Chennai Court March 2008 Judgments
Krishnammal Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2845
ORDERA. Selvam, J.1. The order dated 17-8-2007 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 269 of 2007 in Sessions Case No. 223 of 2006 by the Additional Sessions cum Fast Track Court No. I, Tuticorin, is now under challenge.2. The wife of the deceased by name Krishnammal has filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 269 of 2007, praying to frame additional charges under Sections 302, read with 34, 120(b), 201, 217, 218, 220, 331, 342, 348 and 367 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court below has come to the conclusion to the effect that framing of additional charge does not arise at this stage. Against the order passed by the Court be low, the present criminal revision case has been filed.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has repeatedly contended that all the accused have committed offences under Sections 302, read with 34, 120(b), 201, 217, 218, 220, 331, 342, 348 and 367 of the Indian Penal Code, but, the Court below has framed a charge simpliciter under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaravalli Ammal Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
Reported in: [2008(4)JCR394(Mad)]
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The Division Bench in its Order of Reference dated 19.9.2007 has passed the following Order.-Therefore we consider it a fit case to be referred to the Larger Bench. Hence, the Registry is directed to place the papers before The Honourable Chief Justice to refer the matter to a Larger Bench to consider the above issue.2. The issue relates to the question whether the decision of the Full Bench in R. Pari v. Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District and Anr. : (2007)2MLJ706 , conflicts with the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. Ananthi Ammal and Ors. : AIR1995SC2114 and Abdul Hussain v. State of Gujarat : [1968]1SCR597 , as well as the decision in Kalumiya Karimmiya v. The State of Gujarat and Ors. : [1977]2SCR606 . In the opinion of the Division Bench, neither Section 5-A nor any other provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 contempl...
Tag this Judgment!Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A. Mary Imelda Jayase ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2865
G. Rajasuria, J.1. This appeal is focused as against the judgment and decree dated 21.6.2007 passed in M.A.C.O.P. No. 2033 of 2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Court, Fast Track Court-II, Madurai.2. The challenge in this civil miscellaneous appeal is relating to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 21.6.2007, to the tune of Rs. 13,92,320 (rupees thirteen lakh ninety-two thousand three hundred and twenty) on the following sub-heads:(i) For loss of income Rs. 13,04,320(ii) For loss of consortiumfor P1 Rs. 15,000(iii) For loss of loveand affection forP2 and P3 Rs. 20,000(iv) For loss of loveand affection for P1 Rs. 15,000(v) For loss of loveand affection forP4 and P5 Rs. 10,000(vi) For loss to estate Rs. 25,000(vii) For funeral expenses Rs. 3,000-------------Total Rs. 13,92,320-------------3. Challenge in this appeal is relating to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the main ground that the Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D. Raja Alias Ilayaraja and Ilayaraja M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
Reported in: [2009]313ITR124(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarathana Raja, J.1. These tax case appeals are filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the common order dated April 27, 2007, made in I.T.A. Nos. 1937, 1938/Mds/2000, I.T.A. Nos. 252, 1658 to 1661/Mds/2002. The relevant assessment years are 1992-93 to 1998-99. The abovesaid order is put in issue in these appeals by formulating the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80HHC could be allowed in respect of export of prerecorded audio and video cassettes together with the right of exploitation?2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right treating the export of pre-recorded audio and video cassettes together with the right of exploitation, as a sale of goods or merchandise eligible for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC?2. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Department ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Goundathal, Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary, H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ1339
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petitioners challenge the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) (in short, 'the Act') in G.O. Ms. No. 670, Housing and Urban Development Department (LA 2), dated 31.7.1995 and also the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act in G.O. Ms. No. 422, Housing and Urban Development Department (LA 3-2) dated 26.9.1996 in respect of their lands measuring 0.90.5 hectares in S.F. No. 15/2 situate in 19, Vellakinar village, Coimbatore North taluk, Coimbatore District.2. According to the petitioners, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 31.7.1995 on the basis that the properties were required for public purpose of formation of Thudiyalur Neighbourhood Scheme. It was published in the Government Gazette on 13.9.1995. Thereafter, Section 6 declaration was issued and published on 27.9.1996. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board is the requisitioning body for the Scheme. The names of the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Balaji Distilleries Ltd. Vs. the Secretary to Government, State of Tam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)17VST59(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent, in his impugned proceedings bearing reference in communication No. RC. 196/04/A2, dated April 10, 2007, as being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the proceedings of the fourth respondent to seek taking of any coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of any tax arrears for the period up to March 31, 2007 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, including by issuance of form B6 notice or by attaching properties or monies directly or otherwise through the third respondent till the sanction by the fourth respondent of the scheme of rehabilitation under SIC (SP) Act, 1985 and receive payments and enforce payments in respect of taxes strictly in accordance with the final orders to be passed by the fourth respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S and S Power Switchgear Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Mad)701; [2009]138ITR187(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeal is filed against the order of the Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, dt. 2nd Feb., 2007 made in ITA No. 1964/Mad/2003 for the asst. yr. 2000-01.2. The facts of the case culminating in filing of the above appeal culled out from the statement of facts contained in memorandum of appeal go as follows:For the asst. yr. 2000-01, the assessee had set off prior years business loss and unabsorbed depreciation against short-term capital gains. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee and directed the AO to set off the claim. The Revenue filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal following the decision of the Delhi Special Bench in the case of Uttam Air Products (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee.3. The correctness of the said order is canvassed by the Revenue by filing the present appeal by formulating the following question of law:Whether,...
Tag this Judgment!Chitrahar Traders Rep. by Its Partner, R. Krishnamurthi and Neyveli Li ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)14VST439(Mad)
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of Mr. C. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. N. Inbarajan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Haja Naziruddin, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) representing the respondents and have perused the records.2. M/s Chitrahar Traders, the petitioners in W.P. No. 15072 of 2007, seek to set aside the order dated 16.4.2007 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes wherein and by which, they were informed that their purchase of Plant and Machineries of Briquetting and Carbonisation [for short, 'B&C;] from M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited [for short, 'NLC'] in an auction sale on 'as-is-where- is basis' and 'no complaint basis' was taxable at 12% under entry 20 of Part - D of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Act, 1959 [for short, 'TNGST Act'] 1959 together with a Surcharge at 5% on Tax and for a direction to the Commercial Tax Officer to restore the sales tax recovered over and above 4% pu...
Tag this Judgment!D. Mahadevan Vs. the Director General of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ88
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on 1.12.2003. He applied for appointment as Sub Inspector of Police when the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board notified the vacancies. The petitioner had come out successfully in the physical efficiency test, written test and viva voce test. He had secured 75% marks and therefore, according to him, he was fully qualified to be appointed as Sub Inspector of Police. However, he was involved in Crime No. 118 of 1999 and the question in this writ petition is, whether this will affect his appointment.2. The relevant facts to be noted are as follows:On 14.4.1999, the Sub Inspector of Police, Wallajahbad registered Crime No. 118 of 1999 against the petitioner and two others under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge sheet was filed and the case was taken up for trial in C.C. No. 263 of 1999. After a detailed trial, on 27.10.2003, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepura...
Tag this Judgment!Thambaiya Naidu Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Collector of Sout ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ41
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.08.1994 made in A.S. No. 170 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.01.1993 made in O.S. No. 475 of 1991 passed by the Principal District Munsif of Cuddalore, the plaintiff has come up before this Court with the present appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff, Thambaiya Naidu as put forth before the Trial Court is as follows:The suit property described in the plaint is situated in Nethaji Road, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore-1 and it is classified as Poramboke land, which is marked as ABCD in the plan appended to the plaint. The suit property is on the southern side of T.S. No. 1687/3, which belongs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is running a provision shop therein. The suit property belongs to defendants 2 and 3. It was used as a lane to go into Anna Market. While so, for the last two years, the fourth defendant has encroached upon the suit property, put up a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »