Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

Malliga Vs. Veerasamy Padayatchi and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)LW187

(Prayer:- SecondAppeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2001 made in A.S.No.127 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai in confirming the judgement and decree dated 2.11.2000 made in O.S.No.158 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali.) The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.158 of 1988 seeking the relief of recovery of possession and mesne profits from defendants 1 to 3 and claiming damage at Rs.4,912/- from defendants 4 and 5. The suit was dismissed by the decree and judgement dated 2.11.2000. Challenging the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No.127 of 2000. Confirming the dismissal of the suit, the appeal was also dismissed. In the appeal, application was filed in I.A.No.46 of 2000 under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., seeking permission of the court to adduce additional evidence. This I.A. was also dismissed. 2. The plaintiff...

Paneerselvam and Others Vs. Mohana and Another

Court: Chennai

(Appeal filed as against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem in O.S.No.152 of 2005.) This appeal is focussed at the instance of the defendants as against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem in O.S.No.152 of 2005. 2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: a] The first respondent-Mohana/plaintiff filed the suit for partition seeking the following reliefs: To pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff (i) permit the plaintiff to file the suit as indigent person. (ii) set aside the partition deed dated 18.03.2002 as having been obtained by misrepresentation and fraud and not binding on the plaintiff's share in the...

M/S Total Oil India (P) Limited, Formerly Known as Elf Gas India (P) L ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to issue 12 Nos. Form-F Declarations to the petitioner in relation to the assessment year 2007-2008 as requested by the petitioner in their letter dated 05.09.2012 and pass orders.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Advocate (Taxes), appearing on behalf of the first respondent. 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 of the petitioner, dated 05.09.2012, within a specified period. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 4. In view of the above, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 05.09.2012, within a period of two weeks from the date of recei...

M/S. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited, Rep. by Its Director Vs. th ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petitions filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings in TNGST/1280956/2002-03 and TNGST/1280956/2003-04 and quash the notice dated 07.02.2012 issued therein.) COMMON ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Advocate (Taxes), appearing on behalf of 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 the D3 proposals, relating to the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, had been made, initially, based on the missing Laboratory Reports. However, this Court, by its order dated 29.02.2008, made in W.P.No.5278 of 2008, had held as follows: "In the result, the writ petition is disposed of:- The petitioner shall file his objections within a period of 15 days from the receipt of this order and the respondent shall proceed to consider the petitioner's objection. But, howe...

M. Parthiban Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Secretary to Gover ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: 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 relating to the impugned Notification issued by the 2nd respondent in Advertisement No.112, dated Nil for General Selection to the post of Grade-II Police Constables (Male/Female), Jail Warders (Male) and Fireman (Male) for the year 2012 in so far as it does not provide for exemption to the Ex-servicemen in Physical Tests are concerned and the consequential Disqualification Slip issued by the 2nd respondent in his Proceedings in R.C.No.R1/4344/2011 dated 21.08.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to the said Post in conformity with Annexure II read with Rule 14 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Sub-ordinate Service.) Common Order 1. Since common issues were raised in all these Writ Petitions, they were heard together and they are dispos...

M.N. Karuppanna Gounder Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ577

(Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Bench"D"), Chennai, dated 31.03.2006 made in I.T.A.No.1376/Mds/ 2004 (Assessment Year 2001-02).) CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. 1. The assessee is on appeal as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, relating to the assessment year 2001-02, raising the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income from the sales of coconut shell, coconut leaves, coconut coir and wood and cattle are not agricultural in nature?" 2. The assessee claims that the income earned on the sale of coconut coir, coconut leaves, coconut shell, wood and cattle are all agricultural income, exempted under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the said plea and pointed out that the assessee owned 70 acres of agricultural lands and in...

Veerakumar Vs. the State, Rep. by Sub-inspector of Police, Mannargudi ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Criminal RevisionPetition filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to 1)call for the records of the case in Crl.A.No.56/2006 of the court of the Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam and in C.C.No.130/2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Mannargudi. 2)examine the legality, the property and correctness of the proceedings before the Lower Courts and also findings contained in the Judgments; 3)set aside the order of the Learned Sessions Judge confirming the Judgment passed by the Trial Court viz. Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mannargudi in C.C.No.130/2004 on 24-3-2006 and direct the acquittal of the petitioner of the charges levelled against him.) 1. This revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Mannargudi dated 24.03.2006 made in C.C.No.130 of 2004 convicting the accused/ revision petitioner for the offence punishable under section 337 and 304(A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months simple im...

Arumugam Vs. Natarajan and Another

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgement and decree dated 02.02.1996, made in A.S.No.30 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tindivanam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.1.1994 made in O.S.No.180 of 1988 on the file of the Additional District Munsif of Tindivanam. 1. The locus-standi of the pendente-lite purchaser to raise the plea/defence of bonafide purchaser for value without notice of earlier transaction (a plea which is available to a purchaser, but not during the pending litigation) is under challenge. The protection under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act is not available to a pendente-lite purchaser by virtue of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, is the main contention raised in the second appeal. In other words, the contention is that Section 19 (1) of the Specific Relief Act, does not over ride Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 1.1. There may be innocent purchasers...

Pon Pure Chem (P) Ltd. (Formerly Pure Chemicals and Solvent (P) Ltd.) ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent herein in TIN.No.33241061285/2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10 dated 30.06.2012 and quash the same insofar as it relates to reversal of input tax credit to the extent of Rs.966/- in W.P.No.26962 of 2012, Rs.9471/- in W.P.No.26963 of 2012, Rs.5,01,827/- in W.P.No.26964 of 2012 and Rs.4,39,435/- in W.P.No.26965 of 2012 being credit wrongly reversed by adopting a formula in spite of maintenance of separate books of accounts by the petitioners and the penalty thereon, while directing the respondent herein to re-do the assessment for the period from 01.01.2007 to 31.03.2007 in WP.No.26962/12, 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 in WP.No.26963/12, 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 in WP.No.26964/12 and 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 in WP.No.26965/12 after considering the statement provided by the petitioners along with their reply dated 05.01.2012 in WP Nos.2...

R. Pughazhenthi Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Avadi Police Station ...

Court: Chennai

P. DEVADASS, J. Petitioner, who is A1 in Sessions case in SC.No.194/2012, on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur @ Poonamallee, now, a lifer, for an offence u/s.302 IPC, seeks suspension of his sentence. 2. Mr. S. Ananthanarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the evidence of P.W.8-VAO, to whom A1 is stated to have given extra-judicial confession is a total stranger to him and the Trial Court has also relied on inadmissible evidence to convict the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are very many clinching circumstances backed by evidence, which unerringly proceed to the only conclusion that the petitioner is also the author of the crime committed, viz., killing of the deceased Madan. 4. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions. We have perused the portion of the evidence pointed out by either side and also the impugned judgment. 5. On 10.10.2009, at about 11.30...