Chennai Court June 2009 Judgments

Ambujam Vs. Ayyasamy and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ3872

ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. The relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 Cr. P.C. for the offence under Section 498A IPC as against all the accused and as against A1 Under Section 506(ii) IPC. Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted. During trial on the prosecution side, P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 were marked. On the side of the accused no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. Ultimately the trial Court acquitted the accused.2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:Even though on the prosecution side the witnesses deposed in support of the prosecution case without valid reasons, the lower Court simply acquitted the accused as if the case was not proved by the prosecution. The lower Court was not ju...

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ1032

M. Venugopal, J.1. The appellants/D1 to D4 have filed this appeal as against the Judgment and decree dated 6.6.2001 made in O.S. No. 39/93 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.2. The germane facts of the case are set out below:The property mentioned in the plaint schedule is a Samathi Private Mutt and Institution and the first plaintiff is the Managing the same and maintaining the Samathi in her own rights as per the wishes of the founder. The founder of the Mutt and Institution is one Batcha Reddiar. The first plaintiff is the wife of Batcha Reddiar. For the said Batcha Reddiar and for the first plaintiff, they have no issues. Since the said Batcha Reddiar has no issues, he decided to erect a Samathi in the plaint mentioned property. Accordingly, he purchased an extent of 0.27 cents in S. No. 51/7 from one Kanoovu Ammal on 26.3.1921 for a valuable consideration as per sale deed. Since he wanted to have a permanent Samathi to be remembered and worshipped b...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Turbo Energy Ltd. and Othe ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

All these appeals involve a common issue and hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents had engaged the services of transport operators. Notices were issued to them by the Central Excise authorities proposing imposition of penalty for contravention of the provisions of Section 76 and 81 of the Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 and as to why interest should not be recovered for delayed payment of service tax. The notices were adjudicated by confirming the demand of service tax payable for services used in the case of goods transport operators, together with interest and imposition of penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order by a common Order-in-Appeal ; hence these appeals by the Revenue. 3. On hearing both sides, we find that the issue in dispute stands settled by the apex courts decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara Vs Gujarat Carbon and Industries Ltd., 2008 (12) S.T.R...

Raymond Menezes Vs. Sengunthar Kaikolar Mahajana Sangam by Its Preside ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4196

ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The revision is directed against the order passed by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai discharging the accused from the criminal proceedings invoking the provision under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner/complainant has alleged in the complaint as follows:The father of the complainant Mr. Nazario Menezes purchased the subject property from K.M. Lakshmanan under a deed of sale dated 11.4.1961. The said Nazario Menezes died on 11.3.1968 leaving behind nine legal representatives including the complainant and his mother, but, his mother died on 31.1.1995. A partition suit was filed in O.S. No. 1786 of 2003 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The complainant's undivided 1/8 share in the said property was decreed in the judgment and decree dated 30.7.2003 passed in the aforesaid case. The respondent/accused is a Society formed only in the year 2000. It is contended by the accused...

Samikannu (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Indira Gandhi

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ832

M. Duraiswamy, J.1. The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1999 made in A.S. No. 58 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, modifying the Judgment and Decree dated 12.07.1999 made in O.S. No. 50 of 1994 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Sirkali, In fact the above second appeal has been filed only against the finding which went against the appellants.2. In the above second appeal, the defendants in the suit are the appellants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.3. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S. No. 50 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali for permanent injunction.4. The brief case of the Plaintiff is as follows:(i) The plaintiff is the daughter of 1st Defendant through his second wife Vasantha. The plaintiff instituted the suit stating that the first item of the suit property was settled by the 1st defendant in favour of her mother in Ex.A1 and she has been in p...

Sarathamani Vs. R.C. Chenniappan

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ834

S. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioner is defendant in O.S. No. 221 of 2007 on the file of the Sub-Court, Erode. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit properties and also for recovery of possession from the defendant. He filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 of C.P.C. for amending the plaint. 2. In the affidavit he has stated that he has clearly mentioned in the plaint pleadings that along with one Raju he purchased property jointly and divided the same into two. Thereafter, he constructed building in the land allotted to his share, which is the suit property herein. Now he came to know that in the description of the property, the entire land purchased jointly has been mentioned, which is incorrect. It is a clerical mistake and as stated in the plaint pleadings western side property possessed by him while eastern side property belongs to Raju and the amendment may be allowed.3. In the counter filed by th...

Mr. K. Umasankar Vs. Mrs. Suryakala

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)6MLJ351

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The appellant is the husband whose petition for divorce was dismissed by the Family Court. The facts in brief:The parties were married on 03-08-1995. It was an arranged marriage. It was understood that the husband was living in a joint family. The wife was a single child and both parties understood that she would cope up with the requirements of living in a joint family. No pecuniary demands were made by the husband's side on the wife's parents. The parents of the husband assured the wife and her parents that she would live just as she lived with here parents. His hope for a happy married life were shattered when even on the first night she suggested that they should live independently since she would not be able to cope in a joint family. From that date, the respondent's wife adopted various tactics to pressurise the appellant's husband to set up a house separately. The respondent was working in Shriram Chits Company. She was asked to resign her job, but she did ...

Cosmo Towers Owners' Association rep. by Its Secretary M. Prasada Rao ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ491

ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the water and sewerage connections to the flat building known as 'Cosmo Towers' at premises No. 11/11A, New No. 22, Dr. Thomas Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-17 under the pretext of non-payment of arrears of water and sewerage tax and water charges payable by the third and 4th respondents in respect of their respective flats.2. The case of the petitioner Association is that the members of the petitioner Association had purchased various flats in the residential flat building known as 'Cosmo Towers' at Premises No. 11/11A, New No. 22, Dr. Thomas Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 17, promoted by M/s. Nair Fincon Limited, now called as M/s.Cosmo Foundations Limited, represented by its Director, the third respondent herein. The Association is having 30 members registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 with Registration No. 102 of 2002. According to the petitioner, the third r...

K. Rajeswara Rao Vs. P. Sunitha Rep. by Power of Attorney Mrs. P. Sugu ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)6MLJ1158

ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 20.8.2008 in RCA No. 675 of 2007 on the file of VII Court of Small Causes, Chennai confirming the order dated 4.7.2007 in M.P. No. 170 of 2007 in RCOP No. 1004 of 2006 on the file of XIV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of a non-residential building situated at Door No. 13 First Cross Street, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24. The said property was in the ownership of one T.S.M. Haja Mohideen and it was taken assignment by the landlord Mrs. Sunitha as per sale deed dated 12.12.2005. The petitioner was informed of the change of ownership and he attorned the said tenancy and he has been paying rent to the landlady.INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS:3. While the matter stood thus, the respondent/landlady through her power agent filed a petition under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 before the XIV Small Causes Court...

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner (Ct), Coimbato ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)27VST131(Mad)

ORDERB. Rajendran, J.1. The State is the petitioner. The order, dated 04.04.2003, passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in C.T.A. No. 326/2002 is under challenge.2. The first respondent is a manufacturer of black tea and is registered under the Central Sales Tax Act as well as under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The first respondent was assessed by the Assessing Officer in respect of alleged misuse of Form 'C' in respect of products such as wire mesh, X-Ray film & accessories purchased by the assessee from other States for which Form 'C' was utilised. The Assessing Authority had came to the conclusion that the purchase of the materials was not directly required for the purpose of manufacture of the goods and hence use of Form 'C' attract penalty under Section 10(A) and imposed penalty for the above said purchase. The relevant portion is extracted below:4. I heard the arguments of both the representatives and verified the records produced before me. The appellants have main...