Chennai Court August 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.R.M. Nizmathuallah Vs. Vaduganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ880
ORDERT. Sudanthiram, J.1. The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings pending against him in C.C. No. 28 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that to attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheque in question must have been issued for the legally enforceable debt or other liability. The case of the complainant itself is that the amount was borrowed by the accused in the year 1997 and the date of the cheque is 20-11-2003 and as such, the cheque in this case is not issued for the legally enforceable debt. The debt was time-barred. Therefore, the entire prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable.3. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that though the debt was barred by limitation, by iss...
Punniakoti Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ97
R. Regupathi, J.1. The appellant/sole accused in the case was tried in S.C. No. 132 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Chengleput for the offences under Sections 366 and 376(i) IPC and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and 10 years respectively and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, for each offence, by judgment dated 28-1-2003. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused.2. The charges levelled against the accused are that on 25-2-1997 at about 10.00 a.m. he has induced one Vimala Mary the victim girl aged about 12 years, who is a mentally retarded and taken her to his residence, saying that the dog of the victim girl is with him, and thereafter, he bolted the doors from inside and committed rape upon her.3. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 13 and marked Exhibits P...
C. Manickam Chetty Son Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2007
Reported in: (2007)10VST713(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner sought a certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the respondent dated June 6, 2007.The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and an assessee on the file of the respondent and reported Rs. 12,96,478.98 being closing stock value and a consequent input tax credit amount of Rs. 1,60,709.76 reported to the respondent for availing input credit. The respondent granted credit only to the tune of Rs. 72,646 as eligible amount of input tax credit and for the rest of the amount declined to grant input tax credit for the inter-State purchase value of Rs. 6,56,581.42. 2.2. The petitioner received the pre-assessment notice dated April 11, 2007 and by reply dated May 30, 2007, objected to the proposal for disallowance of the facility for the balance amount of Rs. 88,063.76 on the ground that the entire closing stock value of Rs. 12,96,478.98 had been tax-suffered goods under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1...
A. Subramani Vs. the Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC386; [2007(115)FLR1117]; (2008)IILLJ86Mad; (2007)6MLJ225
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. Admit. Learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent Corporation waives service. By consent, the appeal is taken up for hearing.2. The appellant was working as a Conductor in the first respondent- Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. On 15.9.1996, when the appellant was on duty on the route from Mettupalayam to Coimbatore, he fell down from the running bus and received grievous injury on his head. The appellant was in coma for a period of 45 days and he had to undergo medical treatment for nearly four months. The appellant thereafter joined the service and he was referred to the Medical Board at Udhagamandalam Government Hospital, which opined that he is unfit to take up the work involving prolonged standing or walking. Consequently, the first respondent Corporation issued a notice to the appellant that he has become disabled and, therefore, he should be discharged from the post of Conductor and accordingly discharged him from service on 29.9.1998. The appella...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-ii Vs. Sree Janardhan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2007
Reported in: [2009]311ITR439(Mad); (2007)5MLJ1343
D. Murugesan, J.1. The above Tax Case Appeal raises the following substantial question of law:Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that Circular No. 683 dated 8.5.1994 is prospective only not to affect assessment pending in appeal2. The respondent-mill filed its return of income on 26.12.91 admitting a loss of Rs. 8,37,24,609/- for the assessment year 1991-92. A notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'I.T. Act') was issued to the assessee and in response to the same, the assessee has stated that the mill had remained closed since August, 1983 to 21.8.90, as it became sick. It went before BIFR and had ultimately restarted its operation with effect from 22.8.90 in pursuance to the order of AAIFR dated 13.6.90. Hence for the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee quantified the total loss as shown above which included the depreciation claimed for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1990-91 amounting to Rs. 1,15,96,862/- and carry forward loss from the assessme...
Thanga Durai Vs. State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4377
ORDERT. Sudanthiram, J.1. The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings pending against him in Sessions Case No. 318 of 2003 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Periyakulam.2. The respondent-police filed a case against the petitioner and another person for an offence under Section 306, I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused by name Sudha, the wife of the deceased by name Kalyani and Kalyanasundaram, had illicit intimacy with the 2nd accused/the petitioner herein, who is the Postmaster. The illicit intimacy had come to the knowledge of the deceased and the first accused had gone to her parental home. On 24-6-2002, the deceased went to the house of the first accused and called hen to his house. A-1 had told the deceased that he was not capable of running a family and no 'Thaali' was necessary and she further told him that he had spread a wrong news about her and defamed her. She further told that she was not prepared to live with him and only if he ...
P. Snehlatha Vs. Victory Leathers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC636
ORDERR. Regupathi, J.1. Petitioner herein is the first accused in C.C. No. 777 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Erode, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'Act')- Second accused is the husband of the petitioner/first accused.2. At the foremost, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the notice issued to the petitioner subsequent to dishonour of the cheque dated 15.12.2004, she has been wrongly described as the Proprietor of the firm Techno Associates, consequently, a reply has been sent, clarifying the fact that the petitioner is a sleeping (sic) partner and that only her husband viz., second accused, is the Managing Partner of the firm, however, in spite of such clarification by way of reply to the notice, it has been stated in para No. 2 of the complaint that the petitioner is the Managing Partner of the firm. It is stated that the petitioner being the wife of the 2nd accused, never actively participated in...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K. Balasubramanian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2553
P.R. Shivakumar, J.1. By consent of parties, dispensing with notice to the other respondents, who do not have any interest in the outcome of the appeal and who remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the main civil miscellaneous appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.2. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge), Nagercoil dated 20.2.2006, made in M.C.O.P. No. 100 of 2003, by which the driver, owner and the insurer of the alleged offending vehicle involved in the accident have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 21,15,000 as compensation for the injuries sustained by the injured person, namely, the respondent-herein/claimant in the above said M.C.O.P. together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the above said amount from the date of filing of the M.C.O.P. till realisation and cost.3. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein preferred the claim petition M.C.O.P. No. 100 of 2003 on...
Ramco Super Leathers Ltd. Rep. by Its Director, Mr. S. Ramaswamy and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC102
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In both these cases as common order dated 9th April, 2007, passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal - II (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT'), Chennai, in S.A. Application No. 158/07 is under challenge, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The first petitioner of W.P. No. 21096/07, M/s. Ramco Super Leathers Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as 'Company'), is the borrower, who had taken loan from the first respondent, UCO Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank'), who is the petitioner of connected CRP No. 1184/07. Petitioners 2 to 5 of W.P. No. 21096/07 are the guarantors before the bank for loans given in favour of the first petitioner-company. The account of the company with the bank was classified as non-performing asset. Therefore, after notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (h...
C. Somasundaram Vs. the District Forest Officer, Coimbatore Division a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1819
ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions, the main ground of attack is that the orders of transfer have been made in clear violation of the instructions of the Government. More particularly, the case of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions is that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of the transfer policy enunciated in the Government letter dated 5.8.1998 and G.O.Ms. No. 10 P. & A.R. Department dated 7.1.1994. Further, the petitioners have expressed their personal grievances like their wards are studying in school, mother is suffering from Asthma, etc. The petitioner in one of the writ petitions has stated that he is suffering from ailment, etc. Thus, the case of the petitioners is that on the footing of the above referred personal grievances, the orders of transfers have to be set aside.2. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Forest) appearing for the respondents contended that the orders of transfer have been passed on administrative grounds in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »