Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

J. Chandrasekaran and Others Vs. V.D. Kesavan

Court: Chennai

(Second Appeal against the judgement and decree dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, in A.S.No.31 of 2005 confirming the judgement and decree dated 21.9.2004 passed by the II Additional District Munsif, Erode in O.S.No.216 of 2003. Cross Appeal against the judgement and decree dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, in A.S.No.31 of 2005 in so far as reversing the judgement and decree dated 21.9.2004 passed by the II Additional District Munsif, Erode in O.S.No.216 of 2003.) COMMON JUDGMENT: The second appeal is focussed by the defendants as against the judgement and decree dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, in A.S.No.31 of 2005 confirming the judgement and decree dated 21.9.2004 passed by the II Additional District Munsif, Erode in O.S.No.216 of 2003, which was filed for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctions. The Cross-appeal is focussed by the plaintiff as against the judgement and decre...

Madha Lorry Body Labour Works, Represented by Its Proprietor, S.M. Sun ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the files of the First Respondent herein in O.C.No.566/2012, dated 17.8.2012 along with his O.C.No.590/2012, dated 31.8.2012, quashing the same, while forbearing the first respondent from proceeding to recover the central excise duty of Rs.16,17,710/- as stated by him in his O.C.No.566/2012, dated 17.8.2012 and reiterated in O.C.No.590/2012, dated 31.08.2012.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for 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 second respondent is directed to dispose of the Appeal,filed by the petitioner, in Appeal No.262 of 2008, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent has no objection for such an order being passed by this Cou...

Tvl. Kanwar Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Ct) Tambar ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the claim of refund as per the order in Form P for the assessment year 2006-07 in TIN No.33410886349/2006-07 dated 23.09.2010 direct the respondent to refund the excess payment of taxes Rs.3,07,820/- in accordance with the Section 42(5) read with Rule 11(1) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 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 respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 14.06.2011, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent 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 respondent is dire...

G. Perumal Vs. the Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police V Battalion, ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in PR No.88/2000, dated 20.12.00 and by the 2nd respondent in RC No.134665/AP3(1)/2009, dated 23.10.09 and quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had entered the service, as a directly recruited Grade-II Police Constable, by way of a selection conducted by the Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, on 15.9.1997. After undergoing the training, the petitioner had been serving in the Tamilnadu Special Police V Battalion, Avadi, Chennai, and he was stationed at the Tihar Jail, at Delhi. While so, he had received a telegram from his native place stating that his mother was unwell. In response to the said information received by the p...

S. Nagoor Meeran Vs. State by Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti C ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(4)MLJ(Crl)714

(Appeal filed under section 374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of the learned Special Judge No. I/ XI Addl. Judge, Chennai in Spl. C.C.No.4 of 1998 dated 02.12.1999.) This appeal arises against the judgment of the Special Judge No. I/ XI Addl. Judge, Chennai in Spl. C.C.No.4 of 1998 dated 02.12.1999. 2. The appellants stood trial for offences under Section 13(2) read with 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the second appellant having been charged with the aid of Section 109 I.P.C, in Spl. C.C.No.4 of 1998 on the file of the learned Special Judge No. I/XI Additional Judge, Chennai. Under judgment of such court dated 02.12.1999, both appellants stand convicted and sentenced to undergo three years R.I and fine of Rs.10,000/- each i/d three months R.I. Against such conviction the present appeal stands filed. 3. The prosecution case is that the first appellant was a member of the State Legislative Assembly between 17.06.1991 and 13.05.1996 and the Minister for Tourism between 15...

Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. Allu Arvind Babu, Chennai

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: APPEAL under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 28.02.2006 in I.T.A.No.104/Mds/2005 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2001-02.) CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. 1. The Revenue is on appeal as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment year 2001-02. This Court, at the time of admission, admitted this Tax Case on the following substantial question of law: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee, who is not in the business of buying and selling of stocks and shares is entitled to claim loss arising on redemption of units as business loss?" 2. The assessee is engaged in various business, such as, film production, film distribution, exploitation, export of films, real estate development, dealing in properties etc. It is seen from the facts narrated herein that on 08.03.2001, the assessee purchased Bl...

Mohan Doss Vs. State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(4)MLJ(Crl)485

(PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the appeal Judgment given in Crl.Appeal No.98/2006 dated 21-11-2007 by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court-1), Chidambaram by confirming the order passed in C.c.No.174/2005 dated 19-6-2006 by the District Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai found guilty under section 304(A) I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced to 6 months simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default 2 months Simple imprisonment.) This revision petition is filed against the Judgment made in Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2006 dated 21.11.2007 by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court-1), Chidambaram confirming the order passed in C.C.No.174 of 2005 dated 19.6.2006 by the District Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai wherein the revision petitioner was convicted for offence under section 304(A) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment a...

M/S. Mdr Cranes and Infrastructure (P) Ltd Vs. M/S. Landt; Finance Ltd ...

Court: Chennai

K.B.K. Vasuki, J. 1. The first respondent in A.No.3510 of 2012 is the applicant herein. The application A.No.3510 of 2012 is filed for an appointment of Advocate Commissioner to seize Hydraulic Drilling Pilling Rig more fully described in the schedule appended to the judges summon either in the premises of the respondents or wherever it is found and deliver the same to the custody of the applicant. 2. The applicant M/s. L & T Finance Ltd has come forward with the application A.No.3510 of 2012 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in exercise of their right available to the applicant as contained in Article 13 of the loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 29.12.2009 entered into between the applicant and the first respondent in respect of the loan sanctioned for purchase of the schedule mentioned equipment. The second respondent stood as guarantor for due repayment of the amount and executed a separate guarantee deed dated 29.12.2009. As per the terms and conditions of the loan cu...

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. S. Arulswamy and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:- These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 24.04.2008 made in MCOP.No.4497/2003 by the learned Additional District Judge, MACT, FTC-IV, Chennai.) These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the Insurance Company and the claimants respectively against the Judgement and Decree dated 24.04.2008 made in MCOP.No.4497/2003 by the learned Additional District Judge, MACT, FTC-IV, Chennai. 2. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as total compensation with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization to the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased A.Santhana Don Bosco, who died in the motor accident that had occurred on 22.7.2003. In their respective appeals, the claimants seeks for enhancement of compensation, whereas the Insurance Company prays for reduction of compensation. 3. In the claim petition, it is averred that the deceased was 23 years old and ...

R. Sundaramurthy and Co Rep by Its Managing Partner, Neyveli Vs. Commi ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to Order -in-Appeal No.111/2012 (PST) dated 23.07.2012 in Appeal No.150/2012 (PST) dated 29.06.2012 passed by the first respondent and quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the 1st respondent, dated 23.7.2012. However, it is admitted that an appeal has been filed before the Commissioner of Appeals, challenging the order of the adjudicating authority, dated 23.2.2012. As the issues arising for the decision of this Court, in the present Writ petition, had already been raised in the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Appeals, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition. It has also been brought to the notice of this...