Chennai Court November 2007 Judgments

R. Sridher Vs. T.K. Rajendra Sha

Court: Chennai

Reported in: II(2008)BC659

K.N. Basha, J.1. The complainant, who is the appellant in this case, has come forward with this appeal challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in C.A. No. 91 of 2004 dated 22.09.2004 reversing the order of conviction passed by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.C. No. 3716 of 2003 dated 17.02.2004 convicting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a compensation of Rs. 42,00,000/-, which is twice to the cheque amount of Rs. 21,00,000/-, in default, to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. There are totally two accused and the learned trial Magistrate acquitted A-2 from the charges levelled against him.2. (a) The case of the complainant is that the first accused and the second accused in this case are the father and son and both of them jointly approached the complai...

Saraswathy Bus Service Rep. by Its Managing Partner, M. Ravichandran V ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1813

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. These revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the learned Fast Track Court Judge dated 19.01.2006 made in I.A. Nos. 1367 and 1940 of 2005 respectively in O.S. No. 13 of 2004. 2. The revision petitioner being the Managing Partner of M/s. Saraswathi Bus Service, Erode, is claiming to be purchaser of the bus bearing Registration No. TN.28.C.4488 running between Mohanur to Poolampatty route along with its permit from the second defendant in the suit. The suit which was filed originally in Sub-court, Sankari as O.S. No. 312 of 1995, which was subsequently transferred to the Fast Track Court, Salem and re-numbered as O.S. No. 13 of 2004, was filed by one Minor Cibiraj, represented through his mother and next friend Jayanthi, who is also the second plaintiff, for partition and allotment of 3/8th share including the division of 3/8th share in the bus service, lorries, spare bus, cars, etc. The first defendant in ...

Official Liquidator, High Court Vs. Gautham Dhiraj Mal Ranka and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]141CompCas129(Mad); (2008)2CompLJ90(Mad); [2008]83SCL547(Mad)

S. Rajeswaran, J.1. This application has been filed to examine the conduct of the respondents known as the ex-directors of the company in liquidation in terms of Sections 542 and 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, and order that they are jointly and severally liable to contribute to the assets of the company in liquidation by way of compensation for the loss caused by them to the company in liquidation to the extent of Rs. 13,84,13,871.36 (rupees thirteen crores eighty four lakhs thirteen thousand eight hundred and seventy one and paise thirty six only) and the future claims from the creditors with interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum thereon from the date of winding up, i.e., from April 7, 2000, till the date of recovery of the entire amount:(c) declare that the respondents herein are personally liable/responsible without any limitation of liability for all the debts and other liabilities of the company in liquidation.(d) declare the liabilities of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 fo...

B.G. Plywood Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)14VST158(Mad)

S. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records of the second respondent in A. P. No. 108 of 1999 and quash the order passed therein, dated December 4, 2003 and consequently direct the second respondent to dispose of appeal in A. P. No. 108 of 1999 on merits and in accordance with law after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:The petitioner is a registered dealer on the files of the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and dealing in timbers and plywoods. For the assessment year 1990-91, the petitioner reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 65,13,540.65 and the assessment was completed by the first respondent vide order in TNGST 193005/90-91, dated December 18, 1992 determining the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 85,44,953 and Rs. 66,24,953. An inspection was conducted by the Central excise authorities in the petitio...

The Management of Madras Atomic Power Project Employees Consumers Co O ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1334

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The Management of Madras Atomic Power Project Employees Consumers Co-operative Stores Limited, having unsuccessfully challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under Sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'Shops Act') has preferred this appeal against the order passed by learned single Judge.2. The case of the appellant management is that the 2nd respondent, who was working as Assistant Manager at the stores of the appellant, admitted his guilt before the Board of Directors and took time to pay the amount and submitted a bearer cheque for Rs.15,000/= on 1st July, 1991. In such background, the order of termination was issued on 6th July, 1991, giving one month's wages in lieu of notice period. The 2nd respondent challenged the order of termination by filing a suit on 10th July, 1991 in the Court of District Munsif, Chengalpet, in O.S. No.224/91. After some time, the said suit was...

South India Sugars Limited Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Mad)205

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The relevant assessment year is 1989-90. The appeal is filed formulating the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the action of the respondent herein by invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the action of the respondent in restricting the claim in terms of Section 32AB of the Act excluding the rental and interest income?2. The necessary facts as culled out from the statement of facts are as follows:The appellant was a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. For the relevant assessment year 1989-90, while computing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, the assessing officer allowed depreciation of Rs. 2,49,06,101/- which included depreciation claimed by the assessee on energy saving equipment at Rs. 98,66,3...

Vijayan @ Jayapandian and ors. Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(1)CTC295

K.N. Basha, J.1. A-1, Selvam, the appellant in Crl.A. No. 657 of 2007, A-2, Ramesh, the appellant in Crl.A. No. 689 of 2007, A-3 and A-5, Mariammal and Arul, the appellants in Crl.A. No. 692 of 2007 and A-4, Vijayan @ Jayapandian, the appellant in Crl.A. No. 626 of 2007 have preferred these appeals challenging their conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Chidambaram, in S.C. No. 323 of 2005 dated 29.06.2007 as they have been tried, convicted and sentenced in the following manner: Accused Charge Under Section Conviction Sentence A-1 to A-5 120(B) I.P.C. Guilty A-1 death sentence, A-2 to A-5 - Life Imprisonment with Rs. 1000/-, i/d 1 year R.I. A-1 to A-5 147 I.P.C. A-1 to A-4 guilty A-1 to A-4 - 2 years R.I. A-1 148 I.P.C. A-1 guilty A-1 - 3 years R.I. A-1 to A-5 341 r/w 149 I.P.C. A-1 to A-4 guilty A-1 to A-4 - 3 months S.I.; A-5 not guilty A-1 to A-5 302 r/w 149 A-1 to A-5 guilty A-1 death sentence; A-2 to A-5 - li...

Sheik Allaudin, Vs. Annibal Thamilarasi Jesintha

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)1MLJ349

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The proposed parties who are third parties to the rent control and execution proceedings are the revision petitioners in this revision.2. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Pondicherry dated 6.9.2005 passed in E.A.No.145 of 2003 in RCEP.No.16 of 2003 in HRCOP No.17 of 1999. The respondent herein has filed the rent control petition in HRCOP. No.17 of 1999 against one Marie Louis Saint John for eviction on the ground of willful default in payment of rent and eviction order was passed on 3.10.2001 by the learned Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry which was confirmed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in R.C.A.No.46 of 2001 by judgment dated 3.1.2003. It is stated that the order of eviction has become final. The respondent/landlady has filed E.P.No.16 of 2003 against the original tenant in March, 2003. It is stated that subsequently, the original t...

V. Muthukumar S/O. Velayutham Vs. the Superintendent of Police and ors ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(1)CTC525

ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioner is son of one Velayutham. He is a resident of Mazhavarayanpatti, Vamban Post, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. He preferred a complaint before the 1st respondent on 30.09.2007 stating that he was previously working as a coolie in a Coffee Estate in Kudagu District, Karnataka State, that he worked there for the past three years and that thereafter came back to his native place and residing there. He has further stated in the complaint that on 25.05.2007 at about 6.00 p.m. respondents 3 to 6 came to Keezhathur where his father was living and represented him that his son (the petitioner) was now in the estate in Karnataka State and asked him to come over there for work, convinced him and took him to Karnataka State, that when he came to the above said Keezhathur village he learnt that his father was taken away by respondents 3 to 6, that he smelt rat they kept his father as a bonded labourer, that he also came to know that his father is no more...

The Manager, Air India Egmore, Chennai Vs. K.A.P. Yesudian and Another

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH J. {Open Court} The Opposite party in COP No.189/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) is the appellant herein. The case of the complainants was as follows: - The complainants purchased open tickets to London by Air India flight. The return tickets were purchased through their agent Travel Warehouse, Worldwide Travel Tours, 140, High Street, Sedgwick, West Midlands B 66 3AP. They were informed by the travel agent that the return tickets were valid for one year from the date of booking which was indicated in the terms and conditions. After reaching India they wanted to go to London. They approached the opposite party at Chennai on 27/6/2000 to book their return tickets to UK by Air India flight. The Opposite party informed the complainants that the tickets were valid for only four months from the date of issue and since the booked tickets were purchased during the month of January they became invalid. The complainants had to go t...