Chennai Court January 2003 Judgments
Cit Vs. G. Venkatesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN516(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramaniam, J.This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 30-10-2000 in W.P. No. 8686 of 2000.2. The respondent herein had made a voluntary disclosure of his income under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, but did not pay the requisite tax and interest within the stipulated time but paid the tax after the due date for payment, with a delay of fifteen days. The Commissioner Thiruchirappalli refused to issue certificate under section 65 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme in respect of the tax paid by the respondent. Hence, the respondent filed the writ petition to accept the declaration and the issue the necessary certificate under the said scheme. The learned Single Judge, following a decision in the case of Prahalatha Babu v. CIT (1999) 111 CTC 369, held that the assessee was entitled for the benefit of the issuance of the certificate since the revenue had received a portion of the tax amount and also the state...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Sasikala Ramalingam and the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insuranc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ323; 2003(1)CTC389; (2003)1MLJ482
D. Murugesan, J. 1. The following important issue, which frequently arises for consideration before this Court, is as follows:- 'Whether the insurer can question the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal by filing a joint appeal along with the insured?' 2. The following are the few facts that are relevant for the disposal of this civil miscellaneous appeal. The deceased Selvam, a student of B.V.N. College of Physical Education, Robertsonpet, Kollar Gold Fields, Karnataka, died when the Ambassador car bearing Regn. No. TN-25-8980 owned by the first appellant, in which the deceased along with his friends traveled, met with an accident near Ramaraja Wines, Kirumambakkam Main Road, Cuddalore, at about 22.00 hours on 9.12.94, and dashed against a lorry bearing Regn. No. PY-01-C-7840 belonging to the seventh respondent which came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. The car was insured with the second appellant and the lorry was insured with the eighth...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR449]; (2003)IILLJ57Mad; (2003)1MLJ456
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.W.A. No. 1220 of 19981. The appellant is the employer. The respondent workman had been in the service of the appellant from 1968 to 1976. He was discharged on 28.2.1976 after he was found guilty of certain charges of misconduct regarding which enquiry was held. He raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 330 of 1977, in which, an award came to be made on 8.8.1978, wherein, it was held inter alia that the enquiry held was fair and proper, that the charges levelled against the workman had been proved, and that the punishment imposed was in no way disproportionate. The respondent employee had been discharged by the employer with one month's notice. At the time of his discharge, he was earning Rs. 25.50 per week, the monthly wage being Rs. 127.50.2. Twelve years later, he filed a writ petition in this Court numbered as W.P. No. 3028 of 1990. Learned single Judge having allowed that petition with a direction for reinstatement and with continuity of service and payment o...
Tag this Judgment!Thirupathi Vs. Kothai Aachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC553; (2003)1MLJ465
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 872 of 1996 before the II Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli is the revision petitioner herein. The Plaintiff has filed the said suit for a declaration to declare that he is the adopted son of Late. Chockalinga Chettiar and his wife namely Kothai Achi, respondent herein. In the said suit examination of the witnesses of both sides were over and the case was posted for arguments. At that time, the respondent herein has filed an application I.A. No. 76 of 2002 under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking permission of the Court to receive the additional written statement. The trial court, after hearing both sides has allowed the said petition, hence this revision.2. Heard both sides. Mr. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction and permitted the respondent to file her additional written statement without satisfying the requirements under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC; that the trial...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesa Naicker Vs. Subbiah thevar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ462
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 54 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif, Srivilliputhur is the revision petitioner. The petitioner has filed a suit for declaration that the 3rd Schedule property absolutely belonged to him and also for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein and others from in any way obstructing the construction of compound wall put up by the Petitioner in the 3rd schedule property. The Petitioner has also filed I.A. No. 78 of 2002 for appointment of advocate commissioner to inspect the suit property, note down the physical features and to take measurements with the assistance of Taluk surveyor, which was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the court below, the present revision has been preferred. 2. Mr. Thirunavukkarasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has purchased the first schedule property under a registered sale deed dated...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Sasikala Ramalingam and anr. Vs. Sami Iyhia Nattar and 7 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC80
ORDER1. The following important issue, which frequently arises for consideration before this Court, is as follows:Whether the insurer can question the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal by filing a joint appeal along with the insured?2. The following are the few facts that are relevant for the disposal of this civil miscellaneous appeal.The deceased Selvam, a student of B.V.N. College of Physical Education, Robertsonpet, Kollar Gold Fields, Karnataka, died when the Ambassador car bearing Regn. No TN-25-8980 owned by the first appellant, in which the deceased along with his friends travelled, met with an accident near Ramaraja Wines, Kirumambakkam Main Road, Cuddalore, at about 22.00 hours on 9.12.1994, and dashed against a lorry bearing Reg. No. PY-01-C-7840 belonging to the seventh respondent which came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. The car was insured with the second appellant and the lorry was insured with the eighth respondent. As a...
Tag this Judgment!R. Vadivelu Vs. Sakthi Asphalts and Pelts by Its Proprietrix, Mrs. G. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC282
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, in CC NO. 7540 of 1997 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A. NO. 234 of 1999 and the same was heard by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, who confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial magistrate. The present revision has been filed against the said judgments.2.The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-a)A complaint had been filed by Thiru. R. Govindarajan, Power of Attorney Holder of Ms. G. Malini, Proprietrix of Sakthi Asphalts & Pelts, Arumbakkam, Chennai-106, on the allegation that the accused, on 17.02.1997, placed an order with the complainant for supply of Bitumen, Tarfelt and Primer for a total value of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank, Rep. by Its Zonal Manager Vs. New India Maritime Agencies ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2003
Reported in: II(2003)BC383; 2003(1)CTC513
ORDERD. Murugesan, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal has been filed as against the judgment and decree passed by this Court dated 25.4.1994 in C.S. No. 148 of 1985. 2. The parties in this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The plaintiff filed the said suit for a judgment and decree, directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 49,30,270.94 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realization. Following are the brief facts, which led the plaintiff in filing the suit. 3. The plaintiff is a Banking Company carrying on business in banking at various places including a branch at No. 135, Thambu Chettty Street, Madras. The defendant company carrying on business as agents and representatives of various Shipping lines all over India. The defendant had a current account with the plaintiff bank for the purpose of its business and used to o...
Tag this Judgment!The Great Royal Circus, Rep. by Mr. M. Pavithran, Power Agent of Mr. A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad354
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the letter dated 30.12.2002 of Animal Welfare Board of India, Chennai - 600 041, the first respondent herein, refusing to issue a certificate in respect of animal (Chimpanzee) maintained by the petitioner circus for the performance, the petitioner Great Royal Circus has filed the writ petition to quash the same and to direct the first respondent to issue a certificate of performance of animals particularly Chimpanzee under the provisions of Animals (Registration) Rules 2001. 2. Mr. P.N. Prakash, learned counsel takes notice for the first respondent. 3. According to the petitioner, after investing huge amount, he established the circus by name 'Great Royal Circus' at Chennai. In so far as Chimpanzee is concerned, in a similar situation in Jumbo circus, the same was imported to India from Kuwait in 1987. When the said animal was seized by the customs department and lodged in the National Zoological park, New Delhi, the Supreme Court has given a direc...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Minor R. Baskar, S/O V. Ram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ458
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Messers. United India Insurance Company, Tiruchirapalli, aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Second Additional District Judge), Tiruchirapalli dated 25-03-96, made in M.C.O.P. No. 102 of 1993, has preferred the above appeal.2. In respect of injuries sustained in a motor accident that took place on 17-8-92, the minor first respondent herein has prayed for a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the father and guardian of the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1 and one Dr. Md. Nizamuddin as P.W.2 and also produced and marked Exs. A-1 to A-4 in support of his claim for compensation. On the side of the respondents, 3 witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs. B-1 to B-13 were marked in support of their defence. The Tribunal, after holding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the motor cycle, passed an award for Rs. 25,000/- with interest at 12 per cent from the date of petition till...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »