Chennai Court July 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.
V.R. Chelladurai Vs. T. Rajasekar, Manager, Sun College of Engineering ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4130; 2006(3)CTC785
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 14-7-2005 passed by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, third respondent herein, directing the transfer of investigation in PS Cr. No. 597/2004 on the file of the Bhoothapandy Police Station, the petitioner herein has filed the above writ petition.2. Facts, in brief, which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are:Petitioner claims that in the course of business transaction with the first respondent, the first respondent owes certain amount due and payable to the petitioner and with an ulterior motive of avoiding the repayment of the said amount and to defraud and cheat the petitioner, he came out a story of theft of blank cheque leaves and title deeds from the side-box of his motor-cycle and also lodged a complaint in that regard with the jurisdictional police. The first respondent also approached the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate with a complaint seeking to forward the complaint under Section...
G. Elavazhagan Vs. Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MPLJ627
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings CTA N.Dis.59122/H4/2005 dated 30.12.2005 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in hid proceedings Mu. No. 5845/A1/2002 dated 04.5.2006 as communicated by the third respondent in his proceedings O.Mu. No. 1029/02/A1 dated 17.5.2006 and quash the same and direct the respondents to receive application for claiming Medical Assistance from the petitioner under Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme, 1991 for the surgery underwent by the petitioner's wife E. Jothi and consequently to pay the medical assistance of Rs. 1 lakh to the petitioner.2. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Headmaster of Elementary School on 20.6.1966 and transferred to Panchayat Union Elementary School, Chennappan...
Sahul Hameed and anr. Vs. Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling Revenue Authori ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: [2007(4)JCR343(Mad)]
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed as against the order passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal simply on the ground that there is a delay, in that the appeal was not filed within two months from the date of the order impugned.2. In this appeal, the only question that arises for consideration before this Court is that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will be applicable in this case as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Indira Devi v. Inspector General of Registration and Ors. : 2005(1)CTC733 . In the said decision, the Division Bench has held that the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 did not exclude the applicability of Limitation Act and, hence, Section 5 is applicable. The Division Bench held thus:7. In addition to this, as rightly pointed out by the learned, counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as there is no specific exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the Rul...
Madras Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: [2008]298ITR136(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated February 24, 2004, in M.P. No. 107 of 2001 in I.T.A. No. 440/Mds/1999 for the assessment year 1997-98 and in M.P. Nos. 61 to 65 of 2003 against I.T.A. Nos. 31, 27, 28, 32 and 38/Mds/1992, respectively, for the assessment years 1979-80, 1983-84 and 1985-86.2. Concededly, the appellant is a public sector undertaking.The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration.(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in dismissing the appeals of the appellant without considering the Explanation 'loss shall not include depreciation' as provided in Section 115JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961? and(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in calculating the MAT provisions in Section 143(1)(a) proceedings?3. Before proceeding further on the ...
Peria Rajendran and Etc. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1242
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This judgment shall govern these two appeals in Cri. A. Nos. 1179/2002 and 551/2004.2. These two appeals are preferred by A-1 and A-2 respectively in S.C. No. 191 of 2000 wherein they stood charged namely A-1 and A-2 under Section 120(b) of I.P.C., A-2 under Section 451 of I.P.C., A-1 under Section 302 read with 109 of I.P.C., A-2 under Section 302 of I.P.C. and A-1 and A-2 under Section 398 of I.P.C, and on trial, they were found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine under Section 120(b) of I.P.C., life imprisonment along with fine under Section 302 read with 109 and 302 of I.P.C. respectively, and 7 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine under Section 398 of I.P.C., and A-2 was sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine under Section 451 of I.P.C.3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated thus:(a) P.W. 1 is the sister of the deceased Kanagavelammal. P.W.3 is her son. The deceased was empl...
Punjab National Bank Vs. Commercial Tax Officer Ii and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: (2009)25VST167(Mad)
P. Murugesen, J.1. The unsuccessful appellant is the petitioner in W.P. No. 4893 of 2004. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant herein for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned notices dated November 26, 2004 and quash the same and forbear the first respondent or his men from claiming the properties under mortgage with the appellant-bank.2. The second respondent was sanctioned the cash credit facility to a sum of Rs. 100 lakhs on September 9, 1997 by The Nedungadi Bank. The second respondent, represented by its directors, had executed a promissory note for Rs. 1,00,00,000 on September 25, 1997, promising to repay the loan amount together with interest at the rate of 10.75 per cent over the bank rate with quarterly interest. The second respondent deposited the title deeds with the bank on September 29, 1997 in respect of the properties comprised in R. S. Nos. 271/2, 271/2B and C, 272, 273/9, 274/1, 274/2, 27...
Sri Maruthi Marine Industries Ltd. Rep. by Its Manager Vs. Munusamy S/ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad331; (2006)4MLJ246
S. Rajeswaran, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. Nos. 34 to 38 of 2002 are the revision petitioners herein, challenging the common order passed by the Addl.Sub Judge, Chengalpattu in C.M.A. Nos. 45 to 49 of 2002 dismissing the appeals filed against the dismissal of interim injunction Applications filed by them in the above suits.2. In all the appeals and the suits the plaintiff is one and the same Company and the prayer in the suits and the prayer in the Interlocutory Applications are one and the same, namely, restraining the defendants/respondents from drawing the sea water flows through Buckingham Canal which runs through and adjacent to the suit property. A common order has also been passed by the lower appellate authority. Therefore a common order is passed in all the Civil Revision Petitions.3. The case of the revision petitioner is that they are manufacturing salt and operating integrated salt works. The suit property is situated in Kancheepuram District and the Government has leased o...
K. Vijayan Vs. K.G. Kuppusamy,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ759
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 10.3.2 003 passed by the Sub-Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore District in E.P. No. 2 9/2001 in O.S. No. 342/1999.2. The 3rd respondent in E.P.No.29/2001 is the revision petitioner before this Court. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 342/1999 on the file of the Sub Judge, Gudiyatham for recovery of money. The suit was decreed on 4.2.2000 and the decree holder filed E.P. No. 29/2001 praying to issue notice to the defendants in the suit under Order 21 Rule 37 of C.P.C. to realise the decree amount and in case of default to issue arrest warrant under Order 21 Rule 38 of C.P.C. and to commit them to civil prison to realise the decree amount. An affidavit was filed by the decree holder in E.P. No. 29/2001 in support of the Execution Petition. It is stated by him that in I.A. No. 533/1997 an order of Attachment Before Judgment was obtained by him and in spite of that the property was sold by...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.T. Rajendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: [2007]288ITR312(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 1286, 1287 and 1288/Mds/2004 dated October 28, 2005, for the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99, respectively.2. The brief facts are that the assessee constructed a kalyana mandapam known as 'TRG Kalyana Mandapam'. The cost of the construction falls within the assessment years 1996-97 to 1999-2000. The total investment declared by the assessee for the above assessment years was Rs. 90,17,190. The Assessing Officer, of course, before completing the scrutiny assessment for the said assessment years, referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer. But, however, before receiving the valuation report, he completed the assessment. Thereafter, the Departmental Valuation Officer estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 1,23,46,000. After allowing certain deductions from the estimate made by the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer ...
Sony Pictures Releasing of India Ltd. Through Appu Kumar Singh, Author ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC193; (2006)3MLJ289
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. We may search in vain, for a more haunting tragic hero than Satan in Milton's 'Paradise Lost', who rails at God,What though the field be lost?All is not lost, the unconquerable will,And study of revenge, immortal hate,And courage never to submit or yieldAnd what is else not to be overcome?Milton's voice was not stifled or choked for making Satan a heroic figure, no, not even for two months. In fact, in 'Areopagitica', the blind poet champions free speech:Give me the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely according to conscience above all liberties....Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to lay upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse ,in a free and open encounter.The exhibition of the film, 'The Da Vinci Code', exhibited and distributed by the petitioners, which is admittedly a work of fiction, was sus...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »