Chennai Court March 2008 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.
Embassy Hotels (P) Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Director Mr. Abdul ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2008
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ1219
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This revision has been directed against the order passed in E.A. No. 1075 of 2007 in E.P. No. 1 of 2007 in O.S. No 1538 of 1980 on the file of the Court of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The said application was filed Under Order 21 Rule 26 r/w Section 151 CPC to stay the execution of the decree passed in a suit for specific performance of contract. The learned Executing Court had dismissed E.A. No. 1075 of 2007 on the ground that the applicant had already moved the Honourable Apex Court in second appeal for grant of stay in which the Honourable Apex Court have passed a conditional order directing the applicant in E.A. No. 1075 of 2007/Judgment debtor/11th defendant in O.S. No. 1538 of 1980 to deposit a sum of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs every month from 3.9.2004 and to continue his possession over the petition schedule property in E.P. No. 1 of 2007 which is the subject matter in O.S. No. 1538 of 1980. But the revision petitioner/applicant in E.A...
The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare Vs. D. Sakthivel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2008
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ1415
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Erode filed the above appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and decree dated 14.2.1999 made in L.A.O.P. No. 32 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Erode.2. An extent of dry land measuring 1.03.5 hectares equivalent to 2.56 acres in S. No. 149/3B in Sivagiri village, Erode District has been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, l894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the public purpose of making provision of house sites to Adi Dravidars of Thalayanallur H/O. Sivagirji village. The Section 4(1) notification was published on 16.9.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer/appellant herein passed an award in Award No. 4 of 1993 on 30.3.1993. In the said award, the value of the land was determined to Rs. 2,84,160/- at the rate of Rs. 1,11,000/- per acre. In addition to that, the 30 percent solatium in a sum of Rs. 85,248/- and 12 p...
D. Ramachandran Vs. the Sub Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ123
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Appeal suits in A.S. Nos. 150 and 704 of 1997 are preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1996 made in L.A.O.P. No. 6 of 1987 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Coimbatore. A.S. No. 150 of 1997 is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. A.S. No. 704 of 1997 is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer representing the Government disputing that the compensation fixed by the reference Court as very high.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:The Land Acquisition Officer- Sub-Collector Coimbatore acquired an extent of 6.67 acres of land in S. Nos. 522, 523 and 55 of Sowripalayam village of Coimbatore District from the claimant for the purpose of erection of 110 KV sub station under urgency provision. Notification under Section 4(1), declaration under Section 6 and direction under Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have been published in the Government Gazette da...
Avm Studio Represented by Its Partner, M. Saravanan Vs. the Union of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Mad)267; [2008]13STJ305(Madras); 2008[10]STR353; (2008)13VST201(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The appellant filed two writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 35940 and 95941 of 2007 challenging the show cause notice in reference No. 209/07 dated 18.10.2007 issued by the third respondent - Additional Commissioner of Central Excise and the circular in F. No. B-II/I/2000-TRU dated 9.7.2001 issued by the second respondent - Central Board of Excise and Customs, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.2. The show cause notice proceeded that on the basis of certain intelligence that the appellant studio is not paying service tax the studio was visited by the officer of SIV Cell of the Commissionerate of Income Tax on 31.7.2007. The appellant was issued with a letter dated 30.7.2007 directing them to furnish details of the charges collected from their clients and also the details of service tax paid, if any, by them.3. The appellant filed a reply dated 17.8.2007 denying that they are involved in any video production and they are not video prod...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Murugan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2411
G. Rajasuria, J.1. C.M.A. Nos. 1093 to 1095 of 2005 have been filed as against the common judgment and decrees dated 16.9.2004 passed in M.C.O.P. Nos. 403, 404 and 1192 of 2000, by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-First Additional District Judge, Madurai.2. All these appeals have been taken for discussion and disposal as they emerged relating to one and the same accident.3. The challenge in these appeals are relating to the quantum of negligence fixed exclusively on the driver of the van, leaving the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus, even though it is an accident involving head-on collision between two vehicles in a broad road and that too, in broad daylight.4. The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the driver of the van as exclusively responsible for the accident?5. Heard both sides.6. The learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company being the insurer of offending van, would develop his argument by drawing the attent...
P. Ramaraj Vs. the Registrar General, High Court of Madras and the Gov ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ275
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner, who was in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service as Civil Judge (Jr. Division), having compulsorily retired under Fundamental Rules 56(2) (hereinafter referred to as 'FR' for short) has challenged the order contained in G.O. 2 (D) No. 457 dated 13th July, 2007, issued from Home (Cts. IA) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu.2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Judicial Magistrate on 2nd March, 1998 and was discharging his judicial duties to the best of his ability with due diligence and care to the satisfaction of his superiors. While he was functioning as Judicial Magistrate at Thiruthuraipoondi, the Vedaranyam Police Station filed charge sheet against one Mr. Rajagopal and others under Section 302 IPC. On a perusal of the case papers as he found that no murder had taken place, he returned the charge sheet making query as to how Section 302 IPC was invoked in that case in absence of murder. It is alleged that on the same day,...
The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Apollo Hospitals Enterpri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CTC1; (2008)215CTR(Mad)460; [2008]300ITR167(Mad); (2008)4MLJ222
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 4991 of 2006 dated 8.6.2006.2. The respondent herein is running hospitals in different parts of the country and by an order of amalgamation dated 18.4.2000, a Scheme was approved to amalgamate M/s. Deccan Hospital Corporation Limited (in short 'DHCL'), running a Hospital at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad with the respondent and consequent to the amalgamation, the said hospital vested with the respondent. As on 31.3.1999, the said DHCL had an unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 11,60,29,077/-, which vested with the respondent under the Scheme of Amalgamation. For the assessment year 2000-2001, the respondent submitted returns and claimed the benefit of Section 72A of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to have the said unabsorbed depreciation of DHCL as the depreciation of the respondent. By letter in G.I. No. AX1-015/2000-01, dated 7.3.2003, certain ...
Niranjan Reddy Vs. Mrs. Nukalapathy Sururlatha,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ1363
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This second appeal has been directed against the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 363 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Judge, (FTC-II), Chennai, which had arisen out of the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 12671 of 1996.2. The short facts of the plaint sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:While the plaintiff was minor at the age of about two years he lost his father. The plaintiff's mother is the first defendant. Both the father of the plaintiff viz., Eswara Reddy and his mother Suhurlatha/first defendant were living at Madras till the death of the plaintiff's father Eswara Reddy and even thereafter, the first defendant continued to reside at Madras. The plaint schedule property Item No. 1 belongs to the plaintiff under sale deed dated 10.04.1970, purchased out of the funds of the plaintiff while he was minor. Plaint schedule Item No. 2 property devolved on the plaintiff by succession after the death of his father. Even though Item No...
S.S. Ramaswamy Vs. the Special Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Cons ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ662
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition wherein the appellant sought for quashing the proceedings of the Respondents dated 22.8.1994, 19.10.1992 and 18.3.1991 and for a direction to hold the appellant as a retailer falling within the meaning of G.O. Ms. S. No. 202, Food and Co-operation Department dated 23.3.1982.2. The appellant and his wife are registration certificate holders under the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order 1973. Pursuant to the policy of the Government issued in G.O. Ms. No. 202 Food and Co-operation Department dated 23.3.1982, the State Government directed that the wholesalers in the district shall henceforth supply the kerosene only to the following categories of retailers:(a) Retailers operating under the public distribution system i.e. the fair price shops run by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and Co-operatives;(b) the private retailers holding kerosene ...
M. Arularasan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary, Indus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ906
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. (i) The writ petitioner has purchased 0.40 cents of land in Survey No. 35/4 in Keelpathi Village, Kammapuram Union, Cuddalore District in the year 2002 and according to him after purchase he has constructed a house measuring an extent of 300 sq. ft., in the same year after obtaining permission from the Village Panchayat. He has also got electricity service connection and living in the building from 2002 with his family.(ii) The second respondent by invoking powers under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 (Act 10/99) sought the petitioner's reply for the proposed acquisition of the abovesaid property. It is admitted that the petitioner has consented for acquisition, however, on the basis that there will be a rehabilitation and resettlement along with the compensation.(iii) According to the petitioner, the second respondent has recorded the same and promised to provide suitable rehabilitation. Thereafter, a notificati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »