Chennai Court March 2009 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.
Maninder Singh Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2492
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. The petitioner, who has been detained under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short 'COFEPOSA'), has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition, challenging the order of detention clamped on him by the first respondent.2. It is alleged that on a specific intelligence that poppy seeds (khas khas) were smuggled into India in the name of M/s. Venkateswara Impex, a proprietary firm situated at Shop No. 11, 2nd Floor, Maharani Building, No. 280/4, Anna Salai, Puducherry, the proprietor of which is Mr.Vardharam Mejlaji Dewaji, and the petitioner/detenu is the key person behind the said smuggling, the officials of the Department of Revenue Intelligence (in short 'DRI') initiated investigation and visited the said premises of M/s. Venkateswara Impex on 30.1.2008 and found it to be locked and therefore, they have sealed the said premises under a mahazar on the same day. Thereafter, the officials of the...
Venkatesan @ Poonga Venkatesan @ Kathiresan @ Vinayagamurthy @ Vijay V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2771
ORDERR. Subbiah, J.1. The petitioner is the detenu, who is detained as an 'Immoral Traffic Offender' under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).2. It is alleged that the detenu is a habitual offender under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. For clamping the order of detention, the detaining authority has relied upon four adverse cases and the ground case. It is alleged that the detenu brought girls in cars and induced innocent family men and youths to have sexual intercourse with the girls by taking them to lodges or to the brothel house run by him at Plot No. 7, 2nd Street, Ramana Nagar Extension, Madambakkam, for money. He was arrested in the ground case on 05.10.2008 and a case was registered in Crime No. 4 of 2008 by the Inspector of Police, Anti Trafficking Cell, CB CID for the offences under Sec...
Banu W/O Govindaperumal Vs. Govindaperumal S/O Sinnathambi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Mad155
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. The above Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the Orders dated 13.05.2008 passed in I.A.Nos.518 and 516 of 2008 in M.O.P. No. 123 of 2002 on the file of the Family Court, Pondicherry.2. The respondent /wife in M.O.P. No. 123 of 2002 on the file of Family Court, Pondicherry, is the revision petitioner before this Court, in both the revision petitions. She is aggrieved by the orders of the Family Court dated 13.05.2008, made in I.A. No. 518 of 2008 and I.A. No. 516 of 2008 filed by her, to summon the list mentioned witnesses for their attendance before this Court with documents sought for and to re-open the respondent's side evidence in M.O.P. respectively.3. The M.O.P. No. 123 of 2002 was filed by the respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, for a judgment and decree in favour of the respondent/husband, by dissolving the marriage dated 6.12.2000 solemnised between the parties. According to the respondent/husband, within...
Vanniaraj Vs. the State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3142
ORDERA. Selvam, J.1. Challenge in this criminal revision case is to the order dated 06.03.2007 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3571 of 2006 in Calendar Case No. 30 of 2006 by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Periyakulam.2. The respondent herein as complainant has filed a final report, wherein the present criminal revision petitioner has been shown as accused.3. It is stated in the final report that the accused has committed offences under Sections 286, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 30 of the Arms Act and the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 19.05.2002.4. The final report has been taken on file in Calendar Case No. 30 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Periyakulam.5. During the pendency of Calendar Case No. 30 of 2006, the present criminal revision petitioner as petitioner has filed the petition in question under Sections 239 read with 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein it is stated that the respondent/complainan...
L. Pushpalingam, Vs. R. Arumugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ263
G. Rajasuria, J.1. The respondent in both the second appeals, namely, Arumugam, as plaintiff, filed the original suit, initially for declaration, so as to get declared that he was entitled to 5 cents of land. But, subsequently, the plaint got amended so as to get declared that the plaintiff was entitled to an extent of 5.75 cents of land.2. The trial Court decreed the suit partly by declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to an extent of 5 cents of land in the 'A' scheduled property and also ordered injunction in respect of the entire 'A' scheduled property and dismissed the suit in respect of the rest of the prayer, which was one for recovery of possession of the 'B' scheduled property measuring an extent of 0.75 cents of land.3. Being aggrieved by the judgement of the trial court both the plaintiff and the defendants preferred appeals. The plaintiff preferred appeal A.S. No. 327 of 2005 as against the dismissal of the prayer relating to 'B' scheduled property, whereas the defendant...
thenmozhi Vs. the State Rep. by the District Magistrate and District C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ230
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Challenge is made to the order of the first respondent dated 05.08.2008 made in Cr.M.P. No. 13 of 2008 whereby the husband of the petitioner was detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (hereinafter referred as the Act), terming him as a 'Goonda' as defined under the Act.2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents and also looked into all the materials including the order under challenge and also the counter affidavit filed by the State.3. The order under challenge came to be passed on the strength of the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in a case registered in Cr. No. 424 of 2008 under Sections 295(A), 153(A), 505 IP...
Nathiya Faru Vs. Rojan Roux
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ945
ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioner is mother of one Roux Pauline who is wife of the respondent. Both of them have got three children. Their marriage was solemnized on 24.04.2000. After the marriage, both the spouses moved to France for eking out the likelihood. All the three children were born in France and their names have been entered in the Passport of the respondent and without the help and assistance of the respondent, the children could not travel out of France.2. Due to certain misunderstandings, the respondent filed M.O.P. No. 6 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court, Pondicherry for dissolution of marriage and the same is pending. Since the children are in France, their mother has necessarily to be in France itself. She could not come over to Pondicherry for every hearing of the case and hence her mother has come forward with a petition for permission to represent on behalf of her daughter Roux Pauline as Power Agent and to defend the case.3. In the counter affidabvit fi...
State Bank of India Vs. Kathikkai Tea Plantations and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Mad151
S. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioner is secured creditor with whom the properties of the respondents were mortgaged on advancing loan. Since there was significant default on the part of the respondents, the petitioner issued Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). Even then the respondents did neither come forward to discharge the loan nor make any representation as to the payment to the petitioner. Hence this petitioner moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ootacamand, by filing an application under Section 14 of the Act, praying the court to exercise its power to take possession of the assets belonging to the respondents. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ootacamand, directed to issue notice to the respondents returnable by 31.01.2009. The said order is being challenged before this Court in this revision petition.2. It is the quintessen...
Ajanta Infrastructures Ltd. Vs. Pennar Steels Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2009
Reported in: [2009]152CompCas249(Mad); (2009)5MLJ344
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This revision has been directed against the order passed in E.A. No. 10 of 2007 in E.P. No. 1 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur. E.A. No. 10 of 2007 in E.P. No. 1 of 2007 is. a petition filed under Section 47 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking indulgence of the executing court to dismiss the execution petition. The decree holder in O.S. No. 1159 of 1993 on the file of the Second Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to execute the decree in O.S. No. 1159 of 1993 had filed E.P. No. 1 of 2007 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur after getting the decree transferred. The decree was transferred for execution. The petitioner in E.A. No. 10 of 2007 in E.P. No. 1 of 2007, viz., the Auto Mobile Products of India Limited represented by its director Vaidyanathan and two others who are the defendants in O.S. No. 1159 of 1993 on the file of the Second Senior Civil Judge, City C...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chakiat Agencies (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Mad)286; [2009]314ITR200(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Revenue is on appeal against the order of the Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench dt. 30th April, 2003 made in ITA Nos. 1952, 1953, 1954/Mad/2000 and 57/Mad/2000 by formulating the following questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reassessment proceedings to deny the benefit of Section 80O was only a change of opinion ?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 80O when admittedly no amount was received in foreign exchange ?3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the benefit of Section 80O would also be available to a shipping agent ?2. The assessee was a private limited company. The relevant assessment years are 1994-95 to 1997-98. For the asst. yrs. 1994-95 and 1995-96, the assessee filed its return on 9th Nov., 1994 admitting certain income. Subsequently, a revised return h...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »