Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

Tamil Nadu Civil Supplied Corporation Vs. Manickammal

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ283

(Appeal against the judgement and decree dated 8.10.2007 passed by the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.4129 of 2000.) This appeal is focussed by the plaintiff as against the judgement and decree dated 8.10.2007 passed by the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.4129 of 2000, which was filed for recovery of money. 2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. The epitome and the long and short of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: A. The appellant herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No.4129 of 2000, as against the respondent herein/defendant seeking the following reliefs: "...to pass a judgement and decree in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant: i) directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.9,66,063.78. ii) directing the defendant to pay interest on the said sum of Rs.9,66,063...

Syed Munir Hoda I.A.S. and Others Vs. Mrs. Bader Sayeed and Another

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(7)MLJ835

1. Application Nos.4305 and 4306 of 2012 were filed by the 6th defendant in the suit to vacate the common interim order dated 19.01.2012 made in O.A.Nos.37 and 38 of 2012 in C.S.No.26 of 2012. Similarly, Application Nos.4307 and 4308 of 2012 were filed by the 1st defendant society to vacate the very same interim order dated 19.1.2012. 2. O.A.Nos.37 and 38 of 2012 were filed by two applicants, who are plaintiffs in C.S.No.26 of 2012 for the grant of an interim injunction restraining respondents 6 to 13 from acting as members of the general body of the first respondent's society and for an interim injunction restraining the 6th respondent from acting as a member of the executive council of the first respondent society. 3. When the matter came up, the first defendant society apprehending the institution of a suit had filed caveats in Caveat Petition Nos.64, 65 and 66 of 2012 before this court and it was lodged on 10.01.2012. However, when the applications for interim injunction came u...

First Leasing Company of India Ltd. Rep by Its Manager-indirect Taxes, ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the files of the First Respondent-herein in TNGST:0640096/2003-04 date 06.09.2012 and quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had made an endorsement stating that the respondents 3 to 16 are given up, as no relief is prayed for against them in the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that a detailed reply had been submitted by the petitioner, on 11.07.2012, raising the necessary objections to the notice, dated 25.06.2012, relating to the assessment year 2003-2004. The petitioner had also prayed for personal hearing before an order is passed, pursuant to the said notice, dated 25.06.2012. However, the first respondent had passed the impugned ord...

M/S. Synergy Green Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax O ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Respondent in the impugned proceedings GD No.3819/12-13 dated 24.09.2012 directing the petitioner to pay tax of Rs.1,35,032/- apart from compounding fee of Rs.2,70,064/-, quash the same and direct the respondent to release the goods detained on 21.09.2012 vide Goods Detention Notice No.3819/12-13 dated 21.09.2012.) 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.1,35,032/-, which is the amount of tax demanded by the authority concerned, while passing the detention order. ii) ...

M/S. Ganga Textiles Ltd Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax-ii and Anot ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and quash the impugned order of the 1st respondent issued under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 bearing C.NO.220 (2)/REV.263/CIT II/CBE/2011-2012 dated 30.3.2012 issued by the 1st respondent.) This writ petition was listed under the caption `for withdrawal', based on the letter submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also sought the permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. Based on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and in view of the letter submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, and in view of the endorsement made, this writ petition is dismissed, as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed....

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Peelamedu, Coimbatore Vs. Bakkiyam an ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2007 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.319 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Sankagiri.) 1. The Insurance Company disputes the compensation awarded on the ground of liability as well as quantum. 2. One Thangavelu, on 23.10.2005, died in a road accident. On account of his death, his dependents were awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,64,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company/Appellant contended that the Tribunal had not properly appreciated the evidence. A close scrutiny of the evidence would show that the deceased himself was at fault. He has contributed to the road accident. No amount towards income-tax has been deducted. The Tribunal also taken excessive income and that has resulted in granting them excessive compensation. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants would contend that though su...

State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the District Collector Erode and Others Vs ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ41

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2008 made in A.S.No.124 of 2007 on the file of 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.200 of 2003 dated 30.09.2004 on the file of 1st Additional District Munsif, Erode.) 1. The defendants in the original suit are the appellants herein. Respondent Samiyathal filed the original suit for bare injunction alleging that her right of access to the road from her property through the road margin was sought to be obstructed by the appellants/defendants by putting up a construction for housing the office of a wing of the Police Department, namely CBCID office. The suit was resisted by the appellants/defendants by filing a common written statement containing parawar denial of the plaint allegations and also a contention that a sufficient space had been left to be used as an access to the property of the respondent/plaintiff from the road. 2. The lear...

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem Vs. M/S. Shamlal Bajaj, Salem

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Tax Case (Appeal) is against the the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC - III 'D' Bench, Chennai dated 18.11.2005 passed in I.T.A.No. 1386/ Mds/ 2004 for the assessment year 1997-98.) CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. 1. The Revenue is on appeal as against the order of the Tribunal relating to assessment year 1997-98 by raising the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the excess claim of deduction, which was held as could not be adjusted under Section 143(1)(a) proceedings, could empower the Assessing Officer under Section 147 to reopen the assessment for the purpose of disallowing the excess relief of deduction?" 2. In spite of service of notice on the assessee, there is no representation either in person or through counsel. After hearing learned counsel for the Revenue, following order is passed. 3. It is seen from the discussion in the assessment order that originally the Officer considered the merits of the claim under Section 143(1)(a) of the...

Dr. Jacob Placka Vs. Managing Director, State Industries Promotion Cor ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to record the change of name and issue No Objection Certificate in the name of "Placka Information Technologies Private Limited", so as to enable the petitioner to avail the sanctioned financial assistance by the Bank.) 1. This writ petition was listed under the caption `for withdrawal', based on the letter submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also sought the permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. Based on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and in view of the letter submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner and in view of the endorsement made, this writ petition is dismissed, as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed....

B. Ranganathan and Another Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Polic ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer Crl.O.P.Nos.21714 and 23140 of 2011: Filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to Crime Nos.834 of 2011 dated 24.8.2011 and 758 of 2011 dated 1.8.2011 respectively on the file of V7 Nolambur Police Station, Chennai-37 and to quash the same. Crl.O.P.No.24938 of 2011: Filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to C.C.No.293 of 2011 dated 21.9.2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and to quash the same.) COMMON ORDER 1. While Crl.OP.No.21714 of 2011 is filed by A1 and A2 in Crime No.834 of 2011 against the State represented by Inspector of Police, V7 Nolambur Police Station, Chennai-37/Investigation officer and one D.Varatharajulu/defacto Complainant to call for the records relating to Crime No.834 of 2011 dated 24.8.2011 on the file of V7 Nolambur Police station and to quash the same, Crl.O.P. No.24938 of 2011 is filed by A1 and A2 to call for the records in C.C.No.293 of 2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, ari...