Chennai Court October 2007 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.
Vishwanath Swami Vs. the Tamil Nadu Information Commission Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1141
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner, as a party-in-person has filed this writ petition for a direction to the first respondent to forthwith ensure compliance of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the second and third respondents by ensuring that all the information sought by him including the documents to be supplied by the second and third respondents are provided to him and further direct the first respondent to proceed further with the show cause notice issued for imposition of penalty, compensate him and initiate such other steps as are provided under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, including initiation of departmental proceedings against the person(s) responsible for denying the information sought by him.2. The case of the petitioner is, as follows:(i) Since 2001, the petitioner has been trying to expose one self proclaimed 'Kalki Bhagawan' and his multi crore business activities behind the scene, through media and subject his unlawfu...
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Vs. Gupta Exports Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2007
Reported in: (2008)13VST103(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. Writ Appeal No. 405 of 2003 is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25.10.2002 allowing the writ petition No. 14418 of 2000 which was filed for quashing the proceedings of the District Forest Officer, Tirupathur, dated 23.01.2000 in C. No. 5804/99/S and forbearing the respondent, the Principal Chief Conservator of the Forests, Chennai and the District Forest Officer, Thirupathur Division from making any claim or demand from the writ petitioner for payment of sales tax at 8% and penal interest in respect of purchase of 15 Mts of sandalwood made by the petitioner in the auction held on 28.04.1999. By that order impugned in the writ petition, the District Forest Officer, Thirupathur Division has informed the writ petitioner that as per the condition No. 12(i)(ii)(iii) of the Sandal Wood sales notice in C. No. 2860/99S dated 21.03.1999, an amount of Rs. 11,36,500/- already paid by the petitioner on 28.04.1999 be lapsed to the Government and 15...
Dhananjaya Boards (P) Ltd. Vs. Industries Commissioner and Director of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2007
Reported in: (2009)23VST438(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge passed in W.P. No. 21201 of 1992 dated January 10, 2000 non-suiting the petitioner for the relief of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the fourth respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Shencottah, Tirunelveli District in Re. No. 865896/91-92/92-93 dated November 12, 1992, quash the same as illegal and direct the first and second respondents to permit the petitioner to pay sales tax under the interest-free sales tax deferral scheme for nine years from 1990-91 onwards.2. It is seen from the order dated November 12,1992 impugned in the writ petition that the appellant was granted waiver of sales tax for the period from 1990-91 to 1994-95 for a sum of Rs. 14.36 lakhs. But the appellant has collected sales tax for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 contrary to the scheme of waiver. On that basis the impugned order was issued to the appellant directin...
B. Sampath Kumar Vs. the Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1199
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. While W.P. No. 20484 of 2005 has been filed to quash the proclamation of sale drawn by the first respondent herein dated 21.04.2005 after calling for the records and pursuing the same and direct the first respondent herein to draw a fresh proclamation of sale strictly in accordance with Rule 52 and 53 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 before bringing the property situated at Old Door No. 15, First Street, Royapuram Extension, Tirupur Taluk for resale, W.P. No. 20485 of 2005 has been filed for issuance of a writ of declaration to declare sub-rule (b) of Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43/61) as unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. Since the petitioner has filed both the writ petitions aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2005 passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore and since both the writ petitions are inter-related, they are ...
Mrs. R. Mallika Vs. R. Rajagopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1337
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is by the respondent wife against the order of the Second Additional Family Court, granting a decree of divorce to the husband who sought for a decree for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The respondent husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the wife, the appellant herein, had deserted the respondent and thereby the matrimonial home on 23.6.1994. It is stated that the marriage was solemnised as early as 27.5.1994. The respondent based his prayer for divorce alleging that the appellant threatened and harassed the respondent with the help of the police in the All Women Police Station at Adyar and the Anti Dowry Cell. Thus the respondent husband had suffered cruelty both mentally as well as physically and thus the appellant had indulged in acts of cruelty. It is also stated that the resp...
District Registrar and anr. Vs. V. Ranganathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Mad73
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The District Registrar, Villupuram District and the Sub Registrar, Gingi, have come up with the present writ appeal against the order of the learned Judge allowing the writ petition with a direction to the second appellant to release a deed of partition presented by the respondents herein on 18-1-2006, for registration, without collecting the deficit stamp duly charged by the appellants.2. We have heard Mr. P. Raja Kalifulla, learned Government pleader for the appellants and Mr. P. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the respondents.3. The respondents herein are the sons of two brothers by name Varadharaja Nainar and Perumal Nainar. They entered into a deed of partition dated 18-1-2006, in respect of certain properties in Sakkarapuram Village, Gingi Taluk, Villupuram District and presented the same for registration on the same day. The total market value of the properties partitioned between the respondents, was declared to be Rs. 3,01,11,642.50 but the respondents h...
Sureshkumar Metha Vs. Addison and Co. Ltd. Rep. by Its Power Agent, Sm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: IV(2008)BC4
ORDERR. Regupathi, J.1. The petitioner is the sole accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act pending in C.G. No. 3869 of 2005 on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.2. In a business transaction, for supply of metal cutting tools and machine tools, there was an outstanding for a sum of 1,27,983.02 payable to the complainant by the petitioner/accused. As part payment of the total liability, the petitioner is stated to have issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, bearing No. 0763994, dated 15.6.2004, drawn on Bank of India, Adityapur Branch, Code 4503, Jamshedpur. The complainant/respondent is stated to have deposited the same into the Bank for collection on 25.11.2004 through Central Bank of India, Ballygunge, Kolkata, and since the cheque was returned with an endorsement 'Exceeds Arrangement', private complaint has been filed.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that a cheque bearing No. 07...
K. Thiruvengadam and C. Shilaja Vs. Nil
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Mad76; I(2008)DMC871
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thirupattur made in I.A. No. 109 of 2007 in HMOP. No. 101 of 2007 dated 17.09.2007, under which the learned Subordinate Judge, by considering the said application filed jointly by both the husband and wife for divorce by mutual consent and also petition praying for condoning the six month period, directed the matter to be called after six months, viz., on 20.03.2003.2. Both the husband and wife, who are the joint petitioners represented by the same counsel have filed the said application for divorce by mutual consent and it is not in dispute that provisions of Section 13-B(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, 'the Act') has been complied with and based on that they were also examined in the Subordinate Court, However, considering the said application filed by both the parties' for condoning the six months period, the learned Judge, has in effect refused the same and having taken e...
Pratham Automobiles, Rep. by Its Managing Director, R. Vimal Kumar Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: (2009)19VST281(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner, has challenged the order dated 19.09.2007of the respondent thereby cancelling the sales tax registration of the petitioner firm.2. The brief facts leading to the writ petition is as follows:The petitioner has submitted that he is a dealer to Honda Motor Cycles and Scooters etc. in the name and style of M/s. Pratham Automobiles. The firm has a show room for display of its motor bikes, scooters and other accessories at Plot Nos. 252 and 253, comprised in R.S. Nos. 121/1, 138/4, 139, 140, 141/1, 142, 145/3 to 6, 72/2, in all measuring a total extent of 22.39 acres. The above said survey numbers are comprised in a lay out approved by the Town and country Planning Authority under C.S.A.R. D.T.P. No. 220-87/L.P.164. The property in plot Nos. 252 and 253, totally measuring 7,800 square feet of vacant site was purchased in the name of S.G. Ashok Kumar, who is none other than the brother of Deepak Kumar, a partner in the said firm. He has revenue records ...
Devendra Pundir Vs. Rajendra Prasad Maurya, Proprietor, Satyamev Expor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ777
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner along with other accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been arrayed as second accused out of two accused. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the first accused is the sole proprietrix and she only issued the disputed cheques involved in this matter and in view of the position of the first accused being the sole proprietrix, the question of implication of the second accused in respect of the offence committed by the sole proprietrix concern not at all arise. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not attracted. The said provision relates only in respect of a 'company' or ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »