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.
D. Mohan Vs. Mr. N. Kuppan @ Durai,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ335
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. Aggrieved over the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, made in I.A.No:167 of 2006 in O.S. No. 40 of 2006, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner is the second defendant in the suit. The suit property belongs to the second defendant. On 23.4.1995, the second defendant executed a power of attorney in favour of the first defendant to deal with his property. In pursuance of the said power of attorney, the first defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the respondents 1 and 2, the plaintiffs on 15.7.1996 by paying Rs. 10 Lakhs as advance. Thereafter, periodical payments to a total amount of Rs. 17,25,000/= have been paid upto 14.9.2002. Since the defendants failed to execute the sale deed, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for specific performance. 3. The petitioner has not yet filed his written statement. But he filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC to rejec...
Annai Teacher Training Institute Run by Annai Educational Trust Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC11
ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. By an order issued in G.O.(2D) No. 59, School Education Department, dated 14.11.2006, the Government of Tamil Nadu prescribed 20.11.2006 as the last date for approval of the list of Faculty Members of the newly recognised Self-financing Private Teacher Training Institutes by the Directorate of Teacher Education Research and Training. It also prescribed 30.11.2006 as the last date for the admission of students for the Diploma in Teacher Education Course for the academic year 2006-2007. Aggrieved by the fixation of such cut off dates by the Government, the Private unaided Teacher Training Institutes came up with the present batch of writ petitions, seeking to quash the said Government Order. 2. After the writ petitions were admitted, the Government issued another Order in G.O.(2D) No. 7, School Education Department, dated 9.2.2007, extending the time limit for submission of the list of Faculty Members for approval, to 9.3.2007. Therefore, the challenge to on...
Amutha Beellarmine Corera Vs. Elsie Villavarayer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC206; (2007)6MLJ893
ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner herein, challenging the orders dated 25.08.2005 and 15.12.2005 made in I.A. Nos. 362 & 555 of 2005 respectively in O.S. No. 47 of 2005, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin.3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:The respondent in both the civil revision petitions has filed the suit in O.S. No. 47 of 2005, against the petitioner herein on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin, for declaration of easementary right of getting free flow of air and light through the second schedule property and for consequential injunction restraining the petitioner herein who is the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's above right and for other related reliefs. The petitioner/defendant has filed a written statement before the lower Court and contested the suit. The petitioner herein examined herself as D.W.1 before the trial Court. At that point of time,...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Taj Borewells
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2007
Reported in: [2007]291ITR232(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, Chennai Bench 'B', Chennai in I.T.A. No. 891(Mds)/2001 dated 18.07.2003. On 28.01.2004, this Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following substantial questions of law.1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in not considering the balance sheet and profit and loss account wherein contribution of the partners have been shown could be taken to be the books of account and the credits appearing therein have to be explained?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law especially when the appellant firm has not been able to explain the source of the capital invested by the partners which accordingly has to be treated as unaccounted income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act?3. Whether on the facts...
M. Subramani Vs. P. Shanmugam,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC125; (2007)5MLJ1232
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The plaintiff in the trial Court is the appellant in the second appeal. The suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction in respect of a vacant house site to an extent of 1147 1/2 sq.ft admeasuring 13 1/2 feet in the North-South and 85 feet in the East-West bounded on the North by the site of the defendants 1 and 2, on the south by the site of the third defendant, on the East by the channel and on the West by the common pathway and the open space Vasal for the beneficial use and enjoyment of the plaintiff and his wife and the defendants 1 and 2 comprised in Gramanatham Survey No. 96 of Thirisoolam Village, Madras.2. The case of the plaintiff is that he has purchased the suit property under the sale deed dated 14.10.1982 and he is in possession of the same and before his purchase his brothers were in possession and the defendants 1 and 2 have attempted to encroach upon the northern side of the plaintiff's property and the third defendant has attempted to encroach upon ...
M. Senthil Kumar Vs. Delta Carriers by Its Proprietor N. Rajkumar Repr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC333
ORDERT. Sudanthiram, J.1. This is a petition seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, who is the Accused No.3 initiated by the respondents herein/ complainant along with two other accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is one of the partner in the firm namely the first accused and he has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.3. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Partnership Dissolution Deed was executed between the petitioner and the second Accused, another partner on 29.09.2004 and it was communicated to the complainant prior to the issuance of the Cheque in question. Another contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that no specific averment is made in the complaint against the petitioner fulfilling the requirements under Section 141(1) of the Negoti...
The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Limited Vs. Spartex Ceramics India Limite ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2007
Reported in: [2007]139CompCas781(Mad); (2007)3MLJ203
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Limited, Mumbai which has been impleaded as second defendant in C.S. No. 750 of 1999, has preferred the present Appeals against the interim orders made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in O.A. No. 42 of 2000 and Appln. No. 280 of 2000 in C.S. 750 of 1999.2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed a suit fora. declaration that the shares pledged by the first plaintiff and belonging to the second plaintiff stand discharged as securityb. mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over the shares listed in Annexure to the plaint to the plaintiffs andc. direction to the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the costs of the suit.3. The case of the respondents/plaintiffs is as follows:a. The first plaintiff is a company engaged in the manufacture of ceramic tiles and the second plaintiff is an investment company and interalia holds shares in the first plaintiff. The defendant is, amongst other things, engaged in the business of pr...
Arukkani, Vs. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ845
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants, who are representing themselves and representing the Villagers of Kaliyaperumal Pudur, Sivanaikenpatty Village, Namakkal Taluk in both the Courts below are the appellants. The plaintiff filed the suit for a mandatory injunction to remove RSTU construction portion stated to have been constructed on the panchayat road and for a declaration that neither the defendants nor the Villagers have any right to obstruct access to the road from any point at the CD level and also for an injunction from putting up any obstruction.2. The case of the plaintiff is that on the Eastern side of his property comprised in Survey No. 291/2AA there is a Municipal road running North to South and just in front of his access to the road from his property. The defendants have put up the construction, wherein they are keeping certain articles and materials belong to the temple of the Village. Since it obstructs his right of free ingress and egress to his property an...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›