Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

R. Sarala and Others Vs. K.S. Mohan and Others

Court: Chennai

K. Chandru, J. 1. Application No.3515 of 2012 is filed by two applicants, i.e., 5th and 3rd respondents in the O.P., seeking for rejection and dismissal of the O.P.No.731 of 2011. Application No.3516 of 2012 is filed by the first respondent for the very same purpose. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents/ original petitioners, dated Nil (August, 2012) in both applications. 2. It is seen from the records that the original petitioners filed the original petition seeking for the grant of the letters of administration with a Will, dated 11.12.1996 annexed in favour of the petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased and legatees under the said Will executed by late S.M.Subramaniam Chettiar, having the effect limited to the State of Tamil Nadu. The O.P was admitted on 16.12.2011. Even during the pendency of the O.P., the first respondent filed a caveat in Caveat No.371 of 2012 together with supporting affidavit of objection. Similarly, respondents 3 and 5 also filed a c...

infrastructure Development Finance Co. Ltd Itc Centre, Chennai Vs. the ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Tax Case (Appeal) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 21.4.2006 passed in I.T.A.No.539/ Mds/ 2001 for the assessment year 1997-98.) CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. 1. The assessee is on appeal as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1997-98. Following are the questions of law raised by the assessee:- "(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that interest of Rs.3,07,06,233/- was includible in the Appellant's income for the Assessment Year 1997-98? (2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in any event, failed to appreciate that the assessment of the above interest of Rs.3,07,06,233/- in Assessment Year 1997-98 gave a distorted and an unrealistic picture of the Appellant's profit for the Assessment Year 1997-98 inasmuch as: (i) The total interest to be received by the Appellant on the three Certificates of Deposit (hereinafter referred to as "CODs") ...

C. Ponnusamy Vs. Muniammal (Deceased) and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order, dated 29.06.2011, passed in M.P.No.370 of 2007, in E.P.No.17 of 2011, in R.C.O.P.No.215 of 2001, on the file of the XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.) 1. The tenant is the revision petitioner herein. 2. One Mrs. Muniammal, filed R.C.O.P.No.215 of 2001, for eviction against the revision petitioner. The Petition was ordered, on 25.06.2001. Aggrieved by the said order of eviction, the revision petitioner filed an Appeal in R.C.A. No.889 of 2004 and that was dismissed as abated, as the landlord-Muniammal died and her legal representatives were not impleaded. Thereafter, the respondents filed an Execution Petition, claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased Muniammal. They also filed M.P.No.565 of 2006 to permit them to prosecute the Execution Petition filed by them to execute the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.215 of 2001. That Petition was dismissed,...

M.P. Sekar Partner Shankar Trading Company, Chennai Vs. M. Krishnan (D ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ11

(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned award of the second respondent made in C.P.No.132 of 2000 dated 10.03.2003 and quash the same as illegal and unsustainable.) 1. The present writ petition is directed against the impugned award passed by the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai in C.P.No.132 of 2000 dated 10.3.2003, to quash the same as illegal and unsustainable in law for the reason that when the first respondent, namely, M.Krishnan filed a claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 even after his retirement in the year 1986, the Labour Court, without application of mind as to whether the claimant would be entitled to claim the benefit at all under the said provision, wrongly proceeded to allow the claim and directed the writ petitioner- Organisation to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-, as against the claim of Rs.50,400/-, in spite of ...

M/S. Vinayagaa Metals Rep.by Its Proprietor- S. Saravanan and Others V ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to grant refund of 4% Additional duty paid in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Customs dated on 14.09.2007 as per the Petitioner's representation dated 15.10.2012.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the third respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 15.10.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the third respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated15.10.2012, on me...

Vanavani Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Represented by Its Sec ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 3.6.2011 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the fee structure of the Petitioner in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in its common order dated 3.5.2012 made in W.P.No.8489 of 2012 and batch.) R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Writ Petitioner School which is an unaided private school has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 03.06.2011 passed by Private School Fee Determination Committee on the ground of arbitrariness and that it is not in conformity with Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 2009). 2. Writ Petitioner School is run in the Campus of I.I.T., Chennai-36. It is managed by I.I.T. Madras Educational Trust. The Writ Petitioner school is affiliated to the Directorate of ...

V. Nagarajan and Others Vs. Saroja and Another

Court: Chennai

(Second Appeal filed under section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri dated 29.03.2011 made in A.S.No.6 of 2010 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri dated 31.03.2010 made in O.S.No.55 of 2000.) Defendants 2 to 7 in the original suit are the appellants in the second appeal. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No. 55 of 2000 on the file of the Sub-Court, Dharmapuri against Venkattaraji Naidu, the father of the appellants herein for the relief of specific performance based on the suit agreement for sale dated 03.01.2000 allegedly executed by the said Venkattaraji Naidu in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of 0.78.5 H of land comprised in S.No.259, 260/2 and 260/3 of Paruvathanahalli Village, Pennagaram Sub-Registration District and Dharmapuri Registration District. During the pendency of the suit and while a civil revision petition was pending before the High...

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore Vs. M/S. Gangothri Textiles ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Tax Case (Appeal) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, dated 17.5.2006 passed in I.T.A.No.208/ Mds/ 2002 for the assessment year 1998-99.) CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. 1. The Revenue is on appeal as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to assessment year 1998-99 by raising the following question of law:- "Whether the insurance money received on loss of production is entitled for deduction under Section 80IA?" 2. It is seen from the facts herein that the assessee is stated to have suffered fire accident on 11.3.1996, which is relevant for the assesment year 1996-97. The assessee subsequently made claim before the insurance company and admittedly, the same was compensated. The assessee claimed loss on production due to the fire accident that took place on 11.3.1996. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee by pointing out that the claim with the insurance company and the subsequent loss of the pr...

M. Gokulakrishnan Vs. the Regional Transport Authority (The District C ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate legal action under the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 against the permit of the 4th respondent in terms of representation dated 05.10.2012 to operate on the town service route S-3 Thethepalayam to ESI.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated05.10.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the first respondent is directed to dispos...

H.M. Nataraj Vs. M/S. Pentagon Reality, Rep by Its Managing Partner Ch ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.4453 of 2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I, Egmore, Chennai, and quash the same.) 1. The petitioner is the sole Accused. The respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. Against the petitioner. The petitioner has come forward with this petition to quash the said complaint. 2. The allegations in the complaint are:-The respondent/complainant had entered into a Memorandum of Sale Agreement dated 26.03.2008 and it was registered on 27.03.2008. As per the terms of the said Memorandum the respondent/complainant had agreed to purchase 19 residential apartments in the property bearing Corporation No.45 PID No.96-310-45 Survey No.28/4 part of Viswanatha Nagenathalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Pursuant to the said agreement, certain apartments were sold. Subsequently, regarding the remaining ...