Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

Sangeetha and Another Vs. -

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)LW85

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order, dated 25.6.2012, passed in I.A.7 of 2012, in H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2012, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Arni, Thiruvannamalai District.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioners against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Arni, in I.A.7 of 2012, in H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2012, in refusing to entertain the application filed by the revision petitioners, to waive the period of six months, as per the provisions of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that the parties are husband and wife and the marriage between them took place, on 09.03.2008 and right from the date of their marriage, they are living separately, and having realized that the marriage between them had broken down irretrievably, they agreed to dissolve the...

P. Suyambu Lingam Vs. V. Natarajan

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ(Crl)595

(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the order of the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in C.A.No.157 of 2009, dated 22.03.2010, confirming the order of the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in C.C.No.5686 of 2002, by order dated 19.08.2009.) 1. The revision petitioner / appellant / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.351 of 2010 against the judgment made in C.A.No.157 of 2009, on the file of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.6586 of 2002, on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant on 06.03.2000 and had executed a pronote agreeing to pay the said sum with interest at the rate of 36% per annum. In order to discharge the said sum, the accused had issued a ch...

Kamatchi and Another Vs. Muthammal and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(6)CTC833; 2012(5)LW958; 2013(1)MWN(Civil)4

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition against to call for the records pending on the file of the District Munsif, Rasipuram in R.E.P.No.5 of 2008 in O.S.No.110 of 1981 which was transferred from Sub Court, Namakkal dated 18.8.2009.) 1. The legal representatives of the deceased defendants in O.S.No.110 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal are the revision petitioners. 2. The suit in O.S.No.110 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal was filed by one Muthukaruppan against Arumuga Chettiar and Chellammal who are the predecessors-in-title of the revision petitioners for specific performance of an agreement of sale and that suit was decreed on 25.9.1984 and the appeal filed against the decree in A.S.No.467 of 1988 was also dismissed as abated, as the appellants viz., defendants in the suit died long back. Thereafter, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/= by Act 1 of 2004 and therefore, the legal representatives of the decree holder filed...

Thangammal and Others Vs. G. Sekar and Another

Court: Chennai

(Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decretal order dated 13.02.2005 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.242 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi.) The dear and near ones of deceased Ramasamy, dissatisfied with the grant of Rs.2,350/- alone as compensation, have directed this appeal. 2. On 29.03.2004, in a road accident, Ramasamy sustained injuries. He breathed his last on 10.05.2004. In this connection, his kith and kin claimed compensation. The Tribunal coming to the conclusion that his death was not proved due to the injury sustained by him in the road accident, granted Rs.1,050/- towards medical bills, Rs.1,000/- towards Transportation charges and Rs.300/- towards damage to clothes, thus, totally granted Rs.2,350/ to the first claimant, namely, the widow of Ramasamy. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that Ramasamy sustained head injury in the road...

M.S. Rangarajan Vs. Vedamurthy

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for wilful violation of the order of this Court dated 25.04.2008 passed in CRP No.3123 of 2008.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. At the hearing, both sides Advocates in unison would state that the petitioner handed over the Demand Draft for Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) to the respondent and the respondent in turn, handed over the key to the petitioner signifying handing over of vacant possession of the suit property and an affidavit of the petitioner also has been filed and it is recorded. 2. Recording the same, this contempt petition is closed....

Krishnasamy Vs. Ponniyan

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER:Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Mettur in C.M.P.No.3620 of 2008 in C.C.No.960 of 2008, dated 29.12.2008.) The revision petitioner / petitioner / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.303 of 2009, to set-aside the order passed in C.M.P.No.3620 of 2008 in C.C.No.960 of 2008, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Mettur, dated 29.12.2008. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The complainant is the father-in-law of the accused. On 20.01.2007, the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the complainant, agreeing to pay the same in the month of May 2007. In the meanwhile, the accused having come to know that his daughter Meenakshi was in love with a person, had tried to kill her, on numerous occasions. The complainant had saved his grand daughter Meenakshi by keeping her under his custody and had got her married on 24.06.2007 at Easwaran Temple and h...

Vikas Seva Trust Rep. by Its Charman A. Ramasamy Vs. the District Coll ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents 1 to 3 pertaining to the license for quarry in favour of respondents 4 and 5 issued by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.Noi.12844/2007/X2, dated 9.7.2007, for a period of 5 years in S.Nos.86/1A and 89/3B at Agrahara Periyapalayam Village, Avinashi Taluk and quash the same and forbear the respondents 1 to 3 from granting any other quarry license regarding the respondents 4 and 5.) ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 had submitted that the lease granted in favour of respondents 4 and 5 for quarrying of rough stones in S.Nos.86/1A and 89/3B, had expired on 8.7.2012. The request made by the said respondents for renewal of the...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S.Arun Excello Foundations Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Tax Case (Appeals) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 16.2.2007 passed in I.T.A.No.2090/ Mds/ 2006 for the assessment year 2003-04. Chitra Venkataraman, J. 1. The Revenue is on appeal as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 by raising the following common question of law:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that deduction under Section 80IB(10) is allowable ona prorata basis, where both commercial and residential houses have been built, when there is no such provision under the statute to grant the same?" 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of developing and constructing housing projects. In the returns filed for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), in respect of pro...

Textile Dye Chem Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Director K. Sivaprasad Vs. the ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the files of the respondent herein in G.D.No.125/2012-13 dated 15.10.2012, and quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. In view of the similar orders passed by this Court, in a number of writ petitions, including the order, dated 21.12.2010, made in W.P.No.29050 of 2010, the following order is passed: i) The petitioner shall pay the amount of tax of Rs.42,640/- demanded by the authority, while passing the detention order. ii) On payment of such tax amount, the goods detained shall be released and the same shall be subject to the final adjudication order, which may be passed by the authority concerned. iii) It is made clear that, while making recovery of the tax amount due, the amount of tax already ...

V. Govindaraj Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Tiruppur and Anothe ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: W.P.No.13154 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondent relating to the Notification dated 26.04.2012 relating to the Tender cum Public Auction to be held on 09.05.2012, quash the same insofar as it relates to the slaughtering House, Item 4 in the notification and direct the respondent to renew the Licence for the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 as per the terms of auction held on 21.01.2010. W.P.No.15198 of 2012 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to the Cancellation Order/Notice in Na.Ka.No.A7/3414/2012 dated 16.04.2012 and the consequential licence issued in the name of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.A11/350/2012 dated 01.06.2012 pursuant to the public auction held on 18.05.2012 and quash the same.) Commo...