Chennai Court April 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.
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2007
Reported in: (2007)9VST542(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner filed O. Ps. Nos. 296 to 301 of 2002, which are now numbered as these writ petitions on being transferred from the file of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, on its abolition.2. The original petitions were filed challenging the correctness and propriety and jurisdiction of the respondent-Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade I Assessment Circle, Kuralagam Annexe, Chennai, to treat the petitioner as a 'dealer' and to bring its transaction for assessment, by couching the prayer in each one of the writ petitions 'to call for the records relating to the assessment orders dated January 31, 2002 for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92,1992-93,1993-94,1994-95, and 1995-96 and set aside the same as illegal'.3. Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.4. It is evident on record that as against assessment order passed against the petitioner for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94,...
B. Muthukumar Vs. Krishnarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC316
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment in C.A. No. 181 of 2001 on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. The said appeal has been preferred against the judgment in C.C. No. 191 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. Ill, Salem. The accused in C.C. No. 191/98, who has lost his case before the first Appellate Court is the revision petitioner herein.2. The complainant/respondent has preferred a private complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of a cheque dated 1.12.1997 drawn by the accused for Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) only. When the said cheque was presented before the Catholican Syrian Bank, the same was returned on 11.2.1998 with an endorsement that there is no sufficient funds in the account of the accused. The statutory notice was issued by the compla...
Sampath Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police and M. Santhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2007
Reported in: II(2007)DMC516
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment in Crl.R.C. No. 69 of 2000 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Judge, Kanchipuram.2. The accused was charged under Section 498(A) of IPC for having subjected his wife Santhi to cruelty by scolding her in filthy language, by denying conjugal relationship to her, by beating and kicking her and throwing her out of his house frequently and even Santhi was denied proper food by the accused. 3. The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II , Kanchipuram as C.C. No. 195 of 1997. On appearance of the accused on summons, the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused and the charge was framed under Section 498(A) IPC and when the accused was questioned, he pleaded not guilty.4. On the side of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.8 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 were exhibited.5. After going through the oral and documentary eviden...
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division Ii) Ltd., (Fo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC248
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Mrs. Kala Ramesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 17182 of 2000 and Mr. M. Ilango, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos. 8193 and 8194 of 2001, Mr. C. Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. A.D. Jagadish Chandra, learned Counsel for the third respondent in all the writ petitions.2. The present writ petitions are filed under the following circumstances:In Consumer Original Petition No. 78 of 1996 filed by the third respondent, a direction was issued for payment of certain amount by the opposite parties in the said consumer dispute, who are the present petitioners. Out of the total amount payable, the Transport Corporation deposited a cheque for Rs. 1,169/- before the second respondent. But the balance amount has not been deposited. A proceeding was initiated for taking action as the order of the original District Forum had not been complied with. The District Forum found that the order had not bee...
Dr. M. Vinobaji Vs. Central Registrar of Co-op. Societies and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ708
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. By the orders of the Honourable Chief Justice, these matters were grouped and posted before this Court. 2. I have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties and have perused the records.3. All these writ petitions are in a way inter-connected and, therefore, they were heard together. They relate to conduct of elections to the third respondent Society, ie., Indian Medical Practitioners Co-operative Pharmacy and Stores Limited [for short, 'IMPCOPS'] and also the validity of the amendment made to bye-law No. 7 regarding the membership. 4. IMPCOPS, the third respondent in the first writ petition, viz., W.P. No. 19992 of 1998, was registered under the Madras Act VI of 1932. As its area of operation was extended throughout the country, it came to be registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act 1984 [for short, '1984 Act']. As per the bye-laws of the Society registered with the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the main obje...
Balagurusami Pillai (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Lakshmi Ammal (Died) and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC32; (2007)3MLJ483
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The suit properties belonged to one Varadammal, the second wife of one Kaveri Marudha Pillai. Kaveri Marudha Pillai was the grand son of the said Marudha Pillai through his first wife. Kaveri Ramasamy Pillai was the grand son of Marudha Pillai through his second wife. K.Ramasamy Pillai's son is the plaintiff. K.Marudha Pillai's daughter through his first wife and Varadammal's daughter are defendants 1 and 2. The suit was filed for recovery of possession. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that Varadammal's estate enlarged into a full estate in accordance with Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act and therefore, on and from the date of coming into force of the Act, she could deal with the property as a full owner to her alienees, who are defendants 3 and 4. On these and other grounds, the trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal only on the ground of limitation holding that the suit has been filed beyond ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chensing Ventures
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Mad)539; [2007]291ITR258(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'A', Chennai in I.T.A. No. 1999/Mds/2003 dated 10.07.2006, raising the following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that, and direct the assessing officer to compute the income, business loss has to be set off against the other income, even though the assessee surrendered the income at the time of survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. The brief facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is a firm consisting of two partners. The firm is carrying on business of purchase and sale of steel scraps both locally and in the Mid Sea. The relevant assessment year is 2002-2003 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.2002. A survey under Section...
The Divisional Engineer (West), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. J. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC472; (2007)3MLJ282
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, in both the Courts below, is the appellant in the above second appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the order passed by the defendant on 09.06.1987 is not binding on the defendant and also for a permanent injunction not to interfere with the electricity service connection in respect of Account No. 64, Tariff No. IV, MBK Arisipalayam O & M. The case of the plaintiff was that he got the above said tariff connection for his Doll Mill and the defendant on the basis of an inspection stated to have been effected on 25.05.1984 has found that the seal has been broken and a bogus seal was implanted and therefore a criminal complaint was given before the Learned First Class Judicial Magistrate, Salem in C.C. No. 188 of 1986 under Sections 39(1) and 44(c) of the Indian Electricity Act. In the meantime, the defendant-Board has sent an initial assessment notice as per the terms and condit...
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2007
Reported in: [2007]11STT27
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Aravind P. Datar, for M/s. K. Vaitheeswaran, Advocate for the petitioner the court made the following order:2. It is contended by Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Senior Counsel that by taking queue from the explanation now added in Sl. No. 7 of the Notification No. 1/2006-S.T., dated 1-3-2006, the respondents are insisting that the value of the goods supplied and provided by the client of the Assessee would also be included. On a reading of the explanation, this court is prima facie of the view that such an insistence is not in accordance with the explanation. To that extent there will be an interim order as prayed for. Notice....
Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Madam, by Its Sri Karyam and Agent Vs. the State o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ278
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 15,550/- with interest on the basis that the suit properties situated in Nannilam Taluk, Pillur Village in Survey No. 175/2 to the extent of 2 cents of Nanja lands and in Kollumangudi Village in Survey No. 276/1 to the extent of 19 cents in Nanja Survey No. 276/4 to the extent of 22 cents to the total extent of 43 cents which belong to the plaintiff Mutt and according to the plaintiff the third respondent has encroached the same in the year 1980 for putting up the road without following the land acquisition proceedings and in view of the same after giving notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit for recovery claiming compensation is filed. The claim is stated to have been made at the rate of Rs. 350 per cent for 43 cents and at the rate of Rs. 50 per cent towards damages. 2. The defendants have filed the written statement. One of the main grounds t...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »