Chennai Court December 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Natarajan Vs. D. Chandrasekaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-2003
Reported in: III(2004)ACC476; 2004ACJ701; 2004(1)CTC284
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The Claimant filed the above Appeal aggrieved against the aard passed in M.C.O.P.No. 399/1993, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharapuram, dated 24.1.1996; exonerating the 3rd respondent-insurance company from their liability to pay the compensation.2. The claimant was travelling in the scooter bearing Regn. No. TN 33 Y 3994 as pillion rider and the scooter was driven by the 18th respondent. We need not traverse all the facts, as there is no dispute about the factual findings given by the Tribunal, including the fact that in the accident that took place on 5.2.1993, the appellant/claimant sustained injuries. Though the said scooter was insured by the 3rd respondent Insurance company, the Tribunal held that since the policy in question is an 'Act only policy' the appellant being a pillion rider, he cannot claim any compensation from the 3rd respondent-insurance company as he is not a third party but he is a passenger in the said scooter.3. ...
Vellaichamay Vs. Yamulu Gounder,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ231
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the fair and decretalorder dated 18.3.2002 made in I.A.No.108 of 2002 in O.S.No.80 of 2002 by the Court of II Additional District Munsif, Dindugal.2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that the respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed the suit in O.S.No.80 of 2002 before the Court below as against the revision petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 herein for declaration that the 'A' schedule cart track is the maamool track for reaching the properties disclosed in 'B' to 'H' schedules and pending the suit, the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 have filed an application in I.A.No.59 of 2002 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint schedule on ground that the defect in the plan and the schedule were noted only at the time of inspection of property by the Advocate-Co...
Mrs. J. Zeenath Bivi, Proprietrix N.V.K.M. Traders Rep. by Her Power o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ406; 2004(28)PTC590(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The above O.S.A. Nos. 30 to 37 of 2003 are preferred against a common order passed in O.A. Nos. 730 to 733 of 2002 in C.S. No. 727 of 2002 and O.A. Nos. 444 to 447 of 2002 in C.S. No. 455 of 2002 on the file of this Court. There are two suits filed one by the appellant herein in C.S. No. 727 of 2002, and another by the respondents herein in C.S. No. 455 of 2002. Both the parties sought for interim injunction in their pending suits restraining the other party from infringing trademark ROJA or RAJA, from infringing copyright which the respective parties have in the artistic work contained in their registered copyright, from manufacturing, marketing, selling or advertising or packing in respect of betel nut/supari or any kind or its allied products in the course of business using the trademark ROJA or ROSE or using the trading style with the initial N.V.K.M. or claiming the source or origin of business and against the passing off action. 2. All the eight petiti...
P. Subba Naicker Vs. Veluchamy Naicker and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC742
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Munsif dated 12.8.2003, made in I.A.No. 681 of 2003 in O.S.No. 124 of 2002, refusing to amend his plaint, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit in O.S.No. 124 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif, Koilpatti seeking a declaration that the suit second schedule property which is a path-way is common and for a consequential injunction restraining the respondents from transferring with his right to same as a path-way. The petitioner has also claimed that the suit third schedule property which is a open space was retained in common between them and the respondents and the same has to be used as a common area. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to light and air and to drain water from his house through the suit third schedule property and the channel situate thereon in to the street on the south. The...
G. Mary Suseela Vs. Micheal and Mariadas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ346
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the fair and decretal Order dated 7.2.2003 made in I.A. No. 601 of 1997 in O.S. No. 31 of 1997 by the Court of Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that the petitioner herein has filed the suit in O.S. No. 31 of 1997 before the Court below for declaration of her title over the plaint 'A' schedule less 'B' schedule property and an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession over plaint 'A' schedule property and for recovery of possession of plaint 'B' schedule property from the first defendant on removal of trespass and of the basement put up therein at his cost.3. Pending the said suit, the plaintiff filed a petition in I.A. No. 601 of 1997 under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC praying to amen...
Lakshmana Konar and anr. Vs. Namalwar Konar (Deceased by Lrs) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad264; (2004)2MLJ283
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 7-2-1990 made in A.S. No. 95 of 1987 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 23-3-1987 made in O.S. No. 234 of 1983 by the Court of District Munsif, Srivaikundam.2. Tracing the history of the above second appeal coming to be preferred, it comes to be known that the first respondent herein has filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, on averments such as that the plaint schedule well belongs to him and the defendants, wherein the plaintiff is entitled to 11/48 shares, the first defendant is entitled to 2/48 shares, defendants 2 and 3 together are entitled to 5/48 shares, the 4th defendant is entitled 18/48 shares and the 5th defendant is entitled to 12/48 shares; that there were several prior litigations viz., O.S. Nos. 223/73, 254/74 and 20/75 between the parties with respect to the-drawing of water from the well and now t...
Dr. R. Hari Ramesh Vs. T. Pramod Wilson,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ24
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.1.2000 rendered in R.C.A. No. 815 of 1996 by the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 31.1.1996 made in R.C.O.P. No. 422 of 1994 by the Rent Controller (XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras.2. Tracing the history of the above civil revision petition having come to be filed, it comes to be known that the respondents-landlords have filed the R.C.O.P. No. 422 of 1994 under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buidings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the Rent Controller (XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras praying to fix the fair rent at Rs. 35,506/= per mensem from Rs. 3,000/= p.m. for the petition premises which is a non-residential building situated in Indira Nagar, Chennai and the above R.C.O.P. was allowed thereby fixing the fair rent at Rs. 17,834/=. Aggrieved by the said order...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Mad)678; [2005]272ITR525(Mad)
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The question referred is as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure in obtaining a right for reproduction of film songs for a specific period is royalty and allowable as revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure, which attracts the provisions of Section 35A of the Income-tax Act.2. The assessee is an individual engaged in the production of audio cassettes with popular film songs. He carries on the business of manufacturing pre-recorded cassettes and selling the same in the name of ECHO Recording Company. In order to obtain such popular songs, the assessee enters into agreements with the producers of the Films for obtaining the right to re-produce the film songs. 3. The assessee claimed that the monies paid under those agreements was in the nature of royalty and should, therefore, be allowed as revenue expenditure in computing the assessee's income. His claim was accepted ...
Cit Vs. M. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN728(Mad)
S. R. Sincharavelu J.The question referred is as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure in obtaining a right for reproduction of film songs for a specific period is royalty and allowable as revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure, which attracts the provisions of section 35A of the Income Tax Act.2. The assessee is an individual engaged in the production of audio cassettes with popular film songs. He carries on the business of manufacturing pre-recorded cassettes and selling the same in the name of ECHO Recording Company. In order to obtain such popular songs, the assessee enters into agreements with the producers of the films for obtaining the right to re-produce the film songs.3. The assessee claimed that the monies paid under those agreements were in the nature of royalty and should, therefore, be allowed as revenue expenditure in computing the assessee's income. His claim was accepted on ...
K. Purushothaman Lottery Agency and anr. Vs. Union Territory of Pondic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad435
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. These writ petitions have been filed questioning G.O.Ms. No. 19 of 1998 dated 26-6-1998 issued by the first respondent by which the sale of tickets of a lottery organised, conducted or promoted by any other State within the Union Territory Pondicherry, has been prohibited.2. The lotteries were held to be pernicious and constitutionality of the Lotteries Act of 1998 enacted by the Parliament has been upheld by the Supreme Court in B.R. Enterprises v. State of U. P. : [1999]2SCR1111 . The only condition imposed by the Supreme Court is that a State or Union Territory, as the case may be, cannot impose ban on the sale of lottery tickets by other States/Union territories unless the host State or the Union Territory imposes ban on its lotteries.3. The notification referred to above, which is impugned in this writ petition, satisfies the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case. As such, the question is no more res integra. In fact, this Court had an o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »