Chennai Court July 2008 Judgments
S. Dilli and ors. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2008
Reported in: (2009)19VST393(Mad)
ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. Though the miscellaneous petition is listed today, by consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioners are admittedly joint purchasers of the property in a court auction sale conducted by Debts Recovery Tribunal on December 10, 2003. The property is comprised in S. No. 649 measuring 3.2 acres at Pallikka-ranai Village, Saidapet Taluk. The first respondent by his proceedings in R. C. No. 3176/04/A3 dated August 14, 2007 has requested the second respondent to enter an encumbrance in respect of this property in the records. Seeking to quash the said order, the petitioners have come forward with this writ petition.3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent.4. Admittedly, the property in question was originally owned by a company known as Arrow Pack (P) Ltd. A sum of Rs. 1.45 crore...
Tag this Judgment!P. Murugesan Vs. Director of Income Tax (investigation) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2008
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Mad)619
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. By consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.2. Prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release/return the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000 (rupees one crore) seized from the petitioner on 25-11-2006 and Rs. 4,00,000 (rupees four lakhs) seized on 28-11-2006.3. The case of the petitioner is that the chairman of Sri Ponnaiah Ramajeyathammal Educational and Charitable Trust, which is running 14 educational institutions in Thanjavur and Trichy District, went to New Delhi on 23-11-2006 with liquid cash, for the purpose of purchasing a flat at East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, with a view to have an office-cum-guest house at New Delhi. He contacted one Sri Ganesh Estate, New Delhi, and the said purchase deal having not materialised, he returned to Chennai on 25-11-2006. On arrival at the domestic airport at Chennai, at about 11.00 p.m. on 25-11-2006, the officials attached to the Income Tax Dep...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Catter Pillar India Private Ltd. Vs. the Presiding O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: (2008)6MLJ809
ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. Though the miscellaneous petitions are listed today, by consent of both sides, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.2. The second respondent in all these writ petitions was a workman in M/s. Hindustan Motors Limited (Earth Moving Equipments Division), Chennai Car Plant, Thiruvallore (in short M/s. Hindustan Motors Limited). On 23.07.1999, a charge sheet was issued to the second respondent by M/s. Hindustan Motors Limited in respect of alleged misconduct committed by him. The second respondent has submitted his reply on 07.08.1999 denying all the charges. An enquiry was ordered into the said charges. Before the Enquiry Officer, as many as five witnesses were examined on the side of the Management and the second respondent was examined on his side. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 29.09.1999 thereby holding that the charges stood proved. On 01.10.1999, the second respondent was furnished with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer and...
Tag this Judgment!T.G. Gopalakrishnan Vs. G. Rajammal Alias Mani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Mad267
G. Rajasuria, J.1. Niggard and bereft of details, the quintessence of the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint would run thus:On 29.4.1964, as per the Hindu rites and customs at West of Panayil Asaramam Quilon-2, the plaintiff and the defendant got married. During the wedlock, they gave birth to two daughters and one son. For about 16 years, the couple lived together peacefully. Later, the defendant developed illicit intimacy with the plaintiff's younger sister, Rajalakshmi alias Rahini and the defendant eloped with her on 30.3.1981 and later he married her on 30.3.1981 under the Special Marriage Act in the Office of the Sub-Registrar at Varkala in Kerala State. Gomathi, the mother of the plaintiff filed W.P.3188 of 1981 as against the defendant in the Madras High Court for issuance of Habeas Corpus for securing the presence of the said Rajalakshmi alias Rahini before the Court. However, the defendant managed to make Rajalakshmi alias Rahini to state before the High...
Tag this Judgment!T. Shyla and Etc. Etc. Vs. Secretary to Govt. Collegiate Education and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Mad266
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Heard counsel for the parties. These appeals have been filed against a common order dated 24.4:2008 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing all the nine writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 41881 to 41889 of 2006.2. These writ appeals have been filed against the dismissal of nine writ petitions which involved a common question. The common question involved in these appeals is whether the appellants/writ petitioners can be allowed in B.Ed. Course having regard to the qualification prescribed by the State Government. Admittedly, the appellants before us, had not secured 45% marks in. Under Graduate Degree. Some of them have obtained Post Graduate Degree. But the requirement of 45% marks in the Under Graduate Degree is a mandatory requirement under the qualification prescribed by the State Government. The qualification prescribed by the State Government is as follows:(i) The candidates should have passed the UG Degree examination in the 10+2+3 stream, with the same main...
Tag this Judgment!N. Padmini Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Chennai Range and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4781
D. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu by name M. Nityanandam. The said Nityanandam was convicted for the offence under Section 8(C) read with Sections 22 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act by the judgment dated 31-8-1999 passed by the Special Judge, Addl. Special Court under N.D.P.S. Act in C.C. No. 159 of 1998 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1.50 lakhs. The said judgment was taken on appeal before this Court in C.A. No. 734 of 1999 and by judgment dated 6-6-2002, the conviction was confirmed and the sentence was modified to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and the fine amount was also reduced to Rs. 1 lakh. By virtue of the said order, the detenu is liable to undergo the sentence for a period of 10 years. He was taken into custody on 17-5-1998 and by virtue of the conviction and sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment, his period of detention should be over on 16-5-2008. The detenu has also paid ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. K.P.S. Jayachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4501
ORDERT. Sudanthiram, J.1. The revision petitioner herein filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Erode, against five accused in which the respondent herein is the fifth accused, for offences under Sections 364, 302 r/w 34, 201, 203, 218, 465 and 471 IPC. The 5th accused /respondent herein filed a petition under Section 218 and 223(d) Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P. No. 415 of 2006 praying for discharge and the said petition was allowed on 28.04.2006 and subsequently the case was ordered to be committed to the Sessions in respect of only the accused 1 to 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate for not committing the 5th accused along with the other accused to the Sessions Court, this revision petition has been preferred.2. The final report was filed against accused 1 to 3 for the alleged offences under Sections 364 and 302 r/w 34 and 201 IPC and against the 4th accused for the alleged offence under Section 203 IPC and against the 5th a...
Tag this Judgment!P. Govindan Vs. the State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4263
P.R. Shivakumar, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupurarn (Lower Appellate Judge) dated 16.12.2005 made in C.A. No. 39/2005 confirming the conviction recorded and sentence passed by the trial Court (Chief Judicial Magistrate/Assistant Sessions Judge, Villupuram) for an offence punishable under Section 417 IPC in S.C. No. 64/2003.2. The petitioner herein was prosecuted before the trial Court (Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Assistant Sessions Judge), Villupuram for alleged offences punishable under Sections 366, 417 and 376 IPC. After trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Villupuram acquitted the petitioner herein/accused in respect of the third charge, namely the charge for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. However, the trial Judge held him guilty of the other two offences (offences punishable under Section 366 IPC and 417 IPC) and sentenced him as follows:i) for the offence under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Laxmi Cotton Traders Ltd. Vs. Sree Sanku Chakara Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: [2008]144CompCas442(Mad)
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This appeal is brought forth by the appellant namely the petitioner in C.P. No. 425 of 2000, whereby the appellant/petitioner sought the winding up of the respondent company under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act for the reasons stated therein.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant is heard. Despite the paper publication effected, the respondent has not appeared.3. The appellant sought the winding up with the short allegations that there were supply of cotton made by the petitioner's factory to the respondent company; that the outstanding amount on that account as on 31.3.1998, was to the tune of Rs. 10,24,252.80; that despite number of letters making the demand, and requests made, and in particular, a letter dated 17.11.1997, though served upon the respondent, they have not made the payment as per the demand; that further, the appellant came to know that amounts exceeding Rs. 25 lakhs were to be realized from others; that there was a promise by the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Farouk Irani and anr. Vs. Registrar of Companies and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: [2008]144CompCas342(Mad); [2009]89SCL224(Mad)
M. Chockalingam, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is to the order of dismissal of C.P. No. 265 of 2001 (Farouk Irani v. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction [2002] 110 Comp Cas 64 (Mad)), by the learned single judge, whereby the petitioners' request to exercise the discretion of the court under Section 633(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rule 11(a)(23) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, to relieve the petitioners from criminal prosecution pursuant to the show-cause notice issued by the first respondent in No. 6423/CI/209A/628/2001 dated July 27, 2001, was denied.2. The facts, which led the petitioners/appellants to file the said appeal were that the first petitioner is the managing director of M/s. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. and the second petitioner is formerly the company secretary of the said company between October 4, 1994 and November 15, 2001. The books of account and registers of the said company were made under Section 209A of the Companies Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »