Chennai Court August 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.
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner (Ct), Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2009
Reported in: (2010)27VST397(Mad)
F.M. Ibbrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The State has come forward with this revision raising the substantial question of law, viz., whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the goods moved from other State at the instance of the assessee were earmarked for a specific works contract undertaken by the dealers and hence, deduction was allowable under Section 3-B(2)(a) of the TNGST Act.2. Mr. Haja Naziruddin, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) contended that before the assessing officer, the assessee failed to produce any documents to show that the inter-state sale was for the execution of the works contract between the assessee and M/s.Madras Refineries Ltd. and in the circumstances, the said conclusion of the assessing authority, as affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, ought not to have been interfered with by the Tribunal.3. The jurisdiction exercised by the Appellate Tribunal is provided under Section 36 of the TNGST Act. Under Section 36(3)(a) of the Act, the Tri...
Thangaraj Vs. Ameer HussaIn and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2009
Reported in: AIR2010Mad13
T. Sudanthiram, J.1. The appellant herein is the claimant in MCOP No. 152 of 1994, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:On 7-3-1993 at 3.00 p.m. while the claimant was walking along with the other family members on the Trichy main road near Coimbatore Medical College, a Scooter bearing Registration No. TN-V-4838 came behind him in a rash and negligent manner and hit him as a result of which he sustained fracture in his right leg. After taking treatment, he filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The first respondent herein is the rider of the scooter, the second respondent herein is the registered owner of the vehicle.3. The second respondent herein resisted the claim by filing counter before the Tribunal stating that on 16-2-1987 itself, he sold the said vehicle to one Kathirvel S/o. Krishnan residing in front of the Head Post Office, Coimbatore, and also handed over ...
A.L. Mudaliar Vs. the Assistant Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2009
Reported in: [2010]97SCL347(Mad)
ORDERC.S. Karnan, J.1. The Petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in E.O.C.C. No. 114 of 2007 filed by the respondent abovenamed and pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences - II), Egmore, Chennai - 600 008 and quash the same.2. The respondent's case is that the complainant filed the complaint under Section 159 r/w Section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956. The complainant has stated that the accused 2 to 6 are the Directors/Managing Director/Whole Time Director/Company Secretary and officers of the company, when the offence was committed as per the particulars filed in the office of the complainant and their officers, who is in default within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act. According to the provisions of Section 220 of the Act, the company and its Directors are under statutory obligation to file with the complainant Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account in the prescribed form duly pl...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anbalagan and Seema Aallolam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1225
S. Palanivelu, J.1. In the claim petition, it is stated that on 27.3.2002 at about 10.00 p.m., while the claimant and his friend one Rathinavel were going by a TVS Moped bearing Registration No. Tn 31 Y 6924 along Virudhachalam - Chidambaram road, near Ko.Mavidanthal village, a tractor belonging to the second respondent with Registration No. TN 31 Q 3749 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the moped by means of which the claimant fell down and sustained injuries including fractures in his leg. He was removed to Government hospital, Virudhachalam and then was rushed to Zipmer hospital, Pondicherry for further management. He was earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month by milk vending business and agriculture. Hence, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- is prayed for as compensation.2. In the counter filed by the appellant, it is stated that the accident did not took place due to the negligence on the part of the tractor driver but only due to the carelessness of the ...
Akila Kannan Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by Secretary, Public ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ1112
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsels appearing for the respondents.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Akila Kannan, who had passed his S.S.L.C. Examination, in the month of March, 2007. He had secured 464 marks out of 500 marks. His date of birth has been mentioned in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate, as 17.1.1993. Thereafter, he had appeared for the Higher Secondary Examination, held in the month of March, 2009. The marks obtained by him in the plus two examination are as follows:Tamil - 181English - 159Physics - 199Chemistry - 191Biology - 189Maths - 183He had secured 1102 marks out of 1200 marks in the said examination.3. It has been further stated that the date of birth of the petitioner in the mark sheet and in the transfer certificate is 17.1.1993. The petitioner belongs to Vanniya community, which is recognised as a Most Backward Class community. The petitioner had submitted an appl...
Dharmalingam, Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ757
ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. The lands belonging to the petitioners comprised in various survey numbers at Madhavaram village, Ambattur Taluk, Chengalput District were acquired by the Tamil Nadu Government for the purpose of organising a truck and bus terminal by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai (formerly Madras Metropolitan Development Authority and hereinafter referred to as 'the CMDA'). Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 306, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 27.03.1985 and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made in G.O.Ms. No. 196, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 07.02.1986. The land acquisition proceedings were challenged in W.P. No. 547 of 1986 and the same was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 21.06.1996. The Writ Appeal Nos. 785 to 789 of 1996 preferred against the said order by the Government ...
P. Arumugam Vs. D. Balasubramaniam and the Public Prosecutor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ633
ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. Animadverting upon the order dated 13.05.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court, Erode, in C.A. No. 176 of 2006, confirming the judgment dated 29.12.2005, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Erode, in C.C. No. 1229 of 2004, this criminal revision is focussed.2. A 'resume' of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:(a) The first respondent filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as against the petitioner.(b) Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted. During trial, the first respondent herein examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the accused, but Ex.D1 was marked.(c) Ultimately, the trial Court found the accused guilty, recorded the conviction and imposed the sentence as under:---------------------------------------------------------------...
Vaigai Traders Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2009
Reported in: (2010)27VST486(Mad)
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. This tax case revision has been preferred by the assessee, where the following substantial questions of law have been framed:(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Department has discharged burden of proof cast on it to sustain the additions is correct in law ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in partly remanding the turnover, when the basis for all are one and the same, is correct in law ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the penalty imposed on the petitioner without bringing home the guilt, is right in law ?2. The assessee is a dealer and manufacturer of furniture. The assessment relates to the year 1990-91. The assessee reported with a turnover of Rs. 1,865. There was an inspection on July 17, 1990 by the Enforcement Wing. Based on the inspection, the turnover w...
S. Ram Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of Finance, Department ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ990
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in these writ petitions are to quash the orders dated 18.5.2009 and 20.5.2009, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, insofar as W.P. Nos. 9934 and 9935 of 2009 are concerned; the order dated 20.5.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, insofar as W.P. No. 10264 of 2009; and the orders dated 30.5.2009 and 8.6.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, insofar as W.P. Nos. 10432 and 10730 of 2009 are concerned.2. The case of the petitioner as could be seen from the affidavit filed in support of W.P. No. 9935 of 2009 is as follows:(a) The petitioner is an Electronics Engineer by vocation and he invented Plurality of Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) and Plurality of Blue Tooth Technology and its viability using switch circuit technology. According to petitioner, due to his invention, multiple sims can be used at the same time in one instrument.(b) It is claimed by the petitioner that by changi...
K. Rukmani (Died), Vs. Adikesavan (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ1195
M.M. Sundresh, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit has been filed for declaration, possession and for mandatory injunction. The suit having been dismissed, the plaintiff has preferred the appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff in a nut shell is as follows:The plaintiff's husband and one Samu Naidu are brothers. The defendants 1 & 2 are the sons of late Samu Naidu who died in the year 1978. The second defendant died pending the suit and the defendants 4 to 6 are the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant. The third defendant is the Pattukottai Municipality from whom the relief of mandatory injunction has been sought for, for changing the revenue records. The suit property which is a house was originally owned by the deceased Samu Nadiu. The deceased Samu Naidu obtained loan from the Pattukottai Co-operative Bank. Apart from that, he has also received loan from the plaintiff. In order to clear the debts, the deceased Samu Naidu sold the suit property in favour of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »