Chennai Court December 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.
Tessy John Vs. the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Ref ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ838
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. I have heard the arguments of Mr. V. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the respondents, and have perused the records.2 .The petitioner is the owner of the property in Survey No. 56/1A part of Perungudi Village measuring an extent of 44 cents. She had purchased the same as agricultural land by means of a registered sale deed dated 06.5.1981 from one Smt. U. Lakshmi. The petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. She also obtained patta in her name for the land in question and the Survey Number was re-numbered as 56/16C. Out of the total extent purchased by her, she sold an extent of 4 grounds to a third party and the remaining lands were in her possession. When she applied for a computerised copy of the patta, she was informed by the Village Administrative Officer that the land in Survey No. 56/1A Part had been acquired by the second responden...
RexIn Sea (India) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Secretary, Mini ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2007
Reported in: 2008(125)ECC12; 2008(151)LC12(Madras); 2008(226)ELT504(Mad)
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. As both the appeals have been preferred by common petitioner against common respondents, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The appellant applied to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Virudhunagar, seeking permission to utilise the excess credit available in the statutory RG 23-A account and the Central Excise Act, 1954. Having not permitted, while it challenged the rejection order dated 12th March, 1998, also challenged the validity of Clause (3) of 2nd Proviso to Notification No. 5/94 C.E. (NT) dated 1st March, 1994, issued in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules. Having not granted substantive relief by learned single Judge, the present two appeals have been preferred.3. As the case could be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant ones, as discussed hereunder:The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of coated fabrics falling ...
T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., Authorized Dealer for Pal Peugot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2007
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ848
ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The Civil Revision Petitioner herein is the applicant in I.A. No. 184 of 2003 and the second defendant in the suit O.S. No. 558 of 1999 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem. The Civil Revision petitioner has filed an Interlocutory Application No. 184 of 2003 praying to condone the delay of 539 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree passed against the revision petitioner on 10.07.2001, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the said application, the revision petitioner/applicant/second defendant has inter-alia stated that for non-filing of written statement, the revision petitioner/applicant/second defendant was set exparte and that exparte decree was passed on 10.07.2001 and the then Advocate for the Civil revision petitioner/applicant/second defendant did not inform the factum of exparte decree to the revision petitioner and only when the civil revision petitioner received the execution notice, the civil revi...
K.V. Ananthakrushnan Vs. the Registrar, High Court,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ9
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition was preferred by petitioner for a declaration that the Letter Patent dated 28th Dec., 1865, issued under Acts 24 and 25 of Victoria Chapter 104 containing 45 clauses forming part of the Rules of the High Court, Madras (Original Side) as null and void and for appropriate orders.2. Before discussing the stand taken by the petitioner, it is pertinent to note that by the amended Letters Patent dated 28th Dec., 1865, the High Court of Judicature at Madras was established, as evident from the preamble to the Letters Patent in question and quoted below and, thereby, the petitioner has practically challenged the establishment of the High Court before the same High Court:For the High Court of Judicature for the Presidency of Madras(28th December, 1865)Recitals of Acts 24 and 25 vic. C 104 - Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith. To all to whom these presents hall come, greeti...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission, A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Mad)155; [2009]310ITR10(Mad); (2008)1MLJ214
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In all these writ petitions as common question is involved and has been preferred by the petitioners, the respective Commissioners of Income Tax, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Revenue'), they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The concerned 2nd respondent-assessee of the cases made application Under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'IT Act') in prescribed form making disclosure of their respective income, stated to be true and had not been disclosed before the assessing officer. On receipt of such applications, the Settlement Commission called for reports in each case from the Commissioner of Income Tax and on the basis of the materials contained in such report and having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case, while observed that there is complexity of investigation involved therein, allowed the applications to be proceeded with in accordance with Section 245D of the IT Act. S...
Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. Hakkim M. Mohamed Moid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ833
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. The Judgment in O.S. No. 67 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, is under challenge in this revision. This revision has been preferred by the 1st defendant - Wakf Board.2. The respondents 1 & 2 / plaintiff in O.S. No. 67 of 2005 have filed the suit for a declaration that the suit property exclusively belonged to the first plaintiff. According to the 1st plaintiff, his father had executed a deed of Wakf dated 10.12.1936 for the purpose of constructing a Madarassa. According to him, the Madarassa was not constructed during his father's life time and the dedication has been completely failed and the object of the deed of Wakf dated 10.12.1936 executed under Ex. A.1 was not materialized. So the 1st plaintiff would claim that the property does not vest with the Wakf. It is further been admitted that the first plaintiff's father had also executed Ex. A.2, another deed of Wakf, dated 1.4.1941 dedicating all other properties ...
G. Babu Vs. A. Sankar, the Assistant Director, Inland Fisheries and T. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2007
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ1098
S. Palanivelu, J.1. These appeals are filed against the common order, dated 30.08.2007, made in W.P. (MD) Nos. 6736 and 3562 of 2007, whereby the contract of lease of fishery rights awarded to the appellant by the second respondent was set aside by a learned single Judge.2. In Bodi-Ammapatti Village of Bodinayakkanur Taluk of Theni District, a tank, known as Meenakshi Amman Periyakanmoi is situated, sprawling to an extent of 86.12 Hectares in Survey No. 220. It is learnt, that throughout the year, water would be available in the said tank. It comes under the direct control of the Assistant Director of Inland Fisheries, Vaigai Dam, in Theni District, the superior authority being the Director of Fisheries in Chennai. Fishery rights were used to be leased out periodically as per G.O.Ms. No. 33, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, dated 27.02.1995.3. By virtue of the powers conferred, the Assistant Director of Fisheries, in short, the Assistant Director, invited sealed tenders through a notifi...
G. Vani Vs. the Registrar, High Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ1127
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr.R. Subramanian for the Petitioner and Mr.L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, Government Advocate, for the Respondent.2. The question in this writ petition relates to payment of pension to the family members of the deceased employee, who was working in the State Judiciary. During his tenure in service, a disciplinary proceedings had been initiated and some of the charges against him had been found to be proved. Ultimately, the High Court on its administrative side passed an order of removal from service. Such order of removal was challenged by the Officer concerned by filing W.P. No. 1832 of 1986. During pendeny of such writ petition, the officer expired on 17.12.1995 and the legal representatives were brought on record. Subsequently, by order dated 17.3.1999, the High Court in its judicial side had observed that no order of removal could have been passed by the High Court on its administrative side as the order could have been passed only by the appointing authority, nam...
Sathrasala Sharath Babu Vs. Shanthilal Kothari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2007
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ533
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This writ petition seeking direction directing the respondents 8 to 12 to demolish the illegal construction put at 140 Govindappa Naicken street, Chennai-79.2. The petition averments are as under:The grand father of the petitioner was the plaintiff in C.S. No. 770 of 1997 filed before this Court. After the death of the grand father, the writ petitioner impleaded himself as plaintiff in that suit. The petitioner's grand father was the owner of the land and building bearing D. No. 140, Govindappa Naicken street, Chennai. After the death of his wife, the petitioner's grand father remained unmarried and he was left with no issues. He was living in the said building, the major portion of the same was used as a lodge. The petitioner's grand father had a trusted maid servant who served him all her lifetime and while the servant maid was alive, a girl by name Selvi acquainted herself with the trusted servant maid. The said Selvi was appointed by the petitioner's grand ...
Sundaram Motors, (a Division of T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons) Vs. B. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2007
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ370
ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The Civil Revision Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S. No. 3597 of 2000 on the file of the learned XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The Civil Revision Petitioner herein has filed an I.A. No. 21928 of 2000 before the trial Court as petitioner under Order 37, Rule 3(5) of C.P.C. and under Section 151 C.P.C. praying to permit him to defend the suit and filed a written statement in due course. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed a counter stating that the application is not maintainable in law and that the applicant/First Defendant has no triable issues to defend the suit as contemplated under Order XXXVII, Rule 5 C.P.C. and that the amounts were collected by the Applicant/First Defendant as Trustee and the amounts were handed over only to him for due performance and the drafts were taken according to the instructions given by the applicant at the time of booking and that the applicant acted on behalf of the second defendant as booking agent and henc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »