Chennai Court February 2007 Judgments
S. Chandra Vs. C.V. Sridharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2007
Reported in: II(2007)DMC187
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal is against the order dated 24.10.2002 made in F.CO.P.No.1236 of 1997 on the file of the Second Additional Family Court, Chennai. The wife filed the petition against the husband for dissolution of marriage between them by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and for permanent alimony under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The present appeal is by the wife against the dismissal of the petition.2. It is seen that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised according to the Hindu rites and customs on 30.5.1986. The petitioner/appellant's contention before the Family Court was that right from the date of marriage, the respondent had behaved in an abnormal manner and never showed any love or care towards her. She further stated that there was no communication between them as a normal husband and wife. The appellant also submitted that the respondent abused her all the times and she was also physically ...
Tag this Judgment!Ravia Gani and ors. Vs. Pandurangan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1995
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above appeals are by the claimants seeking enhancement of the award made in M.A.C.T.O.P. Nos. 58 and 67 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pondicherry at Karaikal dated 8.3.1999, whereby the Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,45,500 (rupees three lakh forty-five thousand and five hundred) with 12 per cent interest per annum to appellants-claimants in CM.A. No. 274 of 2001 for the death of one Mohamed Arief, son of appellant No. 1, husband of the appellant No. 2, father of appellant Nos. 3 to 6 and brother of appellant No. 7 and Rs. 2,45,000 (rupees two lakh and forty-five thousand) to the appellant-claimant in C.M.A. No. 275 of 2001 for the injuries sustained by him, in the motor accident said to have taken place on 21.2.1998 at about 10.45 a.m. in the East Coast Road near Poonthan-dalam village.2.1 The facts in brief are: On 21.2.1998 at 10.45 a.m., the deceased and three more persons were travelling in Tata Sumo car bearing r...
Tag this Judgment!R. Premakumari D/O. M. Rathinasabapathy Vs. State of Tamilnadu Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ358
K. Chandru, J.1. This writ appeal is filed by the appellant against the order of the learned single Judge dated 17.10.2006 made in W.P.No. 1260 of 2001 wherein and by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.2. The appellant is working as a Post Graduate Assistant in English in the fourth respondent School for the last four years. She had obtained M.A. English in the year 1983 and qualified in B.Ed., in 1997. Thereafter, she got M.Phil degree in the year 1989 and M.Ed. Degree in the year 1991. Further, she also got Post Graduate degree in Sociology in the year 1993. The appellant was grantee incentive increment, in terms of the qualification provided. However, the second respondent had issued a Circular stating that the teachers, who were appointed from the period 01.01.1996 till 13.4.1998 should not be fixed in the revised pay scale by giving credit to the incentive increments as at the time of pay revision, the incentive increments have been absorbed in the scale ...
Tag this Judgment!Crn Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: [2008]300ITR342(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. The appeal arises under the assessment year 1995-96. The assessee is seeking admission of this appeal on the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the filing of the revised return before issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act, cannot be treated as a voluntary act, that the appellant is guilty of concealing income and is liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act2. It is seen that the first assessment was completed originally on 1.9.1999 under Section 147 of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised Returns withdrawing the claim for depreciation. It is seen that the assessee claimed 100% depreciation originally. The assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!R. Rajamani Vs. the Presiding Officer, Ii Additional Labour Court and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR466]; (2007)IILLJ704Mad; (2007)3MLJ53
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. In this writ appeal, we are concerned with the scope of Section 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.D. Act'), on the question as to whether in an industrial adjudication, an employer can be represented by an office bearer of an association of employers when such office bearer is also a legal practitioner.2. The appellant has raised a dispute under Section 2A(ii) of the I.D. Act in I.D. No. 256/2002 for reinstatement with backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits as against the management of the 2nd respondent-Company. The appellant has also filed Complaint No. 4/2002 as against Mr. R. Viswanathan, (IRO of the respondent-company) under Section 33(a) of the I.D.Act and I.A. No. 88/2004 is filed to implead Mr. P.V. Sundaram, Director to the Complaint No. 4/2002 as a respondent in the place of deceased R. Viswanathan. In all the above three proceedings, on behalf of the respondent Mr. R. Ganesan, Company Secret...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Govindrajulu Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Special Invest ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Mad)471
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. These are the appeals relating to the same assessee's case. T.C. No. 184 of 2003 relates to the assessment year 1986-87. T.C. No. 185 of 2003 relates to the assessment year 1989-90. T.C. No. 186 of 2003 relates to the assessment year 1987-88. T.C. No. 187 of 2003 relates to the assessment year 1990-91 and T.C. No. 188 of 2003 relates to the assessment year 1988-89. T.C. No. 791 of 2005 relates to the assessment year 1986-87. T.C. No. 792 of 2005 relates to the assessment year 1987-88. T.C. No. 793 of 2005 relates to the assessment year 1988-89. T.C. No. 794 of 2005 relates to the assessment year 1990-91. T.C. No. 795 of 2005 relates to the assessment year 1991-92. T.C. No. 796 of 2005 relates to the assessment year 1992-93.2. The questions of law raised in all the appeals are common and are as follows:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the status of the assessee was an individual?(ii) Wheth...
Tag this Judgment!Meenakshi and Nanjappa Vs. Selvaraj @ Selvam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(210)ELT670(Mad); 2007[5]STR335
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order of the learned District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode in I.A. No. 1012 of 2006 in O.S. No. 243 of 1996 this Civil Revision Petition is filed.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The suit in O.S. No. 243 of 1996 was filed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs and awarding costs of the suit. Further, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 1012 of 2006 under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of C.P.C. to grant leave to the petitioners to amend the plaint viz., measurement of the suit description on the basis of the report of the Advocate Commissioner, which was dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Tiruchengode on 04.09.2006, holding that if the proposed amendment is allowed, it will certainly cause prejudice to the respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Murugan @ Sakkarai Poosari and S. Dharmalingam Poosari Vs. the Join ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ362
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Two of the hereditary poojaris of Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukoil, Irukkankudi Village, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District have filed this writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the scheme dated 04.05.1935 for payment of their share from and out of the income of the temple at 2/26 share as per the admission of the respondents themselves with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default till the date of actual payment and to continue the payment of the share of the petitioners as per the said scheme.2. According to the petitioners, Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukoil, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District (in short 'the temple') is one of the famous public temples drawing a large income and coming under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (in short 'the Act'). In respect of the affairs of the temple, there had been a scheme framed by the then Board of the temple u...
Tag this Judgment!A. Govindarajan and ors. Vs. the Inspector General of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: I(2007)DMC742
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against them for the alleged offences under Sections 323, 406 and 498-A I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even on an earlier occasion the petitioners moved a petition for quashing the proceedings at the stage of F.I.R. This Court dismissed such petition in Crl.O.P. No. 18381 of 2005 by the order dated 18.08.2005 holding that it is for the petitioners to raise all the points at the time of trial and the points are to be considered and decided only after recording evidence. The learned Counsel now submitted that so far, five witnesses have been examined in this case and four more witnesses yet to be examined. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that even as per the evidence of five witnesses recorded, the...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendran Vs. Bensam Robinson
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(211)ELT368(Mad)
ORDERP.R. Shivakumar, J.1. This Criminal Revision case is directed against the order passed by the learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel in Crl.M.P. No. 9065 of 2006 in S.T.C. No. 58 of 1999. By the impugned order, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel has dismissed the application seeking a reference of Ex.D.1 receipt to the Handwriting Expert.2. The facts leading to the filing of the criminal revision case can be summarised as follows:The respondent herein preferred two private complaints for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on two dishonoured cheques allegedly issued by the petitioner herein on 30.05.1998 and 25.01.1999 for the sums of Rs. 60,400/- and Rs. 90,000/- respectively. The said private complaints have been taken on file by the learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel as S.T.C. Nos. 58 and 1509 of 1999 respectively. The respondent herein/complainant in the above said cases is contesting the above ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »