Chennai Court April 2007 Judgments
Arivukanni Vs. Saravanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: II(2007)DMC457
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This Revision has been preferred against the judgment in C.A. No. 74 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC. No. I,) Chengalput. The complaint preferred by P.W.1-Arivukanni, the wife of the accused, was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, G-3 Chittamoor Police Station under Crime No. 27/2002 under Section 498A, IPC. The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mathuranthagam, as C.C. No. 152 of 2002 and on appearance of the accused copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C, were furnished to the accused and when the charges under Section 498A, IPC was explained to the accused and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.2. On the side of the prosecution P.W.I to P.W.7 were examined and Ex. P.1 to Ex. P.3 were marked.3. The complainant-Arivukanni, as P.W.1, would depose that marriage between her and the accused Saravanan took place on 15.3.2001 and it was a registered marriage and after the ...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: (2007)9VST360(Mad)
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. The issue involved in all these appeals is one and the same, and the parties are also one and the same. The argument advanced by the respective parties is also the same. By consent of the parties, all the appeals are taken up for disposal.2. The facts leading to these appeals are as follows:The appellant, a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking is a registered dealer both under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (for short, the 'TNGST Act') and Central Sales Tax Act (for short, the 'CST Act'). The appellant was originally granted temporary working permission for a period of nine months from 26.09.1997 to 25.06.1998 for mining magnesite and dunite over an extent of 177.96 hectares of forest land in Salem Division subject to certain conditions by G.O.(2D) No. 53, Environment and Forest (FRX) Department dated 23.10.1997. Subsequently, by Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 234, Environment and Forest Department dated 06.08.1998, the Government of Tamil Nadu renewed the leas...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Shri Kannan, Rep. by Its Managing Partner T. Thanushgaran Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: (2007)8VST97(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The challenge in these batch of writ appeals and writ petitions is as to the power to levy purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (for brevity, 'the Act') by the Revenue from the respective appellants/petitioners (for brevity, 'the Dealers') in the context of the Circular D.Dis.Acts Cell II/75893/99, dated 24.12.1999, as amended by the clarification No. 91/2000, D.Dis.Acts Cell II/52300/2000, dated 4.10.2000 issued by the Revenue to the effect that the stock transfer of turmeric to other States is liable to purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Act if it is purchased from unregistered dealers within the State; that purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Act is leviable only if the turnover of the dealer under the Act exceeds Rupees Three hundred crores in a year; that the exemption granted under Third Schedule to the Act is not a general exemption, but on conditional that the sale of turmeric by a dealer whose turnover exceeds Rupees ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranagasamy and Duraisamy Vs. Lakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: II(2007)DMC598
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order passed in M.C. No. 3 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam.2. The short facts of the case relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision are as follows:The respondent/wife has filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, for maintenance from the revision petitioner, who is none other than the husband. The marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent took place some 35 years back. Out of the wedlock the respondent herein Lakshmi Ammal had given birth to a son Manogaran @ Subramaniam and a daughter by name Senthamarai. Both the revision petitioner and the respondent led a happy family life for about 15 years. Subsequently the revision petitioner has developed illicit intimacy with one Chennammal, which necessitated the respondent/wife to leave the matrimonial home in the year 1994 and began to live with her parents. Thereafter, the revision petitioner beg...
Tag this Judgment!K. Kumaran and S. Michael Thason Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR798]; (2007)3MLJ233
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. These three writ petitions relate to the claim of the three petitioners for getting re-employment in the second respondent State Transport Corporation on the basis that they had worked temporarily for several days in the Transport Corporation.2. In W.P. No. 11455 of 2007, the petitioner was a Driver and according to him, he had worked from 02.6.2005 on casual employment and that he was retrenched from service on 23.7.2006. Thereafter, he was not given any further employment by the Corporation. When he made representation to the respondent Corporation, they did not respond to the same and he filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 24856 of 2006 and this Court, by an order dated 07.8.2006, directed the second respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner. The second respondent Corporation by an dated 18.9.2005 informed the petitioner that he had not worked for 240 days in their Corporation and in their Monday Market Branch, he had w...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Narayanan Vs. Meenakshi Narayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ772
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in I.A.No: 2768 of 2006 and FCOP.No: 1588 of 2006, dated 19.1.2007 by the learned Additional Judge, II Additional Family court, Chennai, whereas, the Transfer CMP has been filed to withdraw FCOP. No. 1588 of 206 from the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai and transfer the same to any other Family Court at Chennai.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner and the respondent got married according to Hindu Customary Rites on 11.6.1997 at the respondent's house at Kottaiyur, Tamil Nadu. The said marriage was registered on 13.6.1997 under Serial No. 22 of 1997 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Karaikudi. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was an Engineer and the respondent was a Medical Practitioner. After marriage they lived at Besant Nagar, Chennai. Subsequently, the petitioner went to USA for his higher studies on a student VISA and the respondent got a dep...
Tag this Judgment!Casa Grande Private Limited, Rep. by Its Director M. Arun Kumar Vs. Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ647
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. This writ petition is listed today for admission and I heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent.2. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent culminating in the communication bearing letter No. B1/24359/2006 dated 07.03.2007 issued by the respondent directing the petitioner herein to provide for a 10 meter wide link road running in the property sought to be developed by the petitioner, quash the same and to direct the respondent to grant planning permission to the petitioner for its project 'RIVIERA' at Velacherry- Tambaram Main Road, Pallikaranai Medavakkam, Chennai under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:The petitioner company has submitted an application in SBC No. 1244 on 23.11.2006 to the respondent seeking planning permission f...
Tag this Judgment!Major Uday Nangia, Officer's Mess, Officers Training Academy Vs. the A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2007
Reported in: (2007)4MLJ140
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner in the present writ petition seeks for the prayer to quash the order dated 26.3.2007 passed by the first respondent wherein and by which he was told that the list of witnesses given by him will not be called as he had not availed Rule 34 of the Army Rules, 1954 [for short, 'Rules'] at the earlier point of time.2. The case against the petitioner was taken by the second respondent General Court Martial [for short, 'GCM'] exercising option under Section 125 of the Army Act, 1950, which reads as under:Section 125. Choice between criminal court and court-martialWhen a criminal court and a court-martial have each jurisdiction in respect of an offence, it shall be in the discretion of the officer commanding the army, army corps, division or independent brigade in which the accused person is serving or such other officer as may be prescribed to decide before which court the proceedings shall be instituted, and, if that officer decides that they should be in...
Tag this Judgment!T. Ravanan Vs. P.R. Selvaraj and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ238
P.R. Shivakumar, J.1. The claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (First Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirappalli in M.C.O.P. No. 811 of 1996 is the appellant in this civil miscellaneous appeal.2. Aggrieved by the insufficiency of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, he has brought forth the above said civil miscellaneous appeal, as against the disallowed portion of his claim. Originally the appellant had restricted his claim in the appeal to Rs. 1,00,000 alone. Now the appellant has filed M.P. No. 1 of 2006 in CM.A. No. 70 of 1999 seeking permission to amend the value of the appeal to Rs. 4,00,000 instead of Rs. 1,00,000 expressing his readiness to pay necessary court-fee for the same.3. Both M.P. and C.M.A. were taken up together for disposal.4. C.M.A. No. 70 of 1999 is directed against the award dated 15.6.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (First Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirappalli in M.C.O.P. No. 811 of 1996 directing the re...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Chandrasekaran Vs. S.S. Jayamani,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC822
ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.12.2006 in I.A.No.192 of 2006 in R.C.O.P. No.120 of 2004 passed by the Principal Rent Controller, (Principal District Munsif Court), Madurai Town.2. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondents are landlords. Originally one Mr. S.R. Sutharsan, who is the husband of the first respondent and father of the respondents 2 to 4 filed R.C.O.P.No.120 of 2004 before the Principal Rent Controller, (Principal District Munsif), Madurai Town. The petitioner remained exparte in the R.C.O.P., which resulted in exparte order passed on 12.04.2006. Thereafter, he filed an interlocutory application before the Rent Controller seeking to set aside the exparte order. Further in filing the said interlocutory application there was delay of 73 days. In order to have the delay condoned, he has filed I.A.No.192 of 2006 before the Rent Controller. In the meantime, the original landlord Mr.S.R.S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »