Chennai Court March 2017 Judgments
Express Infrastructure Private Limited, Chennai Vs. B.L. Kashyap and S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24.12.2016 passed in M.P.No.Nil of 2016 dated 05.10.2016 in Arbitration No.Nil of 2012 by the Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal.) 1. The revision is filed as against the order dated 24.12.2016 passed in unnumbered interlocutory application dated 05.10.2016 in the matter of Arbitration related to the disputes between the parties. 2. The brief facts of the case would run thus: (i) A Letter of Intent was entered into between the claimant /the first respondent herein and the respondent/petitioner herein qua works relating to Concrete and Block work package for the project "Express Mall", Chennai. The said Letter of Intent was followed up with the notice of Award dated 01.07.2007 and an articles of agreement dated 20.07.2007. There were also extensions of time as agreed between the parties. (ii) Since disputes arose between the parties, the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted for adjudication...
Tag this Judgment!Kaveri Vs. Jayaraman and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the learned District Munsif, Madurantakam, Kancheepuram in I.A.No.1656 of 2013 in O.S.No.200 of 2010.) 1. The first defendant is the revision petitioner. Challenging the order passed by the Court below in allowing the application filed by the first respondent/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of plaint, the present revision has been preferred. 2. The plaintiff and the second defendant are brothers. They both partitioned their ancestral properties between them. While so, to the surprise of the plaintiff, the second defendant has sold the portion of the property allotted to the plaintiff's share to the first defendant vide document No.1681 of 2001, without his knowledge and that too, when he is in possession of the same. Hence the suit was filed seeking declaration and permanent injunction. Pending suit, the plaintiff f...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaguru Vs. State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Coimbatore Distric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2017
(Prayer:-Criminal original petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.782 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, E-1 Singanallur (Crime) Police Station, Coimbatore District.) Petition for bail in Cr.No.782/2016. 2. This is his third regular bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. Offences alleged are under Sections 170, 419, 420, 451 IPC @ Sections 120B, 395 r/w.397 IPC r/w.Sec.27 of Arms Act. 4. Heard both sides. 5. On 5.10.2016, at about 5.30 a.m., petitioner and others were alleged to have committed dacoity in the house of a wealthy man situate in Singanallur, a posh locality in Coimbatore. 6. In this connection, petitioner has been arrested and remanded on 24.11.2016. He is in jail for more than 90 days. Yet investigating not completed and final report (loosely called as 'charge sheet') is filed by the police under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.. 7. Under the Old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, there is no provision for 'default bail'...
Tag this Judgment!Saifuddin Vs. A.M.A. Rawoof and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2017
(Prayer: This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC for the reliefs as stated therein.) 1. This civil suit had been filed to pass a judgement and decree, against the Defendants:- (a) for declaration that the agreement dated 10.5.2008, entered into between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, is null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff. (b) directing the Defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit property after the 1st Defendant receiving Rs.2,50,000/- from the Plaintiff. (c) directing each of the Defendants to pay damages at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month from the date of the plaint till the date of delivery of possession by the Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff. (d) for costs of the suit. 2. The Plaintiff is the owner of the property, bearing Door No.54/3, GNT Road, Erukkencherry, Chennai-118 to an extent of 836 sq.ft. In the year 1999, he had met with a major accident and borrowed a hand loan of...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliaperumal Vs. Parvathi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2017
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2016 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore [Rent Control Appellate Authority] in CMA No.20 of 2014 in confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Chidambaram in un-numbered I.A....of 2014 in RCOP No.1 of 2007.) 1. The revision is filed by the tenant in a Rent Control Proceedings, challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller in an unnumbered IA No.. of 2014 in RCOP No.1 of 2007 to decide the preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the original petition and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to try the eviction petition. 2. This Rent Control proceedings seems to have a checkered history as the oldest of the proceeding was in the year 1996. To decide the quest...
Tag this Judgment!M. Vijayalakshmi and Another Vs. Sadhu A.N. Sircar Foundation, Rep.by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2017
(Prayer: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of CPC read with Order 25 Rule 62 of Original Side Rules read with 263 of Indian Succession Act 1925 to revoke or recall and annul the grant of Letters of Administration granted to the 1st respondent in TOS.No.23 of 2003 dated 29.08.2008.) 1. The captioned application has been filed by the third party to revoke or recall and annul the grant of Letters of Administration dated 29.8.2008 granted to the 1st respondent in T.O.S.No.23 of 2003. 2. Originally, the testamentary Suit was filed by 1st respondent herein for issuance of Letters of Administration with certified copy of the Will of the deceased Sadhu A.N.Sircar executed in his favour as the legatee of the said deceased. This Court, vide judgment dated 27.08.2007 disposed of the said suit by recording the Memorandum of Compromise dated 16.07.2007, which was entered into between the said Sadhu A.N.Sarcar Foundation and Abraham Samarendrianath Sircar, the respondents herein under Order X...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited, Rep. by S. Ravi, Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in TIN:330203524802/2013-14 dated 17.11.2015 and quash the same as being violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and hence invalid and illegal.) Common Order: 1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are registered dealers on the file of the respective Assessing Officers under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [in short TNVAT Act ] and or the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [in short CST Act ]. These cases were clubbed together as a common issue arises pertaining to the reversal of Input Tax Credit [in short ITC ] effected by the respective Assessing Officers of the registered dealers. Therefore, it may not be necessary to refer to the facts and circumstances of each case and suffice to take such of those facts, which are necessary to...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. Anita Kumaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2017
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 19.06.2015 made in I.T.A.Nos.434, 442 and 443/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11.) Common Judgment: Rajiv Shakdher, J. C.M.P.No.2395 and 2396 of 2017 (Dispense with): 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. T.C.(A)Nos.139 to 141 of 2017: 2. These appeals are preferred by the Revenue as against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), dated 19.06.2015. 3. By virtue of the impugned judgment, a common order was passed qua Assessment Years (A.Y.s) 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 4. The common issue, which arose before the Tribunal for consideration was, whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (in short 'the Act') should be confirmed qua the Assessee. 5. The brief facts, which are required to be noticed are as follows: 5.1. In the concer...
Tag this Judgment!Tvl.Captiv Fenestration, Represented by its Partner S. Premakumari Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2017
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the files of the second respondent in No.43544, dated 22.02.2017 and quash the same as being without jurisdiction and authority of law and contrary to the principles of natural justice.) 1. Heard Mr.R.Senniappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), who took notice for the respondents and with their consent, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Goods Detention Notice No.43544, dated 22.02.2017 issued by the second respondent as being without jurisdiction and authority of law and contrary to the principles of natural justice. 3. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and assessee on the file of the first respondent. The petitioner has made purchases of UPVC Reinforcement Section 580 mm (25015 Kg) fr...
Tag this Judgment!Kirupakaran and Another Vs. A. Uthaman and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2017
(Prayers: S.A.No.657 of 1999: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment dated 18.12.1997 rendered in A.S.No.9 of 1997 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras confirming the decree and judgment dated 26.09.1994 rendered in O.S.No.815 of 1992 on the file of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. S.A.No.657 of 2007: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2006 rendered in A.S.No.363 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court No.4), Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2005 made in O.S.No.7708 of 1997 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Judge at Madras.) Common Judgment: S.A.No.657 of 2007 1. The first defendant in O.S.No.815 of 1992 is the appellant in S.A.No.657 of 1999. The suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants men or agents or any other person from co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »