras); (2006)3MLJ354
S. Rajeswaran, J.1. This application under Section 9 read with Section 43(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed to extend the time for submission of the dispute to arbitration.2. The applicant was trading in shares through the 1st respondent which is a share and stock broking company. The applicant found that the 1st respondent indulged in various fraudulent and unfair trade practices for their personal gain by inter alia refusing to sell the applicant's shares when asked to do so at the time when the share market reached the highest level. This resulted in huge loss and, therefore, the applicant made a complaint to the 2nd respondent on 09.04.2001 and the 1st respondent by reply dated 30.04.2001 denied the allegations. The applicant then issued a rejoinder dated 18.05.2001 to the reply dated 30.04.2001 setting out the particulars of the transaction and rebutting the veracity of the averments in the reply.3. By letter dat...
C.T. Faisal Vs. Official Liquidator and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad15
ORDER1. These applications are filed by one C.T. Faisal. The prayer in these petitions is to declare the transaction between the respondent company, the company in liquidation and Kunhammad in connection with the vehicle KL 11 D 9390 as a loan transaction and not one of lease of the vehicle (C.A. No. 749 of 2003); to declare that the respondent company was not entitled to claim or get anything more than a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- advanced as a loan with interest 15.5% per annum (CA No. 750 of 2003); to direct the respondents to issue H.P. Termination form to the applicant in respect of the vehicle KL 11 D 9390 (CA No. 751 of 2003); and to direct the respondents to refund to the applicant the sum of Rs. 50,683/- with subsequent interest at 15.5% per annum till payment (C.A. No. 752 of 2003).2. The contentions in these applications is as follows:The applicant herein is the owner of Ashok Leyland bus with Chassis No. MYG031224 and Engine No. MYE233584 bearing Registration No. KL 11 D 9390. H...
Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., Rep. by Its Managin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ230
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited, aggrieved by the common order dated 10.3.1999 in W.P.Nos. 4799 & 4800 of 1998 quashing the circular dated 6.5.1994 in so far as it relates to the inclusion of the writ petitioners in the Specific Approval List, has filed the above writ appeals. 2. Mr. Jayakumar and Mr. Vimalkumar are sons of P. Anthony who is the proprietor of M/s. Annai Cashew Industries, Kanyakumari District. Aggrieved by the Circular No. 859 dated 6.5.1994 of the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited, (a Government of India Enterprises), Bombay-21 including both the writ petitioners, viz., Jayakumar and Vimalkumar in the 'Specific Approval List' filed W.P.Nos. 4799 of 1998 and 4800 of 1998 respectively. Since the facts and the questions raised in both the petitions are similar and one and the same, we shall dispose of both the appeals by this common judgment. 3. For convenience, we shall refer the case of the petitioner in W.P.N...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »