Chennai Court March 2008 Judgments

P. Maragathamani and K. Thangavelu Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)4MLJ729

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional officer, Tiruchirapalli, the first respondent herein, even dated 26.07.1999, in Pa.Mu. 11707/95 (A.4) and in Na.Ka.A4.6467/97 respectively, whereby the first respondent refused to issue the community certificates to the respective petitioners that they belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken Community, a Scheduled Tribe.2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in W.P. No. 14486 of 1999 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 14487 of 1999 will be referred to as the first petitioner and second petitioner respectively.3.1. Both the petitioners relied upon the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Musiri, dated 25.7.1972 and 4.4.1978 respectively that they belong to Hindu Kattu Naicken Community, a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners were appointed as N.M.Rs. in the second respondent/management based on the above said community certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Musiri. Howe...

Chandran Udayar Vs. Kasivel

Court: Chennai

Reported in: IV(2008)BC499

ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The civil revision petitioner/respondent/plaintiff has filed the present revision before this Court as against the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2002 passed by the learned Appellate Authority viz. Principal District Judge, Villupuram in A.S. No. 184 of 2001 in O.S. No. 82 of 1999, on the file of learned First Additional District Munsif, Thirukoilur.2. The revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No. 82 of 1999 on the file of the learned First Additional District Munsif, Thirukoilur against the respondent/appellant/defendant for a recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,610/- with interest thereto, along with costs, on the basis of execution of a Promissory Note dated 10.7.1996 by the respondent/defendant. After contest, the trial Court passed the judgment dated 18.7.2001 in favour of the revision petitioner/plaintiff.3. Aggrieved against the judgment dated 18.7.2001 passed by the learned trial Court viz. learned First Additional District Munsif, Thirukoilur,...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sanmar Consolidations Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]311ITR154(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The assessment year involved is 1980-81. The following question of law has been referred to this Court for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under Section 16 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act holding that Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Act cannot be applied on the facts of this case2. The facts of the case are : The assessee is a public limited company. Its surtax assessment for the assessment year 1980-81 for the previous year ended June 30, 1979, was completed under Section 6(2) on September 29, 1984, on a chargeable profits of Rs. 4,81,169. The Commissioner of Income-tax called for the records of the case and found that while computing the capital, the provisions of Rule 2 of the Second Schedule had not been applied by the Assessing Officer,...

P.S. Devaraj Vs. the Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corpora ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009ACJ843; 2008(2)CTC487; (2008)5MLJ189

R. Banumathi, J.1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs. 2,63,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the personal injuries sustained by the injured Claimant, Claimant has preferred C.M.A. No. 1064 of 2002, seeking for enhancement.Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC) has preferred Cross-Appeal in C.M.A. No. 2483 of 2002, seeking for reduction of the quantum of compensation.2. Brief facts, which are relevant for disposal of this Appeal are as follows:On 19.11.1998-10.30 a.m., Claimant was riding the T.V.S. Champ bearing Regn. No. TN-01-Z-2433 in G.N.T. Road. When the Claimant was nearing Erukkencherri, a bus bearing Regn. No. TCB 4848 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner came at high speed and dashed against the Claimant, as a result of which, Claimant sustained multiple fractures - comminuted fracture of right leg below knee, degloving injury in the right leg and multiple injuries all over the body. Allegin...

Lahari Recording Company Limited Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. Mus ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(3)CTC385; LC2008(2)341; 2008(37)PTC121(Mad)

M. Venugopal, J.1. This Original Side Appeal is preferred by the appellant/5th defendant as against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned single Judge on 07.03.2001 in C.S. No. 385 of 1998.2. The first respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit C.S. No. 385 of 1998 praying for a declaration that the first respondent/plaintiff is the absolute owner of limited copy right viz., the audio rights in the pictures described in Schedule A and B of the plaint for perpetual period to commence from the date mentioned against each picture and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, servants or any other person acting on their behalf from infringing the plaintiff's limited copy right.3. After contest, the learned single Judge in the suit has granted the declaratory relief that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of limited copy right viz., audio right in respect of manufacturing and marketing audio cassettes of the films mentioned in A and B Schedu...

Alagesan and 6 ors. Vs. State by the Inspector of Police

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3300

ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The revision is filed challenging the order of dismissal passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in Crl.M.P. No. 1940 of 2007 filed under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The petitioners are the accused in a case of major offence of murder. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioners filed an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon as many as five documents from the respondent.3. It is relevant to refer to the averment in the petition filed under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the counter filed by the respondent.4. The petitioners have contended in the aforesaid petition seeking to summon the case diary of the present case, case diary of the counter case, general diary of the present case, the proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure including the statement of one Geja Thomas, the copy of the accident register of the deceased Thirupathi and the case ...

Better Label Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Direct ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(228)ELT331(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. Writ Appeals Nos.2619 and 2824 of 2004 have been filed against the common order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dated 31.03.2004 in writ petitions Nos. 2890 and 2891 of 2004 by which the appellant was non suited for the prayer to call for the records relating to the order of the respondent the Commissioner of Customs, (Port) Chennai dated 28.05.1999 to have it disposed off under the Kar Vivad Samadhan scheme and for a further direction to the respondent to issue final certificate to the appellant under the said scheme.2. The learned single Judge, after referring to Section 95 of Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 has ultimately held that it is true that the word 'pending' would mean 'undecided issues' and a legal proceedings deemed to have been pending as soon as it is commenced and until it is concluded, but nevertheless the commencement of the legal proceedings would not mean the mere presenting of papers to the Registry. Even though the papers were pr...

State Vs. Raja Alias Jacob and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2728

R. Regupathi, J.1. The appellant/accused were tried by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Kancheepuram, for charges under Sections 341, 302 read with 34 and 201 read with 34 IPC. The learned trial Judge, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, acquitted them under Section 235(1) Cr. P.C. by giving benefit of doubt. As against the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.2. On 12-10-2003 at 10 P. M., the accused, suspecting the deceased to be a thief came there to commit theft of cattle, questioned him and when he did not answer properly, tied him to a tree with a sari; thereby, the first charge for wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC, had been framed.In the course of the same transaction, the first accused by kicking with folded knee and pricking with stick, caused injuries on the private part of the deceased and also dashed his head ...

K. Rengasamy and anr. Vs. Revathi and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009ACJ2463

K.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award dated 13.7.2006 in M.C.O.P. No. 1772 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Third Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirappalli in and by which a sum of Rs. 15,99,000 was awarded as compensation to the respondents, being the dependants of the deceased P. Krishnamoorthy, who died in a motor accident on 7.4.2003.2. The owner of the vehicle involved in accident as well as the insurance company are the appellants in the present appeal.3. The respondents herein preferred a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 1772 of 2003 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Third Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirappalli claiming a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 on account of the untimely death of their sole breadwinner in an accident on 7.4.2003 involving the vehicle owned by the appellant No. 1 and insured by the appellant No. 2.4. It is the case of the respondents as petitioners in M.C.O.P. No. 177...

M/S. Caronet Constructions (India) Private Ltd, Rep. by Its Manager Mr ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH J. The complainant in COP No.404/2003 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) is the appellant herein. Their case was as follows: - The complainant joined in five chits conducted by the opposite parties and paid Rs.1,11,000/- and when they demanded the amount the opposite parties failed to pay the same necessitating the filing of the complaint. 2. The defence set up was as follows: - The person Mr.Varadharaja-swamy who claimed to be the Manager of the complainant company had no authority to file the complaint. He was a surety of the prized chits towards payment of future instalments. The complainant had received the money under both the prized and non-prized chits and no amount was due to the complainant. The amount claimed in respect of the non-prized chits were adjusted towards payment of future instalments of prized chits and hence no amount was payable. Apart from the above, the question of payment in respect prized chits and non-...