Chennai Court January 2016 Judgments
Vittal Sampath Kumaran Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner U ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Declaration to declare that the proceedings initiated by the second respondent under the provision of the Principal Act, Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 in the vacant house site land comprised in Survey No.211/7A, Part of Sea Ward 2nd Land, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041, measuring to an extent of 3.158 grounds i.e, 7579.429 sq.ft or thereabout out of 3.52 grounds at Thiruvanmiyur Village, Mylapore, Triplicane Taluk, Chennai District is abated in view of Section 4 of Repeal Act, 20/99, since the physical possession of the vacant house site land comprised in Survey No.211/7A Part of Sea Ward 2nd Lane, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041, measuring to an extent of 3.158 grounds i.e., 7579.429 sq.ft. or thereabout out of 3.52 grounds at Thiruvanmiyur Village, Mylapore Triplicane Taluk, Chennai District is with the petitioner.) 1. The petitioner has submitted that on 25.11.2011, he...
Tag this Judgment!C. Manimala and Others Vs. The District Collector, O/o The District Co ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Jan-12-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.165/2015 dated 23.11.2015 and consequential Impugned order in Na.Ka.No.166/2015 dated 23.11.2015 on the file of respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbear the respondent No.2 from evicting the petitioners from their shop in shops No.19, 20, 7, 10, 13, 12, 18, 24, 25, 8, 14 at TUFIDCO shopping complex and T.Kallupatti Town Panchayat Bus stand commercial complex, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.) The petitioners are the lessees of shops at T.Kallupatti Town Panchayat Bus stand commercial complex. They are aggrieved against the tender notification issued for tender-cum- auction of those shops for a period commencing from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2018. 2. Though the writ petition was filed by raising also by raising a ground that the petitioners are entitled for renewal of license,...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2016
(Prayer in Criminal Appeal No.139 of 1999: Criminal Appeal under Section 11 of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 against the common order dated 02-12-1998 made in Crl.M.P.No.2384 of 1998 in Crl.O.P.No.9 of 1997 and in Crl.M.P.No.2637 of 1998 in Crl.M.P.No.2500 of 1997 and Crl.O.P.No.9 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Madras to set aside the same. Criminal Appeal No.192 of 2001: Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment passed by the Special Judge No.1/XI Additional Judge, Chennai - 1, in Special C.C.No.3 of 1999 dated 02-03-2001 sentencing the appellant to four years of R.I. and imposing a fine of Rs.1 lac which was paid on 02-03-2001 and ordering that an amount of Rs.1,01,32,107/- shall be forfeited to Government under Sec 13 (3) of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 and ordering the Dt. Collector to recover the said amount by the provisions contemplated under the Revenue Recovery Act after the appeal time is o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore Vs. S. Martin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2016
(Prayer: Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'C' Bench, dated 31.7.2015 in ITA No.294/Mds/2015.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Tax Case Appeal has been filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 31.7.2015, made in I.T.A.No.294/Mds./2015. 2. The brief facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, are as follows: 2.1) The assessee, the respondent herein, is an individual having income from the sale of lottery tickets, money lending and also from generating power through windmills. The assessee had filed its revised return of income, for the assessment year 2011-12, on 29.9.2011, declaring a total income of Rs.1,67,28,07,770/-. 2.2. The assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs.6,72,43,719/-, under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') on the income from the windmill division of the company. The ca...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Ponmari Enterprises Private Ltd., Vs. C. Siva Subramanian and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2016
(Prayers in C.S.No.38/2008 :- Plaint filed and numbered as Civil Suit under Order IV, Rule 1 of O.S. Rules, read with Order VII, Rule 1 of C.P.C., 1908, praying for a judgment and decree as against the defendant (a) directing the defendant to specifically perform his part of the obligations arising out of the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property situate at No.146 Keelavalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring an extent of 41.08 acres or thereabout, more fully described in the plaint Schedule "A", and also the property situate at No.148, Kinar Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District, comprised in Survey No.15 measuring an extent of 3.94 acres or thereabout, more fully described in the plaint Schedule "B", on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.5,27,24,000/- and execute a deed of sale or sales either in favour of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees ei...
Tag this Judgment!S. Palani and Others Vs. S. Bharathi Dasan (Deceased) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2016
(Prayers: T.O.S.No.22 of 2007 numbered on conversion of O.P.No.607 of 2007, filed under Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Order 25 Rule 5 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, praying that Letters of Administration with a Will annexed, may be granted to the plaintiff as the legatee under the Will of the deceased K.Saraswathy, having effect limited to the State of Tamil Nadu. Tr.C.S.No.449 of 2008 numbered on transfer of O.S.No.782 of 2006 from the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai and the amended plaint filed under Order 7 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying: (a) to pass a decree declaring that cancellation deed executed by Smt.Saraswathy Ammal on 15.07.2005, vide Doc.No.3011/05 S.R.O. is not valid in law, inoperative and null and void; (b) to pass a decree for partition and separate possession of plaintiff's half share in suit property at No.21, Bharti Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai-94, fully described in the schedule, by dividing it by mete...
Tag this Judgment!S. Selvi Vs. State by, the Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Poonamallee, passed in Crl.M.P.No.4734 of 2015 in C.C.o.229 of 2013 on 05.11.2015.) 1. This revision is preferred against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Poonamallee, passed in Crl.M.P.No.4734 of 2015 in C.C.No.229 of 2013 on 05.11.2015. 2. Second respondent/de facto complainant preferred a complaint informing that the petitioner's son-in-law/A1 entered into a sale agreement on 05.07.2007 towards sale of property in Survey No.171/2A, Thalambur Village, Chengelpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District, measuring an extent of 2.94 acres, for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,14,50,000/-. Initially, the de facto complainant/second respondent has issued a cheque dated 05.07.2007 in a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- to first accused towards advance and subsequently, a further sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- had been paid. When the de facto complainant approached the accused to pay the ...
Tag this Judgment!Yagna Moorthi Vs. The Assistant Commissioner and The Competent Authori ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent as fixed in G.O.Ms.No.98, Revenue Department, dated 01.03.2010, to issue the challan to remit money within 30 days from the date of issue challan by the petitioner and pass appropriate order to the first respondent to pass order to the second respondent within 30 days from the date of remittance of money by the petitioner and direct the second respondent to issue patta within 30 days from the date of order by the first respondent to the second respondent in respect of S.No.672/Part, Velacherry Village, Murugunagar, Chennai.) 1. The petitioner has submitted that he is the owner of the property which is situated at Survey No.672/Part in Velachery Village, Chennai. The same has been purchased by sale deed from one Thiru.P.L.Ramanathan Chettiar through his power agent Thiru.D.Subramaniam. The petitioner acquired right, title and interest over the said property ...
Tag this Judgment!S.G. Sundaramurthy Vs. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings dated 28.06.2010 vide M.R.4/Aa1/48/17-70, Maduranthakam on the file of the third respondent and quash the same.) 1. The petitioner has submitted that the third respondent passed an order dated 28.06.2010 vide M.R.4/Aa1/48/17-70, Maduranthakam and wherein it has been stated that an extent of 28.99 acres of land situated at Peruvel Madura Saravambakkam Village, Maduranthakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District from the holdings of one Konda Reddy was declared as surplus. The surplus lands were entered in the Form-A Register and then it was stated therein that already an extent of 27.49 acre was assigned. Further, for the remaining land to an extent of 1.50 acres, a public notice in Form No.B inviting applications for assignment was issued and in pursuance thereof as many as 127 persons applied for assignment in Form No.C. The Authorized Offi...
Tag this Judgment!D. Dakshinamoorthy and Another Vs. Ranjitham and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2016
(Prayer: Plaint filed and numbered as Civil Suit under Order 7 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Order 4 Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, praying to pass a judgment and decree: (a) directing the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.13,42,875/- and execute a sale deed in respect of the B Schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs or their nominees pursuant to the agreement of sale deed dated 21.10.2005, failing which, this Court may execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs or their nominees upon their depositing the balance sale consideration to the credit of the above suit, and (b) to pay costs to the plaintiffs. Schedule of properties A - Schedule property: All that piece and parcel of land measuring an extent of 2.02 acres, comprised in S.Nos.38, 45 part, 39/2 and 39/3, Jambuli Village, Block No.7, Tondiarpet Taluk, within the Sub-Registration District of Sembium and Registration District of Chennai North. B - Sched...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »