Chennai Court July 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.
L. Selva Vs. Asokan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4025
ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. Animadverting upon the order dated 9.10.2006 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, in C.A. No. 25 of 2006, modifying the order dated 8.2.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate IV, Vellore, in C.C. No. 264 of 2005, this criminal revision case is focussed.2. A resume of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus:(a) The respondent herein filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as against the revision petitioner herein. The revision petitioner entered appearance and contested the matter. Whereupon, the trial was conducted.(b) During trial, the respondent herein examined himself as P.W.1 along with one Srinivasan as P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. The revision petitioner herein examined himself as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R5 were marked.(c) Ultimately, the trial Court recorded the conviction under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced the revision petition...
Muthu and Gopal Vs. Padma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ224
ORDERM.M. Sundresh, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff in the suit. The pettioners have filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the defendant in O.S. No. 41 of 2005, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Paramakudi. The said suit has been filed claiming title to the suit property. Pending the suit, an application was filed in I.A. No. 34 of 2007, seeking amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., for amending the prayer for possession. The said application has been dismissed by the court below on the ground of delay. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proposed amendment has not changed the cause of action or introduce a new case. He further submitted that the suit itself is filed for declaration and mandatory injunction. The application ought to have been allowed. According to the learned Counsel, the delay in itse...
M.A. Rahim Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Secretary, Ministr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ263
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty without holding an enquiry into the charges framed against him, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, who is a Constable in the services of Central Industrial Security Force Unit (CISFU) at CPCL Manali, was served with a showcause notice dated 15-2-2007 issued by the fifth respondent. The allegation in the said showcause notice was that the petitioner, while on duty, failed to stop the criminals from entering the plant by scaling over the compund wall. Petitioner submitted a reply denying the allegation. Petitioner did not stop with sending a reply to the showcause notice but had also sent representations to the higher officials alleging victimization. A charge-memo dated 20-6-2008 contained two charges was served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanations to the said charge-memo. A final order dated 24-7-2007, however, came to be passed by the fifth r...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Ramanathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2009
Reported in: (2010)27VST198(Mad)
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The State Government has come forward with this revision challenging the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated February 7, 2002 in a batch of appeals. The question of law raised in this revision is as to the correctness of the order of the Tribunal in having set aside the revised order of assessment made under Section 16(1) of the Act, as confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish the 'escaped turnover' by merely relying upon extract issued by the Intelligent Wing of the Karnataka State. Admittedly, the only material relied upon for invoking Section 16(1) of the Act, by the assessing authority was the extract issued by the Intelligent Wing of the Karnataka State stating that the dealers of Tamil Nadu purchased groundnuts from the Karnataka State for the value mentioned in the extract, which was brought to State of Tamil Nadu, and which value was not disclosed in the turnover report...
Ravi @ Ravi Prakash Vs. the State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4570
ORDERP.R. Shivakumar, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner herein who figures as first accused in a case registered as Crime No. 18 of 2009, on the file of D-2 Police Station, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District, for alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 307, 397 and 506(ii) IPC, another offence punishable under Section 25(1)(a)(1)(b) of The Arms Act and offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives Act. The earlier petition filed before this Court for the very same relief for the very same case, which had been taken on file as Crl.O.P. No. 2349 of 2009, was dismissed on the ground that the petition did not contain the signature of the petitioner, nor was it supported by an affidavit of the petitioner and that even the memo of appearance did not contain the signature of the petitioner. The said order was passed on 16.03.2009 in which it was also held that a prima facie case for grave offences punishable...
Madras Refineries Limited (Now Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2009
Reported in: (2009)26VST556(Mad)
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. An interesting question as regards the demand for payment of entry tax as contemplated in The Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles Act, 1990 has come up for consideration at the instance of the appellant, who sought for a clarification from the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Tax, who, in his clarification letter dated 29.07.1994 clarified that the entry tax has to be paid on the full value of the new vehicle being registered, irrespective of the fact whether the chasis was purchased in Tamil Nadu or elsewhere and it has already suffered sales tax, hence, the appellant is liable to be assessed under the Act as a full vehicle since it is a new commodity, liable for new registration under the Motor Vehicles Act.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the required facts are that the appellant purchased a heavy vehicle chasis from M/s. Ashok Leyland Limited for which necessary tax under the provisions of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was le...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›