Chennai Court October 2002 Judgments
Cholan Roadway Corporation Limited, Rep. by Its General Manager Vs. Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC548; (2003)1MLJ19
1. For construction of an Additional Depot for Cholan Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam, an extent of 1 acre 10890 sq. ft. comprised in T.S. No. 2092 to 2094 and 2095 in Palavathan Kattalai village and Ullur village, Kumbakonam Taluk, was acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government Gazette dated 23.3.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer, after complying with the formalities and after hearing all the parties concerned, passed the award dated 25.10.1989, fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 15.96 per sq. ft.. 2. Not satisfied with such fixation by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents/land owners sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court viz., the Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, took the references on file and numbered them as LAOP Nos. 20 to 22/90 and 24/90. Before the Reference Court, claimant in LAOP No. 20 of 1990 examined himsel...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar (Minor), Rep. by His Father and Next Friend Manickam Vs. Nationa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1066
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The appellant in all these appeals is the owner of the lorry involved in the accident. On 23.7.1987, the lorry was carrying steel rods and some employees of the appellant. The 6th respondent in L.P.A.No.4 of 1999, who has since been given up, was the driver. He drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner when he took a turn, which resulted in the death of four employees, who travelled in the lorry and injury to another. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased, making the insurer and the insured liable to pay the compensation. On appeal, the learned single Judge absolved the insurance company from liability to pay compensation and, therefore, the owner of the lorry has filed the present appeal. 2. The principal contention advanced for the owner is that the driver of the vehicle, the vehicle admittedly being a lorry, was in possession of a licence which permitted him to drive heavy passenger vehicles and, therefore, the dr...
Tag this Judgment!C. Radhakrishnan S/O Chellappan Pillai Vs. B. Valliamma Pillai D/O Lat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ165
K. Sampath, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No.346/82 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, is the appellant in the second appeal. The suit is for partition.2. The plaintiff's case was as follows:The suit properties originally belonged to Bhavathy Amma. On her death, they devolved on her two daughters Valliamma and Ananchi Pillai. Valliamma, the first defendant in the suit, and her sister the said Ananchi Pillai became entitled to one half share in each of the suit properties. Their brother Ramaswamy Pillai was looking after the suit properties. Taking advantage of this position, Ramaswamy Pillai fraudulently created a mortgage in 1099 M.E. in respect of the suit properties behind the back of his sisters. The above mortgage was assigned in favour of one Mohammed Abdul Rahman Alim Sahib and he got possession. Ramaswamy Pillai executed another mortgage in favour of Abdul Rahman Alim Sahib giving credit to and extinguishing the 1099 M.E. mortgage and receiving additio...
Tag this Judgment!D.S. Rajagopalan, Vs. A. Mohammad Ali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ199
1. Defendants in O.S.No.1/1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, are the appellants in the second appeal. The respondent herein filed the suit for a preliminary decree, directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.2,18,250/- with subsequent interest thereon at 6% per annum, and for a final decree for the sale of the mortgage property in default of payment on the following averments:2. The defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- from the plaintiff through one Mohan, their sister's son, agreeing to repay the said sum with 6% interest per annum within a period of six months and executed a simple mortgage. Towards the amount due they paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- and as they attempted to sell the mortgaged property without paying the amount due, it became necessary to file the suit.3. The defendants resisted the suit inter alia on the following contentions:It was false to say that they borrowed a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- from the plaintiff. Their sister's son Mohan had borrowed mo...
Tag this Judgment!G. Murugan and ors. Vs. Manickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad129
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in OS No. 144/1996, on the file of the District. Munsif Court Polur.2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of their title to the 'B' Schedule property and to direct the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the same and for permanent injunction.3. The plaintiffs claim 'A' Schedule property under a registered Will dated 25-7-1997. At the time of the execution of the Will, the plaintiffs 3 and 4 alone were born and the plaintiffs 1 and 2 were born subsequently. The father of the plaintiffs was the de facto guardian for the minors. As per the terms of the Will, the plaintiffs are entitled to equal share in the 'A' Schedule property, The father and de facto guardian of the minors, without any necessity, nor for the benefit of the minors, had alienated the 'B' Schedule property to the defendant and the said sale is not valid and binding upon the plaintiffs.4. The defendant filed a written statement, denying th...
Tag this Judgment!Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Vs. Sri Ramakrishna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: [2003]42SCL882(Mad)
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. Both the above Company Applications have been filed by one and the same party viz., The Indian Bank, Coimbatore Main Branch as third party applicant as against the B.I.F.R., New Delhi and the Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras. In the first Company Application above praying to grant relief to the applicant to sell the assets of the company as per the order of the B.I.F.R. dated 12-9-2001 and in the second Company Application, praying to permit the Assets Sales Committee as constituted by the B.I.F.R. by its order dated 12-9-2001 to sell the assets of the company as per the guidelines of B.I.F.R, through public advertisement and permit the said Committee to deposit the net sale proceeds into this Court for distribution as per Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956.In the affidavit filed in support of the Company Application No. 313 of 2002 above, the applicant Bank would submit that the company was declared sick industry under Section 3(1)(o) of Sick Indust...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.P.V. Shaik Mohamed Rowther and Co. (P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Mad)564
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following common questions of law for our consideration under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that Rule 6D of the IT Rules does not apply to the director of the company and hence no disallowance could be made under Rule 6D in respect of the travelling expenses incurred by the director ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the disallowance towards the commission paid to the employees of the assessee-company should be restricted to Rs. 40,000 only ?2. The assessment years involved are 1981-82 to 1986-87. The Tribunal considered the appeals preferred by the Revenue for the years in question and passed orders on 11th Feb., 1992. The Tribunal has stated the case on 24th June, 1997. This Court has also taken ste...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. K.P.V. Shaik Mohamed Rowther and Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN494(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following common questions of law for our consideration under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that rule 6D of the Income Tax Rules does not apply to the Director of the Company and hence no disallowance could be made under 6D in respect of the Travelling Expenses incurred by the Director?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the disallowance towards the commission paid to the employees of the assessee-company should be restricted to Rs. 40,000 only?'2. The assessment years involved are 1981-82 to 1986-87. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal considered the appeals preferred by the revenue for the years in question and passed orders on 11-2-1992. The Tribunal has sta...
Tag this Judgment!Selvarajamani, Minor Indradevi and Minor Boomadevi Vs. New India Assur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1152; 2003(1)CTC257; (2003)1MLJ473
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question that requires our consideration in this matter is, as to whether a owner of a motor vehicle and consequently, an insurer, can be held liable for the damage suffered by the victim by the negligent use of the vehicle even in cases where the negligent use was by a person who had stolen the vehicle, despite the precautions taken by the owner. 2. In this case, the vehicle which belonged to the owner has been found by the Tribunal as also by the learned single Judge to have been stolen. The accident occurred when the vehicle was being used by the person who had committed theft.3. The evidence in this case which has been accepted by the Tribunal is that the owner had not been negligent as the owner had locked the car and had not to be held guilty for any other act of negligence in relation to the manner in which the car was left or the place at which it was left or the condition in which it was left. 4. The Supreme Court in the case of Minu B. Mehta vs. B...
Tag this Judgment!The Southern Railway Mazdoor Union Rep. by Its General Secretary Vs. t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ984Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner, namely, Southern Railway Mazdoor Union prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the proceedings of the first respondent in No.E(LR)III/2000/LR 1-30 dated 26.6.2002, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider and grant recognition to union only after the membership strength of the said Unions are decided on the basis of physical verification.2. According to the writ petitioner, (hereinafter referred to as SRMU for brevity), it is not only a registered trade union, but also a recognised union and has been striving hard to achieve better and fair conditions of service and life to its members who are employed in the Southern Railway. SRMU is one of the premier trade unions and has majority of the workmen of the Southern Railway as its members from its inception. The petitioner further claims that it commands majority even as of today. In all out of 1,32,000 employees in the category of workmen are...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »