Chennai Court February 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.
Waterfall Estate (East) Pvt. Limited, Rep. by Its Director and Waterfa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: [2007]138CompCas57(Mad); [2008]81SCL434(Mad)
ORDERM.E.N. Patrudu, J.1. Whether remission of stamp duty for registering the document is permissible in the transfer of property between the parent and its subsidiary company?2. The said common question is involved hence common order is pronounced in both the writs.3. The forceful argument of Shri. Sathish Parasaran, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner is exempted from paying the stamp duty and can get the document registered as per notification issued by the state of Tamil Nadu and therefore the demand to pay the stamp duty is illegal and the order impugned is to be quashed.4. If the said argument is accepted undoubtedly the writ petitions are to be allowed.4.01 But the contention of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents is that the notification is not applicable in the case of the petitioner's transaction. Hence the petitioner cannot claim any exemption under the notification.5. Thus it is necessary to go into the details o...
Y.M.C.A. College Sports, Higher Secondary School (Sports Wing), Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR250]; (2007)IILLJ780Mad
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed in W.P.M.P. No. 12614 of 2004 in W.P. No. 10753 of 2004 dated 21.4.2004 wherein the learned single Judge directed the appellant to deposit the entire backwages as awarded by the Labour Court within eight weeks.2. When the interim application in the writ appeal was heard on 15.12.2006, the First Bench of this Court directed the Registry to post the writ petition also along with the writ appeal. Pursuant to the said direction, W.P. No. 10753 of 2004 was also listed along with W.A. No. 2088 of 2004 and both were heard by us. If we dispose of the writ petition, the writ appeal will become infructuous. Hence, we are dealing with W.P. No. 10753 of 2004 in this judgment.3. Prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the issuance of the award dated 23.10.2003, passed by the first respondent in I.D. No. 419 of 1995 and quash the same.4. The brief facts as stated...
Ravi @ Ravichandran and Subramaniam Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2052
M. Jeyapaul, J.1. The first accused prefers Criminal Appeal No. 828 of 2005 and the second accused prefers Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2006. 2. A1 was sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment for offence under Section 341 IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 449 IPC and life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 read with 114 IPC and A2 was sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 449 IPC and life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 IPC. Though A1 was not charged with offence under Section 449 IPC, the Trial Court has chosen to convict him thereunder and sentenced as stated supra. 3. The charge is that A1 and A2 had illicit intimacy with the deceased Arayee, having trespassed upon the house of Arayee. A2 with an intention to cause death, inserted forcibly a metal spoon inside the vagina of Arayee when A1 facilitated him by gagging the mouth of Arayee and thereby A1 committed offences punishable under...
S. Sundaram, Vs. Icici Bank Limited Rep. by Its Chairman and Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: (2007)2LLJ941Mad
ORDERM.E.N. Patrudu, J.1. Whether a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against the private banker is the first and foremost issue to be decided in this case.2. If the answer is yes then the merits and de-merits of the case is to be considered. If the answer is no, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the prayer of the petitioner is to be rejected.3. Sri Balan Haridas, learned Counsel appeared for the petitioner and Sri AL.Somayaji, learned senior counsel appeared for the second respondent. Both sides advanced forceful and useful arguments.4. Before I proceed to discuss the various points raised by both sides, I may have to note the law on the subject and the legal principles merging there from since settled by the Apex Court in identical cases, then to apply the same in the facts and circumstances of this case, in order to ascertain the writ jurisdiction of this Court in a case of this nature. 4.01 However for the purpose of understanding it would be ...
Ravindra Maheswari Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST422(Mad)
ORDERK. Ravikaja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner filed the original petitions, praying to call for the records of the respondent in form No. 5 dated January 9, 2004 issued under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and quash all the connected proceedings thereon. Those original petitions are numbered as these writ petitions on being transferred to the file of this Court.2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent, without any rhyme or reason, has issued a notice on April 17, 2003 to the petitioner alleging that there are arrears of sales tax to an extent of Rs. 4,33,794 in respect of Maheshwari Iron and Steel (P) Ltd., for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1995-96 (TNGST) and 1995-96 (CST) ; Rs. 22,795 (TNGST) and Rs. 1,65,215 (CST) in respect of Hindustan Steel Distributors for the assessment year 1993-94 ; Rs. 12,42,261 in respect of TSN Marketing (India) Ltd., for the assessment year 1998-99 and directed to pay the amount along with penalty. The petitioner b...
Nahar Enterprises, Represented by Its Partner J. Bherulal Nahar Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ59
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 1474 of 2003 on the file of the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, who has lost the suit and the appeal filed therefrom has filed the above second appeal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.3. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above second appeal as culled out from the plaint are set out below:The plaintiff has been provided with two electricity service connection meters, bearing service connection Nos. 152:01:1273 and 152:01:1274. In said meters, Service Connection No. 152:01:1274 became defective and a complaint was lodged on 26.06.2001, but the defective meter was not at all replaced. On 03.05.2002, at about 1.00 pm, the third defendant inspected the said defective service connection meter, without giving any notice of inspection and theft of electrical energy was alleged. The complaint given by the plaintiff to change the meter was not accepted. The thir...
A. Kalabai Vs. P. Pattammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ801
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This revision is directed against the Order in I.A. No. 1618/2001 in O.S. No. 148/1997 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry, dismissing the application filed under Order 13, Rule 1(2) and (3) read with Section 151 CPC, declining to issue summons to the witnesses.2. Plaintiff has filed the suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from encroaching into the suit property and for mandatory injunction. Contending that measurements are not correct and the boundaries given by Plaintiff is incorrect Defendants filed I.A. No. 145/1997, and in that application, Commissioner was appointed and he has filed his report. Plaintiff has filed elaborate objection to the report of the Advocate Commissioner.3. After the conclusion of the trial, at the stage of arguments, Plaintiff has filed I.A. No. 1615/2001 to reopen the case for the purpose of examination of Plaintiffs. That application was allowed by the Order dated 12.09.2001 and case was reope...
K. Loganathan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC785; (2007)2MLJ1118
R. Sudhakar, J.1. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 14.2.96. Section 6 Declaration was passed on 11.4.97. By a common order dated 19.12.00 in W.P. No. 5784 of 1997 the Section 6 Declaration was quashed keeping the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') intact. Authorities were permitted to proceed further in the matter as per law. Notice in Form 3-A was issued on 30.7.00 and objections were filed on 25.8.01. The remarks of the requisitioning authority overruling the objections were passed on 23.10.01 and, consequently, notice under Section 3-B was sent to the individuals to attend the Section 5-A enquiry on 24.10.01. On 8.11.01 objections were filed by the individuals and the same were overruled in the Section 5-A enquiry proceedings on 12.11.01. Thereafter, the second Section 6 Declaration was passed on 10.12.01, which were challenged in fifteen writ petitions on 5th April, 2002....
Sri Lakshmi Enterprises Vs. R. Ramakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR515(Madras)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The civil revision is filed against the order of the trial court made in IA No. 989 of 2005 in OS No. 340 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Krishnagiri.2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent herein filed a suit in OS No. 340 of 2005 for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner herein to handover the vehicle repossessed by the petitioner on default committed by the respondent as per the terms of the agreement. The respondent entered into hire purchase agreement with the petitioner agreeing to pay Rs. 4,560 every month relating to the vehicle from 10.04.2005 for a period of 24 months. The respondent committed default in repayment and hence the vehicle was repossessed. Hence, the respondent filed the suit with prayer as stated above. In the suit the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the matter to the arbitrator. That application has been rejected by the trial ...
Alagu and ors. Vs. District Collector and the Special Tahsildar (Land ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ1168; 2007[5]STR0
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. All the Writ Petitions are filed challenging the Notification dated 27.11.1998 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, in so far as the petitioners' lands are concerned.2. W.P. No.4920 of 1999:- First petitioner for herself and on behalf of the petitioners 2 and 3 has filed the affidavit. It is stated that originally, the property, which is sought to be acquired, viz., 0.58.0 hectares (about 1.47 acres) of land in S. No.31/3 at Ayyur village, was in the name of Solaimalai Gounder. His three sons are, 1) Late Thirumal, the husband of the first petitioner; 2) Dinakaran, second petitioner and3) Damodaran, vendor of the third petitioner. After the death of Solaimalai Gounder, his three sons partitioned the lands. Thirumal expired in 1995. His death has been duly informed to the Revenue Officials. After oral partition and after the death of Thirumal, his wife the first petitioner is looking after his share. Likewise, the second petitioner is cultivating...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »