Chennai Court December 2002 Judgments
Tamil Nadu Brick Industries, Rep. by Its Partner, N.S. Kothandapani Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC345; (2003)1MLJ265
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.4.2001 in A.S.No.37 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1994 in O.S.No.582 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamallee.2. The unsuccessful plaintiff, who lost the suit both in the trial Court and in the first appellate Court, is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from removing the fencing put up by the plaintiff around the suit property including the portion marked as ABCD in the plaint plan. According to the plaintiff, it has purchased the lands measuring 35.55 acres in Nolambur village, Saidapet taluk and there is a water channel from Nolambur lake and the said channel is running in the middle of the lands purchased by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and its predecessors-in-title have been enjoying the channel for the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Pushya Industrial Gases Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director V. Murali V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad317
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The writ petitioner here challenges the order and proceedings dated 19.8.1995 as also the order dated 2.3.1994. It seems that the order dated 19.8.1995 has been passed in pursuance of the order dated 2.3.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations to the respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). In the order dated 2.3.1994 also, the Board dealt with the representations dated 9.11.1993 and 9.2.1994. These representations seemingly were against the order passed dated 24.9.1993 bearing No. Lr.No.SED/DFC/HP/A.2/F.SC.76/93-141.2. There is a short history to this dispute: Admittedly, the petitioner is a consumer and uses electricity for its factory. It pleaded that on 19.2.1992, the officials of the department checked the Trivector meter and recalibrated the same. However, after such recalibration, the meter started showing enormous increase on the very next day. Therefore, that was pointed out to the Board and on 11...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Palanisamy, Chairman, Cheran Group Vs. Appellate Authority for In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: [2003]117CompCas73(Mad)
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J. 1. The above writ petitions have been filed for issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the common order dated 3.4.1998 passed in Appeal Nos.218, 239 to 243 of 1997 by the first respondent/AAIFR and quash the same. Since the above writ petitions are filed challenging a common order, all the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed in W.P.No.10342 of 1998. The facts of the case is as follows:-The third respondent mill owned spinning mill which is referred as A mill and weaving unit as B mill. The profitability of the B mill has started deteriorating from the year 1981. On the application made by the third respondent, the Government of Tamil Nadu has referred the matter in July 1992 to the Special Industrial Tribunal. The Special Industrial Tribunal has passed its award dated 28-11-1994 for closure of B mill with the condition that the workers of the said mill should be ...
Tag this Judgment!State Express Transport Corporation, Tamil Nadu Division-ii, Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1279
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since all the above Appeals arose from a common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Small Causes Court), Chennai, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment. The State Express Transport Corporation, Tamil Nadu Division-2 (formerly known as J. Jayalalitha Transport Corporation), Chennai-5 has preferred C.M.A. Nos. 1884/2000 etc., questioning its liability, more particularly the method of apportioning the liability equally on the Transport Corporation bus and the Tanker lorry. 2. New India Assurance Company has preferred C.M.A. Nos. 292 to 296/2001 challenging the quantum of compensation arrived by the Tribunal as excessive and unreasonable. The claimants have not challenged the award on any aspect. BRIEF FACTS 3. On 12-3-95 at about 11.30 hours about 40 persons were travelling in Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No. TCH 9169 and TCH 1685 from Keelpodavur village to Sunkuvarchathiram along Grand West Trunk Road, west to east direc...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. R. Venkatesan and Dakshinam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ727; (2003)1MLJ268
P. Sathasivam, J.1. United India Insurance Company, Madras-2 aggrieved by the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VI Small Causes Court), Madras dated 23-8-1995 made in M.C.O.P. No. 2428 of 1992, has preferred the above appeal.2. In respect of injuries sustained in a motor accident on 02-08-92, the claimant/first respondent herein made a claim for Rs. 43,000/- before the Tribunal. According to the claimant, on 02-08-92 at about 12.10 Hours, when he was riding a bicycle along with Selliamman Koil Street from north to south, an autorickshaw bearing registration No. TSK.2563 coming from behind in the same direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit against his bicycle, causing grievous injuries to him and damaging his bicycle. It is further stated that the first respondent therein, as owner of the autorickshaw and the second respondent therein, as insurer of the same are liable to pay compensation. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the autorickshaw, first respondent th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. R. Jayalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Mad)95; [2003]260ITR356(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In pursuance of the directions of this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following common question of law for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the assessments under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, as being made without jurisdiction?'2. The assessment years involved are 1985-86 and 1986-87.3. The assessee is an individual. She got an undivided interest in a property known as 'Ashok Bhavan'. The Wealth-tax Officer originally completed the assessment for both the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 under Section 16(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. However, the assessee filed revised returns for both the assessment years and on the basis of the revised returns, the Wealth-tax Officer completed the assessments under Section 16(2) of the Wealth-tax Act. Subsequently, the officer reopened the assessments under Section 17 ...
Tag this Judgment!Banumathi @ Karunaiammal Vs. A.P. Athanari,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ445
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Banumathi, third party filed a claim petition under Order 21 Rule 97 and 101 read with 47(1)(3) and Section 151 of C.P.C. to declare that the 'A' Schedule property is her absolute property and also to grant an order of stay of the execution petition in E.P. No. 70 of 1989 filed by the L.Rs. of the decree-holder in O.S. No. 1306 of 1981. The same was dismissed. Hence, this civil revision petition. 2. According to the petitioner, she purchased the suit property from Guruval, the fourth respondent herein for a valid consideration on 26.4.1999. From that date onwards, she is in actual possession and enjoyment of the property. She has also obtained E.B. service connection and is also paying water tax and house tax to the Panchayat. She came to know that decree has been passed in O.S. No. 1306 of 1981 in respect of the suit property. In pursuance of the orders in the execution petition, there is a disturbance to her possession by the Court Amin. So, in order t...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Amir Basha,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: III(2003)ACC104; 2003ACJ1386; AIR2003Mad237; (2003)1MLJ283
P. Sathasivam, J.1. United India Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri dated 23-8-1995 made in M.C.O.P. No. 138 of 1994, has preferred the above appeal. 2. In respect of death of one Absar in a motor accident, that had taken place on 7-12-91, the claimants/respondents 1 and 2 herein-parents of the deceased preferred a claim for Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant, father of the deceased got himself examined as P.W.1 and he also examined one Syed Abdul Kalam as P.W.2, besides marking Exs. P-1 and P-2 in support of his claim for compensation. On the side of the Insurance Company, Insurance Policy has been marked as Ex. R-1. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary and after holding that the Insurance Company of the vehicle in question were liable to pay compensation, passed an award for Rs. 71,600/- with interest at 12 pe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Mad)536; [2003]264ITR662(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions of law have been referred to this Court by the Income-tax Tribunal, Chennai, for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the order passed under Section 263 of the IT Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to revenue deduction amounting to Rs. 14,27,799 on account of revaluation of securities, when such securities are to be classified in 'Investment account' in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in Vijaya Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT : [1991]187ITR541(SC) '. 2. The assessment year, with which we are concerned is 1982-83. The assessee filed its return of income for the said assessment year admitting an income of Rs. 21,12,483. The assessee enclosed along with the return a statemen...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. T.M. Abdul Rahman and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN747(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.In compliance with the directions of this court, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following common questions of law for our consideration :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that subsidy received by the assessee should be included in the cost of machinery for allowance of depreciation/investment allowance ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circum stances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that for claiming deduction under section 80HH Form No. 10C can be filed at any time before completion of assessment?'2. The assessment years involved are 1983-84 and 1984-85.3. As far as the first question of law referred to us in concerned, the issue raised in the said question is covered against the revenue by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. : [1994]210ITR830(SC) . Following the said decision of the Supreme ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »