Chennai Court November 2007 Judgments
P. Lingappan Vs. R. Palanisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: II(2008)BC699
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above Criminal Original Petition are set out below:The respondent herein filed a complaint for the alleged offence under Section 138 r/w Sections 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against M/s. Rathanam & Rathanam Tannery, a partnership firm, its partner Mr. S.P. Venkatachalam and another partner, the petitioner herein. The complaint was taken on file as C.C. No. 317 of 2006 and the same is pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai and the petitioner is arrayed as 3rd accused therein. The petitioner has filed the above Quash Petition to quash further proceedings in C.C. No. 317 of 2006.2. The case of the petitioner is that the cheque issued by the first accused-Firm was returned unpaid on 23.6.2006 with an endorsement 'Account Closed' and the intimation from the Bank was received on 26.6.2006. The respondent herein has issued a legal notice dated 7.7.2006 to the following address:P...
Tag this Judgment!S. Thirugnanasambandam Vs. Kaliyaperumal Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CTC369; (2008)2MLJ338
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 2 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore is the revision petitioner herein. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein for specific performance based on the agreement for sale dated 19.09.1992. In the said suit, the plaintiff/ respondent herein was examined in part. At this stage, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 119 of 2006 under Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC seeking leave of the Court to file counter-claim, which was dismissed by the trial court on 14.09.2006. Challenging the said order dated 14.09.2006, the present revision petition has been filed.2. Mr. Kannan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in his written statement has taken a plea that the agreement of sale dated 19.09.1992 is fabricated one; the respondent took possession of the suit property from the petitioner's tenants unlawfully; that the respondent herein has filed O.S. No. 372 of 2002 on the file of the ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Rajeshkumar Bagmar Vs. Swathi Rajeshkumar Bagmar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Mad36; II(2008)DMC696; (2008)1MLJ575
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. Heard both sides. The facts involved in this case is that the revision petitioner herein has filed O.P. No. 600 of 2001 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai against the respondent herein for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as Act. The respondent herein has filed counter claim under Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act in I.A. No. 228 of 2007 for the relief of dissolution of marriage. The petitioner had raised a preliminary issue that the respondent, as a deserted spouse should begin the case. The court below passed an order dated 05.09.2007 directing the petitioner herein to begin the case, hence, the present civil revision petition.2. Mr. Sundarrajan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as follows:On 17.06.2000, the respondent left the matrimonial house without intimation and during her stay in her parents house, she delivered a female child on 07.01.2001. A...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Srinivasan and Kannan Vs. Rangarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ435
ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The Civil Revision Petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased S. Selvaranga Battachariar who wrote a last Will and Testament dated 27.04.1993 in the presence of witnesses. The said testator, Late.S.Selvaranga Battachariar did not appoint any executor of his Will. The revision petitioners herein have filed S.O.P. No. 114 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal Judge, Chengelpattu praying permission to prove the said Will in common form and with Letters of Administration to the properties and credits of the said deceased to have effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu may be granted to them.2. Before the learned District Judge, Chengalpattu, a Memo was filed by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs stating that since the testamentary succession falls within the ambit of original side jurisdiction, viz., Sub Court, it was requested by both sides to treat the main Original Petition as suit and transmit the same to Sub Cour...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tamilnadu Industrial Development Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Mad)90
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Revenue has filed these tax case appeals against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench dated 04.09.2006 made in I.T.A. Nos. 1413/Mds/2000 & 937(Mds)/2003. The relevant assessment years are 1994-95 and 1999-2000. 2. The assessee is Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., and the main object of the assessee is to promote industrial development in the State through partnership with private enterprises, either as Joint sector or as associate sector or as escort sector. During the course of its business for the assessment year 1994-95 the assessee claimed to write off a sum of Rs. 8,98,706/- being the pre project expenses in respect of 13 projects. Those projects were being promoted by the assessee in joint venture. The assessing officer found that the projects were yet to come up and there was no situation to warrant that the projects have been shelved. He disallowed the claim as prematured. For the assessment year 1999-200...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Director, Ministry of Company Affairs and the Registrar o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2007
Reported in: [2008]141CompCas475(Mad); (2008)2CompLJ116(Mad); 2008(1)CTC273; (2008)1MLJ625; [2008]85STC30(Mad)
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. Admit. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. By consent, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. The Regional Director, Ministry of Company Affairs and the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu have preferred this appeal against the order of the learned Company Judge sanctioning a Scheme of Amalgamation between the respondent/Transferor Company/M/s. Cavin Plastics and Chemicals (P) Limited and the Transferee Company namely, M/s. Cavinkare Private Limited.3. Before the learned Company Judge the appellants raised an objection to Clause 13.2 of the Scheme, which provides that the filing fee already paid by the Transferor Company on its Authorised Share Capital shall be deemed to have been so paid by the Transferee Company on the combined Authorised Share Capital. The contention of the appellants is that the Authorised Share Capital of the Company could be increased only after following the procedure prescribed under the relevant provisions of the Compa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bilahari Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Formerl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Mad)208
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 209/Mds/2005 dated 28.2.2005. The relevant assessment year is 2001-02.2. The substantial question of law formulated for entertainment of the appeal is as follows:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the discount loss on chits is to be allowed in its entirety in the year it occurs rather than spread it over the period of the chit?3. The assessee is in the business of subscribing to chit funds. For the assessment year 2001-02, the assessee inter alia claimed that the loss arising on account of discount granted should be allowed at the time of accrual and not to be spread over the period of discount. The Assessing Officer followed the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the assessee's own case and revised the working.4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before th...
Tag this Judgment!Manuelmony Matriculation School Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. the Principa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ21
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner is a Matriculation School, represented by its Secretary and the order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.A. No. 278 of 2007 in I.D. No. 83 of 2005 is under challenge in this writ petition.2. In the said order dated 15.10.2007, the first respondent Labour Court rejected the plea made by the petitioner School Management and held that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Industrial Dispute raised by the second respondent under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act [for short, 'I.D. Act'].3. I have heard the arguments of Mr. K.M. Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. S. Ravichandran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the records.4. The writ petition is filed only against the preliminary order passed by the Labour Court and at this stage, it is not necessary to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the self-imposed restric...
Tag this Judgment!N. Mangalchand Vaid and ors. Vs. the Secretary to Government of Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ476
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. The petitioners are the joint owners of lands in S. No. 236/8A etc. of Masinagudi village, Ootacamund Taluk, Nilgiris District, in an extent of 883.68 acres, named as Singara Estate. The major portion of the said lands is being used to raise coffee plantations besides cultivating pepper plantation, fruit orchards etc. The petitioners have planted shade trees for the purpose of the coffee plantations and rearing the same to provide shade for the coffee plants. While so, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Notification dated 1.10.1981, which was published in the Nilgiris District Gazette No. 9 at Page No. 32, under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, as amended by Act 68 of 1979, declaring that the private forests specified in the schedule appended thereto are to be 'forests' for the purpose of the said Acts. The schedule appended to the said Notification contains the properties now belong jointly to the petitioners. This notification is imp...
Tag this Judgment!R. Anand Vs. P. Indu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2007
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ1172
G. Rajasuria, J.1. This appeal is focussed as against the order passed in C.M.A.No. 111 of 2001 on the file of the District Judge, Trichy, dated 03.05.2002, in setting aside the order passed in H.M.O.P. No. 49 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy, dated 16.08.2001.2. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder as husband and wife.3. Both the Courts below detailed and delineated the averments as found set out in the petition as well as in the counter and reply. Even then, I am of the view that this being a matrimonial matter, it is just and necessary to broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely set out the facts thus:The nitty-gritty, the gist and kernel of the case of the petitioner as stood exposited from the petition which was filed under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriages Act, by the husband Anand, (hereinafter referred to as ' the husband'.) as against the respondent Indu (hereinafter referred to as 'the wife'.) on the ground o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »