Chennai Court April 2007 Judgments
N. Kumar Vs. M.O. Roy, Assistant Director, Serious Fraud Investigation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC650; [2007]80SCL55(Mad)
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. The petitioner, who has been arrayed as A-2 out of 13 accused in E.O.C.C. No. 129 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai, has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the above said proceedings for the alleged offence under Section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the alleged non-payment of dividend or non-posting of warrant for financial years 1995-1996 to 1999-2000 within the stipulated time.2. In this case, the petitioner has been implicated as A-2 on a private complaint filed by the respondent herein. The petitioner was one of the Directors of a company known as M/s. Square D Software Limited. The name of the company was changed into M/s. DSQ Software Limited with effect from 01.04.1997.3. The sum and substance of the allegation, as per the complaint, is that the Company delayed in funding the dividend accounts of the company and fai...
Tag this Judgment!B. Narashimha Rao Vs. T. Raghavalu Naidu and Company, Rep. by Its Part ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC356; (2007)3MLJ641
ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. The present Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order of the learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai made in E.A. No. 1050 of 2005 in E.P. No. 1892 of 2004 in O.S. No. 1892 of 2002 dated 1.8.2005.2. The short facts of the case, which are relevant for the disposal of the present revision, are as follows:The respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S. No. 1892 of 2002 against one M/s. T. Madhava Rao and Company represented by its 3 partners including the petitioner herein and obtained a money decree. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as 3rd defendant in the said suit. The suit was decreed on 30.12.2002. Thereafter, the respondent has filed the execution petition in E.P. No. 1892 of 2004 against the above referred firm and its partners including the petitioner herein. In the said execution petition, the petitioner filed an application in E.A. No. 1050 of 2005 in E.P. No. 1892 of 2004 under Section 47 C.P.C. to dis...
Tag this Judgment!O.S. Venkataraman Vs. R.V.M.K. Prasad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC388; (2007)6MLJ1018
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. This Second Appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff, calling in question, the legality of the judgment of the Sub-Judge, Poonamallee in A.S. No. 25 of 1993 confirming the judgment of the Additional District Munsif in O.S. No. 1084 of 1972.2. The plaintiff initially filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and subsequently filed an I.A. for amending the prayer seeking recovery of possession of the suit property and got the said I.A. allowed.3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as under:He purchased the lands in S. No. 295/1 and 295/2 measuring 8 grounds and 60 sq. ft., which is the suit property, from one Kanniammal vide sale deed dated 17.06.1965 and has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant who is the owner of plot No. 4 lying to the north of the suit property, having purchased the same from Kanniammal on 05.03.1965, purchased yet another plot during April 1971 and on that basis, with a view to an...
Tag this Judgment!The Corporation of Madras, Rep. by the Commissioner Vs. J. Periyanayak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC28
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Concededly, the impugned land of an extent of three grounds and 1032 sq.ft. located in S. No. 194/1, Royapettah, Chennai, belongs to Arulmighu Periyapalayathammal Temple, the third respondent herein. However, without initiating any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, by proceedings dated 11.1.1990, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, had given no objection to the Collector, Chennai, to take possession of the impugned land and also certified, as per G.O.(Misc.) No. 1630, Revenue, dated 26.9.1984, that the impugned land is of no use to the temple, on condition that compensation to the temple shall be paid through the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, by the Collector.2. Accordingly, the executive officer of the third respondent/temple, by proceedings dated 13.1.1990, handed over the possession of the impugned land to the Corporation of Chennai, for construction of a community hall. When the Corporation started constructing the com...
Tag this Judgment!Grasim Industries Limited (Cement Division South) Vs. Tamil Nadu Elect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ684
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner in the first two writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 23422 and 23734 of 2006 are cement companies and the petitioner in the third writ petition in W.P. No. 24322 of 2006 is a Company engaged in installation and collection of fly ash collection system. In all the three writ petitions, the orders of the first respondent reducing the percentage of collection of fly ash allotted to the respective petitioners by the impugned orders are assailed. Except minor variations in respect of the period for which and the percentage of fly ash they were allowed to collect originally and the reduction in percentage by reason of the impugned orders, in all other respects, the facts are one and the same. As the grounds of attack, the arguments advanced to assail the orders and the defence put forth to sustain the impugned orders are one and the same, all the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal. For the sake of narration of facts, the first of the writ p...
Tag this Judgment!Arunkumar Vs. State, Sub Inspector of Police and Sangeetha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC741
ORDERK.N. Basha, J. 1. Mr. A. Ragunathan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been arrayed as A-4 out of four accused and he has come forward with this petition seeking the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner along with other accused for the offences under Section 498-A and 506(ii) I.P.C. and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.2. It is vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely no allegation neither in the complaint nor in the statement recorded from the defacto complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. making out the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. It is contended by the learned senior counsel that the defacto complainant was residing separately and the petitioner is owing his own house and she used to come to the house of the petitioner to create problems. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel that there are certain allegations contai...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central I Vs. R.M. Patel (Huf)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2007
Reported in: [2008]298ITR274(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in IT(SS)A No. 55/Mds/2003 dated 18.8.2006.2.1. The relevant assessment is block period of 1988-89 to 1997-98 and 1.4.1998 to 5.11.1998. The assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family (in short 'HUF'). A search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out at the residential and business premises of the Karta of the HUF, viz. Ratanshi Patel and his brother Khimji M Patel between 5.11.1998 and 30.11.1998. During the search, it was found that HUF assessee had a timber trading business by name Ram Plylam during the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. The materials seized indicated that the assessee had also undisclosed income from the business and therefore, notice under Section 158BD of the Act was issued to the assessee on 13.6.2000, as the proprietor of the concern Ram Plylam. In response to the notice, the assessee filed a return in Form 2B on 3.7.2000 decla...
Tag this Judgment!A. Sekar and Vs. V. Vijay Kamalraj,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ645
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above appeals arise against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.7.2002 made in W.P. No. 4541 of 2002, which was filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 3.1.2002 refusing to grant temporary permit sought for by the writ petitioner to ply his vehicle from Bangalore to Harur.2. Concededly, there is no inter-state agreement for the impugned route, viz. Bangalore to Harur. Even though the original authority, viz. the third respondent, State Transport Authority, Karnataka State granted permit, there was no counter signature by the Tamil Nadu State insofar as the route in Tamil Nadu is concerned. Pending such counter signature, the writ petitioner sought temporary permit and the same was refused by the State Transport Authority by proceedings dated 3.1.2002. The writ petitioner had not chosen to prefer any appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under Section 89(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but had chosen...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Gopalasamy Vs. C. Senpagam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC283; (2007)6MLJ1615
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This CRP is filed by the defendant as against the dismissal of the I.A., filed by him under Order 7, Rule 11(c) CPC, to reject the plaint as proper court fee has not been paid as stipulated in the provision and the same has been paid after the period of limitation of the suit.2. The suit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of amount based on a promissory note allegedly executed by the petitioner/defendant. Pending the suit the defendant filed the I.A., stating that the suit is barred by limitation. According to him, the suit has been filed on 21.6.2005 and on the date of presentation of the plaint, the sit has been filed with insufficient stamp of Rs. 100/= only. Hence the suit was returned on the next day i.e, 22.6.2002 for payment of proper court fee by granting two weeks time for re-presentation. On 14.9.2005 the plaint was represented along with an I.A.No:983 of 2005 dated 20.9.2005 to condone the delay of 69 days in representation of t...
Tag this Judgment!Balasubbaraj Vs. R. Narayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC222; 2007(2)CTC250
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment in C.A. No. 20 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.2. A private complaint was preferred by the complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Hosur, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After taking the cognizance and after recording the sworn statement of the complainant the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken the complaint on file as C.C. No. 125 of 2000 and on appearance of the accused on summon copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., were furnished to the accused. When the offence was explained to the accused and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty. Before the trial Court P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were examined and Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 12 were marked.3. According to P.W. 1, he is having a firm by name Energy Savers Marketing in which the accused is also a partner. On 31.1.1999 he got himse...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »