Chennai Court August 2006 Judgments
Melo Leather Vs. P.L.N. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Mad11; (2007)1MLJ641
S.K. Krishnan, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee in O.S. No. 34 of 1989, dated 16.8.1990, the defendant has filed the above appeal.2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:(i). The plaintiff is the owner of the 'A' schedule property measuring to an extent of 25 cents in survey number 312/A/1, which is situated in Thiruneermalai village, Saidapet Taluk. The plaintiff leased out a portion of the said property to the defendant under Ex. A.2 lease deed, dated 5.6.1986 for rent for a period of five years. The condition laid down in the deed for payment of rent is that the defendant, has to pay Rs. 2000/- p.m. And fur the next two years Rs. 2500/- p.m. and for the last one year Rs. 3000/- p.m. The condition laid down in para 3 of the said lease deed is that if the rent is not paid by the defendant for a continuous period of three months, the lessor is entitled to take the possession of the property from the defendant dete...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmanan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ66
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. The appellant in this appeal stands convicted in S.C. No. 35/2003 on the file of the Additional Court of Sessions (Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C., for which, he stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Therefore, he is before this Court in this appeal questioning his conviction. Heard Mr. N. Doraisamy learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. N. R. Elango learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.2. The prosecution case is that at about 10.00 p.m. on 4-9-2002, the accused accosted P.W.2; compelled her to satisfy his sexual lust; the deceased by name Hariram came to her aid and was escorting her to safety and enraged at that, the accused forcibly took Hariram to a nearby area where, he killed him by hitting him on his chest twice or thrice with la big stone and therefore punishable for the offence referred to earlier. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 17, besides marking Exs. P.1...
Tag this Judgment!S. Krishnan Vs. Rathinavel Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC73; (2006)4MLJ593
ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. Though the miscellaneous petitions were posted for hearing, the main revision petition itself was taken up by consent of both parties, in view of the limited scope of the dispute involved in the C.R.P.2. The civil revision petition arises out of an order passed on 31-8-2004 in I.A. No. 426 of 2003 in A.S. No. 17 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court II) Kancheepuram, allowing a petition filed under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C., for impleading the respondents 5 to 23 as respondents in the first appeal.3. The petitioner herein namely S. Krishnan, originally filed a suit in O.S. No. 341 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram for a permanent injunction restraining the 1st respondent herein from interfering with his possession of the suit property.4. After the institution of the above suit, the 1st respondent herein, namely Rathinavel Naicker filed 3 suits in O.S. No. 799 of 1998, O.S. No. 819 of...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Owning Southern Railway Represented by Its Genera ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ906
V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, preferred by the Union of India owning Southern Railway, is directed against the order dated 07.02.1997 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Branch in O.A.I. No. 263 of 1996.2. The respondent herein (Annapurna Agency) was the applicant before the Tribunal. Since a consignment of 248 bags of wheat, each weighing 96 kgs. sent to Annapurna Agency from Barnala to Royapuram vide R.R. No. 806418 dated 06.09.1994, through the appellant herein (Railways) was found damaged at the point of destination, it made a claim to the Railways and since the claim remained unsettled, it filed an Application before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 40,283/- as compensation from Railways. On its side, 4 exhibits, namely, Ex.A.1, Joint Survey Report, Ex.A.2, Claim under S.106, Railways Act, Ex.A.3-Repudiation and Ex.A.4-Copy of pattial were marked as documentary evidence and no one was examined. On the side of the Railways, the Railway Receipt a...
Tag this Judgment!B. Sasikala Vs. M. Venugopal Chettiar and V. Mohanasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: I(2008)BC82; 2006(5)CTC41; (2006)4MLJ1153
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 8.3.2002 made in I.A. No. 937/2001 in O.S.No. 662/1995, on the file of the Addl.Sub Court, Salem.2. The defendant in O.S.No.662/1995 on the file of the Addl. Sub Court, Salem is the Revision Petitioner.3. O.S.No.662/1995 was filed by the respondents herein to pass a preliminary decree on the basis of an equitable mortgage created by the defendant directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,38,001/- to the 1st plaintiff with future interest at contract rate for the three pronotes till realisation, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,28,649/- to the 2nd plaintiff with future interest at contract rate till realisation failing which passing a final decree whereby the hypothecated property detailed in the suit schedule may be ordered to be sold in public auction for the realisation of the amount decreed and for the cost of the suit.4. The defendant filed a memo before the trial court admitting...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. B. Raman, Vs. Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd., Rep. by Its Company ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC499; 2006CriLJ4552; 2007(1)KLT106
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The question posed before this Division Bench is as follows : In the absence of individual notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to be served on the director of a company, can the said director be prosecuted for the offence, committed by the company, under Section 138 of the Act 2. When this question was posed before a learned single Judge, Justice T.V. Masilamani, as he then was, it was brought to the notice of the learned single Judge, that, in Harish C. Chadda, Director, Nubal (India) Ltd. v. XS Financial Services Ltd. 2001 (2) L.W. 625, Justice D. Murugesan held that the prosecution against the director, who has not been served with a statutory notice, is not maintainable. In another decision, rendered by Justice Malai Subramanian, as he then was, in Sarvaraya Textiles Ltd. v. Integrated Finance Ltd. 2001 (1) CTC 725, it is held that prosecution is maintainable, even though notice has not been served on the director, who is so...
Tag this Judgment!Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: (2006)105TTJ(Chennai)705
1. These appeals by the assessee and Revenue are directed against the respective orders of CIT(A) for asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97. Since the appeals were heard together and issues are related, the same are being consolidated and disposed of together for the sake of convenience.The first issue raised is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of excise duty and sales-tax to the turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC.3. It transpires that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decision in CIT v. Sundarm Fasteners Ltd. . In this case, it was held that excise duty and sales-tax have to be excluded from turnover for the purposes of Section 80HHC. Respectfully following the precedent, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.4. The next issue raised is that the CIT(A) erred in exclusion of 90 per cent of the miscellaneous receipts from profit for the purpose of comput...
Tag this Judgment!Coimbatore Stock Exchange Limited Represented by Its Director Ashok Lu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: [2007]137CompCas863(Mad); [2007]74SCL1(Mad)
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. By consent of the learned Senior Counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondent as comprised in order No. WTM/GA/MRD/DSA/58/06 dated 17.04.2006 and quash the same as being wholly arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act and Securities and Exchange Board of India Act and consequently, direct the respondent to forthwith act in pursuance of the communication dated 15.02.2006 issued by the first petitioner and record the de-recognition as sought for.3. The first petitioner, viz., Coimbatore Stock Exchange Limited ('CSX') has filed the writ petition along with the second petitioner who is its shareholder/member, challenging the show cause notice dated 17.04.2006 issued by the respondent.4. The case of the first petitioner, in nutshell, is as follows:I...
Tag this Judgment!P. Loppas Samuel and D. Mohanasundaram Vs. Madras Christian College As ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1283
V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. These writ appeals raise an interesting question as to whether the evidence tendered by a person as a witness in a criminal case, can be the subject matter of disciplinary proceedings. 2. A few facts relevant for the determination of the issue on hand, are as follows:a) One K.Subramani, employed as a Lab Assistant in the Madras Christian College Higher Secondary School, filed a private complaint in C.C. No. 61 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, against the Headmaster as well as 3 other employees of the same school. The offence alleged against the Headmaster was under Section 3(2)(vi) of the S.C & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the offences alleged against the others were under Sections 3(1)(x) of the S.C & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, read with Sections 323, 506(ii) and 504 I.P.C. b) Mr. P. Loppaz Samuel, the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1844/2003, who was employed as an Office Assistant in the same school, gave evi...
Tag this Judgment!R. Pari Vs. the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare and the Distri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ706
P.K. Misra, J.1. The questions referred to the Full Bench for determination in the context of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' are as follows:i) Is it necessary for the Collector to give a personal hearing to the owner in the context of his objections and the remarks of the Tahsildar?ii) Is the owner entitled to a copy of the report of the Special Tahsildar or not?iii) Should the Collector record his reasons in his order while dealing with the objections of the owner?2. Before considering these questions, a brief introduction is required. The Act was enacted in the year 1978 to provide for acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare schemes. As soon as the Act was enacted, it was mired in legal controversy and its validity was challenged. The Madras High Court, by its judgment dated 09.09.1981 declared that the Act was ultravires of the Constitution of India. However, in appeal, the Supreme...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »