Chennai Court July 2010 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.
R.Sunil Agarwal .. Vs. the State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.4 of 2010, for offence under Sections 498(A), 406, 313 I.P.C., and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioner, who happens to be the first accused in the said case, has come forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2.The defacto complainant is the wife of the petitioner. She has filed M.P.No.1 of 2010 seeking permission to intervene and accordingly, she is permitted.3.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the petitioner and defacto complainant was solemnized on 21.01.2007 at Chennai. At the time of marriage, several sovereigns of jewels worth several lakhs was given as dowry to the petitioner. It is further alleged that these articles are now in the custody of the mother of the petitioner. Subsequent to the marriage, it is also stated, huge amount of money was also paid by the parents of the defacto complainant. The petitioner has opened two textile show rooms in Ba...
Sakunthala, and ors. Vs. Raghupathy, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1. The Appellants (Legal Representatives of 1st Defendant) have projected this Second Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.08.1996 made in A.S.NO.7 of 1993 on the file of Learned Principal District Judge, Vellore.2.The Learned First Appellate Court, viz., the Principal District Judge, Vellore, in its Judgment in A.S.No.7 of 1993 on 08.08.1996, has among other things observed that 'The oral and documentary evidence clearly prove that the plaintiff and the defendant are entitled to the suit property and the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit property and has hold that the trial Court has correctly come to the conclusion and has decreed the suit for partition and separate possession of plaintiff's 1/3rd share in the suit property and also for mesne profits and resultantly, dismissed the appeal without costs thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.64 of 1991 [O.S.No.54 o...
P.Dhakshnamurthy @ Gopi. Vs. R.Nalini @ Kuppu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 07.11.2008, passed in I.A.No.12 of 2008 in HMOP No.16 of 2006 by the Sub Court, Panruti, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. A 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:The revision petitioner filed HMOP No.16 of 2006 in Sub Court, Panruti, seeking divorce as against the respondent herein. The respondent herein, viz., R.Nalini @ Kuppu filed I.A.No.12 of 2008 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance. In that application, the husband has not filed any counter, whereupon, the lower Court passed order awarding interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) per month with effect from November 2008. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision has been filed on the ground that the lower Court was not justified in its conclusion as though the revision petitioner was earning a huge amount in foreign country and that without...
M/S V.S.K.Ferro Alloys Limited, and anr. Vs. Bank of Baroda, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1. The respondents instituted a recovery proceedings by filing O.A.No.715 of 1999 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, for recovery of Rs.2.12 crores and an exparte decree came to be passed. Thereafter the Debt Recovery Certificate bearing No.12 of 2006 dated 6.2.2006 was also drawn. The said Debt Recovery Certificate was transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, and numbered as DRC No.356 of 2007. Subsequently, an order of attachment dated 25.3.2010 came to be passed in respect of three items of property. Subsequently, a compromise proposal was initiated and one time settlement was reached wherein the petitioner/borrower had expressed to pay a sum of Rs.150 crores towards full and and final settlement and time was extended upto 28.2.2010 to complete the said proposal. Since it has not been complied with, the respondent Bank proceeded further and an order of attachment came to be passed on 25.3.2010.2. Mr.T.T.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner woul...
M.Shankaran ... Vs. K.S.Sampath ....
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 7.1.2010 passed in I.A.No.15 of 2010 in O.S.No.87 of 2007 by the Fast Track Court No.1, Salem, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: (a) The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.87 of 2007 for specific performance of an agreement to sell, which emerged between the petitioner and the respondent herein. Ultimately, after contest the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The operative portion of the decree is extracted hereunder for ready reference. "In the result, the suit is decreed with respect to specific performance relief with costs. The plaintiff is directed to deposit the balance of sale price of Rs.3,00,000/- on or before 8.1.2010 and after receiving the balance of sale consideration the defendant is directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within one month. With regard ...
R.Pragadesh .... Vs. N.V.Subramanian ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 12.2.2010 passed in R.C.A.No.333 of 2008 by the VIII Judge, (Appellate Authority), Small Causes Court, Madras, confirming the order dated 1.4.2008 passed in R.C.O.P.No.872 of 2007 by the XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Niggard and bereft of unnecessary details, the germane facts for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:(a) The respondent/landlord filed the R.C.O.P.872 of 2007 for evicting the revision petitioner/tenant on the following grounds:(i) 'Wilful default' in paying the rent;(ii) Additional accommodation for expanding the defendant'sson's business in textile goods.(b) Before the trial Court, on the side of the respondent/landlord, his son S.Krishnasamy was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P.11 were marked. On the side of the revision petitioner/tenant, he examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R76. (c) Ultimately, the Rent Controller rejected the ground of 'wilful de...
Shanthi .. Vs. Javarammal, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 27.3.2007, made in A.S.No.78 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udagamandalam, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 31.8.2006, made in O.S.No.253 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udagamandalam.2. The plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.253 of 2004, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The defendants in the said suit are the respondents herein.3. The plaintiff in the suit had stated that he is an encroacher in the land, in S.No.4789/6 (new R.S. No.5) having an extent of 3 cents. She had constructed a house and a shed in the said property bearing door No.167. She has been in occupation of the said property for more than 15 years. The defendants, who are strangers to the suit schedule property, are attempting to trespass into the plaintiffs house and the shed with the mala fide intention of damaging the house and the shed. The plaintiff, who is a poor lady, is eking out he...
R.inbavalli .. Vs. Income Tax Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1. The revision petitioner in all these three cases is one and the same. A complaint was filed against the petitioner in these three cases for not filing the income tax returns before the statutory due date as per Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and thereby liable under Section 276CC of the Act, 1961.2. In E.O.C.C.No.95 of 2005, a complaint was filed for not filing the returns before the statutory due date i.e., on 31.08.1996 but filed only on 24.03.1999 with a delay of 2 years and 7 months; in E.O.C.C.No.96 of 2005, a complaint was filed for not filing the returns before the statutory due date i.e., on 31.10.1997 but filed only on 26.03.2001 with a delay of 41 months and in E.O.C.C.No.94 of 2005, a complaint was filed for not filing the returns before the statutory due date i.e., on 30.11.1998 but filed only on 26.03.2001 with a delay of 28 months.3. On the side of the prosecution, three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and thereafter th...
Sampoorna Fuel Service. Vs. the Assistant General Manager (Ta and Em) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
1. The writ petition is filed for issuance of appropriate direction to the first respondent Salem Steel Plant to restore the power and water supply in the premises of Petrol Pump outlet at Plot 1, Sector 1 of the Salem Steel Plant run by the petitioner herein.2. The facts which remain undisputed are that the first respondent Salem Steel Plant and the second respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., entered into an agreement of lease on 13.02.1984 in respect of Plot 1, Sector 1 of the Salem Steel Plant for premium of Rs.55,083/- and monthly ground rent of Rs.46/- for a period of 33 years, subject to certain terms and conditions. On the strength of such lease agreement, the second respondent appointed the petitioner as his dealer to run a retail outlet of Petrol Pump in the land leased out to the second respondent. The petitioner herein has on the strength of his dealership invested huge amount of money for setting up and improving the Petrol Pump outlet and other required infrast...
Hivelm Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export) Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
The request of the assessees for conversion of free shipping bill into drawback shipping bill has been rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that as per Board’s Circular No.4/2004, no provision exists for permitting such conversion, and for the reason that the assessees had not given any cogent reasons as to why they could not file drawback shipping bill in the first instance. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that similar situations had arisen earlier and, in several cases, the Tribunal has directed the Commissioner to consider the claim on the strength of documentary evidence in existence at the time of export, in the light of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. As regards the reason for not filing the drawback shipping bill at the initial stage, the assessee’s plea that since they had just recently started carrying out exports, they were not aware of the procedures and claims involved and therefore they filed free shipping bill and later on sought for conversion...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »