Chennai Court March 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.
A.C.G. Venancious and anr. Vs. Jagajothi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1434
P.P.S. Janarthan Raja, J.1. The civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the insurance company and cross-objection is filed by the claimants. Both the appeal as well as the cross-objection filed against the decree and judgment dated 8.5.2000 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 23 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin. We have taken up both the matters and disposed of by a common order.2. The relevant facts arising out of the above are as under:The insurance company is the appellant in the civil miscellaneous appeal. The claimants are the father, mother, wife and sister of the deceased. Claimants filed the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on account of the death of Sureshkumar who was killed in a road accident on 21.12.1995 at about 12 noon at Beach Road, Tuticorin. On that day, he was riding Hero Honda motor cycle No. TN 76-6976 belonging to the respondent No. 3 in the appeal. On that d...
Continental Exporters Vs. the Joint Commissioner (Ct), Revision Petiti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2007
Reported in: (2007)8VST702(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a registered dealer having its head office at Bangalore and it is a hundred percent export oriented unit. The petitioner purchased certain consignment on high sea sales and moved the same from Chennai Harbour to Delhi. The goods were detained on 14.2.2000 under goods detention order No. 166/99-2000 by the Assistant Commissioner, Enforcement (Central), Chennai. While that being so, in order to get the goods released, the petitioner approached the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who directed the third respondent to release the goods. But when the petitioner approached the third respondent, the third respondent insisted the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for the alleged tax liability in a sum of Rs.23,000/-. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner furnished bank guarantee and got the goods released. As against the detention order, the petitioner moved a revision before th...
S. Nalini Srikaran Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Its Ministry of E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad187; (2007)2MLJ831
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. The appellant, Nalini and her husband, Srikaran alias Murugan were arrested in connection with the murder of the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. While in prison, the appellant gave birth to a female child, Megara on 21.1.1992 in Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital at Chengalpattu. Her birth was also registered in Chengalpattu Municipality on 24.1.1992 under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. She lived with her mother in the prison. Then in 1998, the Special Court awarded death penalty to all 26 accused, including the appellant and her husband. In view of this precarious situation, the appellant's mother-in-law, a Sri Lanka citizen took minor Megara to Sri Lanka with her. Megara was given an emergency passport by the Sri Lanka Government to travel to Sri Lanka and she continues to stay in Sri Lanka since 1998. In appeal, the appellant's death penalty was converted into life imprisonment and she has been kept in Special Prison for Women at Vellore. I...
Elecon Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (Tds), East Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2007
Reported in: (2008)11VST615(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider and pass order on the refund claim dated March 10, 2006 made by the petitioner under Section 7F of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Rule 18F of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 in respect of the sales tax deducted at source by M/s. Chennai Port Trust, Chennai, in accordance with law within a stipulated time.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner entered into a contract with the Chennai Port Trust for manufacture of machinery as per the design given by the Port Trust. For that purpose, the petitioner effected purchase of accessories and consumable from outside the State of Tamil Nadu. The machinery so manufactured and the accessories were directly moved to the work site. According to the petitioner, the transactions are inter-State one and CST has been paid at the appropriate rate of tax to the State from...
C.K. Ravindaran Vs. New Horizon Sugar Mills Limited Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2007
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ613Mad
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2002, passed by the second respondent Labour Court, has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the same and to direct the first respondent Management to pay him the death-cum-retirement gratuity (DCRG) as per the settlement dated 11.10.1995 between the first respondent Management and its workmen and also to pay him the bonus and ex-gratia payment for the accounting years 1998-99 in full and for the year 1999-2000 proportionate to the months of April and May 1999 at the same rate as was paid to the other workmen of the first respondent Management.2. The petitioner was appointed in the first respondent mill on 24.09.1969 as a Draughtsman to prepare designs and drawing under the supervision of Deputy Chief Engineer. By an order of the first respondent, he was re-designated as Junior Engineer (Designs) sans any change in the grade, scale of pay and duties and responsibilities and he continued to perform the fun...
K. Chinnasamy Vs. Sivagamiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC122
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The defendant in the lower Court is the appellant. Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount due on the basis of a promissory note stated to have been executed by the defendant on 04.02.88 (EX.A1). The defendant in the written statement has denied the signature in the promissory note and also made certain other defence including that there has been a previous enmity between the husband of the plaintiff and the defendant and taking advantage of the same, the suit came to be filed. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the basis that the plaintiff has failed to prove the genuineness of the signature under Ex.A1 by referring to the handwriting expert especially when the defendant has denied the signature in the promissory note Ex.A1 in the written statement filed in the suit and also in the reply notice marked as Ex. A4. The trial Court has also made a reference that on comparison of the signature in the written statement and in respect of Ex.A1 there is slight...
inspector of Police Vs. R. Jeeva Jothi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3003
ORDERR. Regupathi, J.1. The suo mottu criminal revision petition has been taken on file by this Hon'ble Court, on coming to know about the irregularities committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, while conducting an enquiry in a case in Crime No. 701 of 2003 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vedaranyam Police Station. The Inspector of Police, Vedaranyam Police Station, on conclusion of the investigation of the case, filed a final report against these six accused for an offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 214, 307, 307 r/w 114, 307 r/w 149, 450 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the husband of the complainant was done to death by the first accused along with his henchmen and a case in S.C. No. 3 of 2003 was pending. The case was posted for trial on 21.07.2003. On 15.07.2003 all the accused under the leadership of the first accused, alleged to have visited the residence of the complainant for offering illegal gratification of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the ...
Southern India Bearing Distributors Association Vs. Special Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2007
Reported in: (2008)12VST319(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. According to the petitioner-association, the members of the association have effected sales of ball bearings to their customers mostly against form XVII declarations, which are covered under Section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Up to the assessment year 1995-96, the ball bearings have been classified as a separate commodity under the First Schedule to the Act liable to be taxed under Section 3(2) of the TNGST Act. Government of Tamil Nadu pleased to insert Section 3(5). By construing Section 3(5), different circular has been issued and it is the case of the petitioner that the circular dated November 5, 2001 is not in consonance with the provisions and it has to be struck down. In respect of the individual assessees, who filed writ petitions seeking for the very same relief, this court disposed of the writ petitions by directing the assessing officer to make assessment on his own judgment and wisdom. If the assessment is not in accordanc...
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Deputy Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC225; (2007)4MLJ236
R. Sudhakar, J.1. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by Deputy Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Housing Scheme No. I, Coimbatore, are the appellants. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 4.8.1998 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 9747 of 1989.2. Writ Petition No. 9747 of 1989 was filed challenging the Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms. No. 419, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 19.3.1986 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette (Extraordinary) Part-II, Section 2 dated 20.3.1986 and to quash the same in so far as the lands of the petitioners, the present respondents, in S.F. No. 3-1C, Krishnarayapuram village, Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore District. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in brief is that all the writ petitioners, the present respondents, have purc...
M. Jeevanandham Vs. Balaji and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2631
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. Mr. V. Padmanabhan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking the relief of giving suitable directions to the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet, to take the complaint preferred by the petitioner, dated 04.12.2006, on file and to deal with the complaint in accordance with law. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is the complainant in a private complaint case preferred before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet, for the alleged offences under Sections 149, 166, 167, 294(b), 323, 342, 352, 355, 465, 471, 506(i) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against seven (7) persons and all of them are Police Officials, namely, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Writer and Constables for the alleged ill-treatment and other tortures caused to the petitioner herein. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that on t...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »