Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

A. Venkatesan and Another Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer in Suo Motu Contempt Petition No.1438/2012 : Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings initiated against the Contemnor herein as per order dated 04.10.2012 made in H.C.P.Nos.380, 617 and 1406 of 2012 Prayer in W.P.No.27632/2012: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to order independent probe by CBI, viz., based on the representation given by the petitioner dated 06.10.2012 and to take appropriate and necessary action within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and also to frame appropriate and necessary explicit strict guidelines to regulate the entry of Government Servants and also as to the usage of Cell Phone or any other Digital or Electronic Device / Gadgets having audio / video recording capability in any mode, inside the court halls and the court premises, to be strictly implemented by the fifth respondent.) K.N. BASHA, J. Both the Suo Motu Contempt Petition and the writ petition are arising out o...

Sivaprakasam and Another Vs. A2 Junior Assistant Taluk Supply Office, ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus regarding the represented letter dated 11.08.2011 and 17.12.2009 and to consider the same.) Theertha Puram, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. Their grievance is that they were not issued with ration card. The first petitioner was given ration card earlier. However, the same was cancelled erroneously on the ground that he was not residing at Vasudevanur Village. The second petitioner is not issued with ration card though she made an application. Both the petitioners seek issuance of ration card as they are residing at Vasudevanur Village. 2. The first petitioner has enclosed the identity card issued by the Election Commission of India in the typed set of papers to establish that he is a resident of Vasudevanur. The first petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. The first petitioner has also enclosed the community certificate dated 08.08.1989 issued by the Tahsildar,...

Murugan Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police St ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(4)MLJ(Crl)743

(PRAYER: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to revise the order of conviction in C.C.No.38 of 2004, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Vridhachalam and confirm the conviction under Section 498-A IPC and setting aside the conviction under Section 406 IPC and sentence passed against the petitioner on 19.09.2005 in C.A.No.95 of 2004, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent / police herein had registered a criminal case in Crime No.11 of 2003, on the file of All Women Wing Police Station, Vridhachalam on the strength of defacto complainant's complaint (P.W.1-Kalayarasi) stating that the first accused, viz., Murugan, S/o.Kuppusami had developed a love affair with P.W.1 and had an intimate relationship with her for the past one year. Thereafter, the marriage between the couple was solemnized on 28.09.2002 at Shivan Temple, Ne...

M/S. Indian Bank Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(2)MLJ232

(Prayer: Tax Case (Appeal) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench A dated 25th October, 2007 in I.T.A.No.1079/MDS/2003.) Chitra Venkataraman, J. 1. The assessee is on appeal as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench A dated 25th October, 2007 in I.T.A.No.1079/MDS/2003 relating to the assessment year 1991-92 and this Court admitted the above tax case appeal on the following questions of law:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in not accepting the appellant's claim with regard to the broken period interest in its entirety and whether the Tribunal is right in law in classifying the securities as permanent and current and restricting the claim in regard to the broken period interest on securities ? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the assessment of income under the head 'undisclosed income' ? 3. Whether...

Vijaya Vs. S. Babu

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for records in C.A.No.395 of 2005, on the file of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and set-aside the order dated 10.08.2007, confirming the conviction and sentence rendered by the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in C.C.No.1561 of 2003 by a judgment dated 07.11.2005.) 1. The revision petitioner herein / appellant / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.1327 of 2007, against the judgment made in C.A.No.395 of 2005, on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.1561 of 2003, on the file of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- from the complainant and in order to discharge the said loan had issued two cheques, each for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, bearing cheque Nos...

E. Rajendran Vs. the Presiding Officer and Another

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorari as stated therein.) 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the award passed by the first respondent-Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, High Court Compound, Chennai, in I.D.No.45 of 1997, dated 19.04.1999, by calling for the records connected thereto, insofar as negativing the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in service, with continuity of service and backwages. 2. The petitioner joined the service of the second respondent Corporation on 12.12.1986 as Driver. On 17.01.1993, he was on duty in the bus bearing registration No.MD31/10180 in Route No.D60/L and while the bus was proceeding to Chinglepet from Tambaram, due to rash and negligent driving, an accident had occurred at 10.40 hours, in which the bus had collided with a Car and caused death of 2 persons and injuries to 22 persons. After two hours of the accident, the Traffic Insp...

M/S. Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd Rep by Its Special Officer B ...

Court: Chennai

A.No.3773 of 2012 is filed by the owner of the properties for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect and file a report on the construction completed till date and to note down the physical features of the schedule mentioned properties with the assistance of licensed Civil Engineer. Whereas, A.No.4220 of 2012 is filed by the building contractor to dismiss the application for appointment of Advocate commissioner. 2. The parties, for convenient sake, are referred to, as per their rank in A.No.3773 of 2012. 3. Few facts, which are relevant for consideration herein, are as follows: The applicant/owner of the properties proposed to develop a housing project upon the lands in question and engaged the respondent/contractor to do the construction work. Both the parties entered into a construction agreement on 2.2.2011 subject to terms and conditions. Admittedly part of the construction work was completed. In the course of the same, dispute arose between the parties, leading in terminat...

Glosoft Technologies Private Limited Vs. M/S. Squadra Education Privat ...

Court: Chennai

The applicant in the two original applications is the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a registered private limited company. They have been carrying on computer education under the name and style of G-TEC Computer Education and the logo G-TEC and engaged in running computer training centres at various places both within and outside Kerala to promote and advance computer awareness among students and businessmen, executives and members of general public. They commenced their computer education centres during October, 2000 and are using the trade mark for 11 years. Subsequently, they had registered their trade mark on 03.08.2001 with the Trade Mark Registry. The Directors of first respondent company initially had franchise agreement with the applicant. Subsequently, they had registered the defendant company on 17.02.2012 and by minimally altering the logo. They are using the trade name Gi-TEC Computer Education and Gi-TEC and they are using the logo with deceptively similar, colour scheme and ...

R. Prabhakar and Another Vs. Dr. V. Jothilakshmi

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER:Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set-aside the judgment dated 20.12.2011 in C.A.No.112 of 2011 of the appellate Court and restore the judgment dated 24.05.2011 in M.C.No.12 of 2011 of the trial Court.) The respondent herein / petitioner, viz., Dr.V.Jothilakshmi had filed a case in M.C.No.12 of 2011 against the petitioners herein / respondents viz., husband and mother-in-law respectively under Section 18(A)(B)(C)(E)(F)(G), 19(A)(B)(C) and Section 20(C) of Domestic Violence Act stating that she has been married to the first petitioner herein on 05.09.2003. From the date of marriage both the petitioners herein and their family members have been torturing her physically and mentally. She gave birth to a female child on 06.06.2004. Therefore, the petitioners and their family members prevented her from entering the matrimonial home since she gave birth to a female child. Finally, they demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- besides h...

V.R. Raghunathan Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, calling for the records of the 4th Respondent relating to order in T.R.No.:176-T/TRO-III/ dated 21.08.2012 and quash the same in so far as Recovery Proceedings in the case of M/s.Thirumala Green Power Enterprises Pvt Ltd during the pendency of the appeals preferred by the petitioner before the 1st Respondent on 27.01.2011 against the orders of the 3rd Respondent dated 31.12.2010 for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06.) 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 for the petitioner had placed before this Court, an order, dated 05.09.2007, made in W.P.Nos.29108 and 29109 of 2007, wherein this Court had set aside the show cause notice, dated 19.07.2007 and the impugned order passed pursuant to the said notice, and had directed the first respondent therein to cause an enquiry, w...