Chennai Court November 2012 Judgments

P. Muthulingam and Others Vs. the State by Inspector of Police, T.Palu ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:-Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment dated 17.09.2012 in S.C.No.56 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur.) COMMON JUDGMENT The appellant in all these three criminal appeals are the accused in S.C.No.56 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur and they stand convicted for an offence under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the above said criminal appeals before this Court. 2. These appeals are taken up for final hearing with the consent of both the parties since the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are not challenging the conviction imposed upon them, but they plead for the reduction of the sentence o...

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Rep. by Its Branch Manager Vs. L. Agn ...

Court: Chennai

(Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 30.01.2009 made in MCOP.No.212 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court), Tirupattur. ) R. SUBBIAH, J. Being aggrieved over the finding rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court), Tirupatthur, in M.C.O.P.No. 212 of 2008, in fixing 50% liability on the part of the insurer of a lorry bearing registration No.HR 38 H 9672 as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, New India Assurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal. 2. Appellant herein is the 4th respondent before the Tribunal. Respondents 1 to 4 herein are the claimants. 5th respondent is the owner of one Scorpio Car bearing registration No. TN 23 J 8611. 6th respondent is the insurer of the said Car. 7th respondent is the owner of the lorry bearing registration No. HR 38 H 9672 and ...

M/S. Sabari Exim Private Limited, Represented by Its Director Shahi Ku ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to take up the Appeal in C/61/2006 MAS on the file of the respondent and decide the same on merits by fixing an early date.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. 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 Appeal inIssue on 05.11.2012 C/61/2006 MAS, filed by the petitioner, 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 directed to dispose of the Appeal, in C/61/2006 MAS, filed by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period ...

Parveen Travels (P) Ltd. Vs. Transport Commissioner Sta

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein to forthwith consider the petitioner's application dated 4.1.2011 pursuant to the representation made on 19.10.2012 for grant of Omni bus/Contract Carriage/All India permit with regard to the 04 sleeper coaches.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate 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 19.10.2012, 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 directed to dispose of the representation, dated 19.10.2012, on merits and ...

R. Dayalan Vs. Nagarathnam and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set-aside the judgment of the Court of the District Munsif, Hosur made in O.S.No.418 of 1985 and confirmed by the Sub Judge, Hosur in A.S.No.133 of 1996.) The second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Hosur, rendered in A.S.No.133 of 1996, dated 05.11.1997, confirming the decree and judgment of the Court of District Munsif, Hosur, made in O.S.No.418 of 1985, dated 22.08.1994. 2. The suit in O.S.No.418 of 1985 has been filed for the relief of declaration and injunction. The declaration is sought for in respect of two items of the suit property, namely, an extent of 4.5 acres in R.S.No.682 and an extent of 45 cents in R.S.No.683 at Kannathur Village, Hosur Taluk, totalling an extent of 4.92 acres. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and plaintiffs 2 to 9 are added as legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff claimed title based upo...

Lakshmiammal and Others Vs. Nagammal and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(3)MWN(Civil)664; 2012(8)MLJ707; 2013(1)CTC207

(Second Appeal filed under section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree of the II Additional Subordinate Judge's Court at Coimbatore, dated 09.04.2008 in A.S.No.54 of 2007 reversing the Judgement and decree of the III Additional District Munsif Court at Coimbatore dated 07.03.2007 in O.S.No.3654 of 1996.) This second appeal was filed initially by Lakshmiammal, the 4th defendant in the original suit and the legal representatives of the deceased 3rd defendant Sundaram, namely Adhi Ramani and Meena Sangeetha. During the pendency of the second appeal, by an order dated 13.04.2010 made in M.P.No.2 of 2010, V.P.Maragatha Mani who purchased the property from appellants 1 to 3 was impleaded as the 4th appellant. Respondents 1 to 7 were the plaintiffs 2 and 4 to 9. Respondents 8 and 9 are the legal representatives of the deceased third plaintiff Mylathal. Respondents 10 to 14 were defendants 6 to 10 in the original suit. 2. Original Suit No.3654 of 1996 was filed by Ayyanna Thevar, ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. True Value Homes (India) P. Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ55

(APPEAL under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 24th June, 2011 made in I.T.A.No.556/Mds/2011 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2006-07.) CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. This Tax Case (Appeal), filed by the Revenue as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment year 2006-07, was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing deduction under Section 80IB[10] when the assessee company has not furnished the necessary completion certificates?" 2. It is seen from the order of the Tribunal that the assessee had produced the certificate of completion from the local Authority, viz., Okkiyam Thoraipakkam Panchayat in the matter of grant of approval on building permit. The Tribunal pointed out that the certificate clearly pointed out that the projects were co...

R. Shanmugavalli Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Its Secretary, Ho ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)LW(Cri)161; 2012(4)MLJ(Crl)590

(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in the order of detention bearing reference C.M.P.25/Slum Grabber/Salem City/2012 dated 12.03.2012 passed by the second respondent and quashing the same and direct the production of the body of the detenu Ramu @ Gym Ramu now detained at Central, Prison, Salem and set him at liberty.) P. DEVADASS, J. The wife of the detenu, namely, Ramu @ Gym Ramu, challenges the detention of her husband by the order of the second respondent dated 12.03.2012, branding him as "Slum Grabber" as contemplated under Section 2(h) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Act 14 of 1982). 2. Based on the report of the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu has involved in certain cases and his remaining at large is p...

V.G. Visshwanathan Vs. the Secretary Regional Transport Authority Sale ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein to not to insiste Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules 348(2) and pass orders forthwith on the Petitioner's Light Goods Vehicle permit renewal the fitness certificate application dt.10.10.2012 covered by Vehicle No.TN 52 Z 4097.) ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent not to insist on painting the vehicle with the colour prescribed, under Rule 348(2) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner, for the renewal of the fitness certificate of the vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN 52 Z 4097, had been returned with endorsement that the petitioner should paint the vehicle in...

M/S. Viswas Promoters Private Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner o ...

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER:Tax Case Appeal No.1014 of 2009 is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'B' dated 13.10.2008 in ITA No.1912/Mds/2007 in respect of the assessment year 2004-05. Tax Case Appeal No.857 of 2010 is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'B' dated 17.09.2009 in ITA No.1451/ MDS/2008 in respect of the assessment year 2005-06. Tax Case Appeal Nos.190, 191 and 192 of 2012 are filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench dated 30.03.2012 in ITA Nos.83, 84 and 85/Mds/2012 in respect of the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. W.A.No.471 of 2010 is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 11.09.2009 made in W.P.No.3686 of 2009 on the file of the learned single Judge of th...