Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

Sagayaraj and Others Vs. State Rep. By, the Inspector of Police

Court: Chennai

(Prayer in all Crl.As.:- Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 27.05.2004 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Chennai, in S.C.No.212 of 2004.) COMMON JUDGMENT The appellant in Crl.A.No.11 of 2005, the appellant in Crl.A.No.1083 of 2004 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.734 of 2004 are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.212 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Chennai. Accused 1 to 3 were convicted for an offence under Section 307 r/w. 34 I.P.C. and each one of them was sentenced to undergo nine years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Out of the total fine of amount Rs.30,000/-, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the victim-P.W.2. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, appellants herein/accused 1 to 3 have preferred the above three Crim...

M/S. Kirby Buildings Systems India Ltd., Represented by Its General Ma ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Rc.B1/661/2012 dated 25.07.2012 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to refund the DS amount of Rs.8,57,459/- to the petitioner.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At this stage of hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, to challenge the impugned notice issued by the first respondent, dated 25.07.2012. 3. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, this Court finds that it is appropriate to dismiss the present writ petition, permittin...

Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director and Ceo ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ19; 2013(1)MWN(Civil)132

(Prayer in C.R.P.(MD) No.1715 of 2012: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the order dated 10.08.2012 passed in I.A.No.991 of 2012 in O.S.No.233 of 2012 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thoothukudi and set aside the same.) Common Order 1. In view of the issues involved in all these Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, all the Civil Revision Petitions were taken up together and the common order is passed. 2. Background facts in brief are as follows: 2(1). The second respondent bank in C.R.P.(MD)No.1792 and 1802 to 1805 of 2012 is a scheduled commercial bank, established in 1921. In 1994, holders of equity shares of the bank constituting 67% of the total equity capital executed share transfer deeds in favour of seven different entities after receiving the consideration thereof. In relation to these transfers, several suits and company petitions came to be filed in different Courts and Tribunals by various parties. Majo...

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. M/S. Breeze Hotels Pvt. Lt ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Appeals under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, Chennai dated 17.2.2006 in Exp.T.A Nos.1&2 /Mds/2005, for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-1999.) K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J. 1. The Revenue is on appeal as against the order of the Tribunal in respect of the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The following are the substantial questions of law raised in common in both the appeals at the time of admission:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is not liable to Expenditure Tax Act for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to Expenditure Tax Act in spite of the fact that as per Section 3, the tariff of the rooms exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs.1,200/- ? 3. Whether on...

S. Nagarajan and Another Vs. the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Coimbator ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(2)LW(Cri)753; 2012(4)MLJ(Crl)488

(Criminal Revision Petitions filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 19.03.2012 passed in C.M.P. Nos. 136 and 137 of 2007 in S.C. No. 77 of 1992 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.) COMMON ORDER By consent of counsel for both sides, both the Criminal Revision Petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. These two revision petitions are filed by the petitioners/A3 and A6 questioning the correctness of the orders dated 19.03.2012 passed by the Court below dismissing the petitions in Crl.M.P. Nos. 136 and 137 of 2007 filed by them. 3. The petitioners have filed Crl.M.P. No. 136 of 2007 under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. praying to permit them to examine the Manager of the Lodge and to direct him to produce all the relevant documents or records relating to incoming and outgoing of customers. Crl.M.P. No. 137 of 2007 was filed praying to recall the witnesses Pws 47, 48, 50, 39, 42, 43, 62, 10, 30, 3 and 4. 4. According to the petitioners the ...

P. Arumugam (Died) and Others Vs. P. Narayansami and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code against the order and final decree dated 06.8.2009 made in I.A.No.56 of 2007 in O.S.No.20 of 2005 on the file of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Cuddalore.) R.BANUMATHI,J 1. This appeal arises out of the order and final decree in I.A.No.56 of 2007 in O.S.No.20 of 2005 dated 06.08.2009 passing final decree infavour of Respondents/Plaintiffs in respect of plaint “B” schedule properties. For convenience, the parties are referred as per their original rank in the suit. 2. Parties are related as under:- Paramasiva Padyachi | ------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Nagamuthu Narayanasami (P1) Arumugam (D1) =Sundari (P2) ...

S. Murugan @ Poochi Murugan and Another Vs. Nadigar Sangham Charitable ...

Court: Chennai

1. The two applicants are the plaintiffs in an unnumbered civil suit. This application is filed seeking to grant leave to institute the suit against the defendants in terms of Section 92 of C.P.C. 2. When the matter came up on 05.07.2012, this court ordered notice on the said application. On notice, on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, a counter affidavit, dated 02.08.2012 has been filed. Subsequently, an application was filed in A.No.3519 of 2012 seeking to amend the prayer in the unnumbered plaint in C.S(D)No.15568 of 2012. That application was ordered by this court on 11.9.2012. As per the amended plaint, the relief claimed in the suit are as follows: "A) To grant declaration, declare that the General Power of Attorney executed on 6th August, 2010 (Document No.487/10 of District Registrar cadre, T.Nagar) by the third defendant in favour of second defendant as null and void; B) To grant declaration, declare that the Lease Deed executed on 6th August, 2010 (Document No.1711/10) of Distric...

Katpadi Good Shed C and F and Handling Agents Assn. (Reg. No. 306/ 201 ...

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for entire records in pursuant to the communication dt.17.8.2012 vide No.M/C. 200/P/DC issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to collect demurrage charges and wharfage charges at the rate of Rs.100/- per bogie per hour from the members of the petitioner Association.) The petitioner is an association registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The members of the association are handling the clearing and forwarding of the goods from Katpadi Goodshed to the neighbouring districts like Tiruvannamalai, Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri and Thiruvallur. 2. The petitioner has questioned the impugned order, dated 17.8.2012 of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, to levy penal Demurrage charges and higher Wharfage charges at four times than the present rates at Tambaram, Katpadi and Mundiambakkam...

V. Subramanian Vs. the Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, M ...

Court: Chennai

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order of the first respondent in No.52/CC/Pon/103/2008-FF (SZ) dated 12.8.2010 rejecting the petitioner’s claim for Swantantra Sainik Samman Pension and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant Swantantra Sainik Samman Pension to the petitioner from the date of his application dated 26.5.1981 with applicable rate of interest.) The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an order passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, rejecting the request of the petitioner for the grant of Central Samman Pension. 2. Heard Mr. S. Sathia Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Devendran, learned Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government, appearing for the first respondent and Mr. A. Tamilvanan, learned Government Advocate (Puduche...

M/S.Elite Contactors (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Directo ...

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 respondent in his Goods Detention Notice No.6/2012-13 dated 3.10.2012 in Form No.041 and consequential Compounding Notice in G.D.No.63/2012-13, dated 4.10.2012 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to release the goods of Granite Slabs covered by Invoice No.000068 dated 2.10.2012 and detained vide Goods Detention Notice No.63/2012-13, dated 3.10.2012 immediately) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate 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 a sum of Rs.52,487/-, which is the am...