Chennai Court November 2004 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.
Dilip Bhandari Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and the Me ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC481; (2005)1MLJ46
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. These three writ appeals are directed against the common order passed by the learned single judge in W.P.Nos.15952 and 17159 of 2003. Question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances, the plea of the appellants for regularisation of the unauthorised construction of multi-storeyed structure can be acceded to.2. In W.A.No.968 of 2004, one Mr.Dilip Bhandari, General Power of Attorney to Mrs.A.Sreedevi, the owner of the property, is the appellant, and it is directed against the order in W.P.No.17159 of 2003. Mrs.A.Sreedevi, herself is the appellant in W.A.No.3074 of 2003, which is directed against the order in W.P.No.15952 of 2003. The builder, namely., Shanthi Builders, who had entered into an agreement with the owner of the property, is the appellant in W.A.No.3201 of 2003, which is filed against the same order in W.P.No.15952 of 2003. In fact, common order has been passed by the learned single judge in W.P.Nos.15952, 17159 and 17186 of 2003...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R. Sathiyanarayanan S/O. Rajaram a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ733; (2005)1MLJ20
P.K. Misra, J.1. The Claim Petition was filed by the present Respondent No. 1, on the following allegations :-The Claimant was the pillion rider on a scooter bearing Registration No. PYR 1446 which was proceeding towards Cuddalore from Pondicherry on 17.3.1993. Lorry bearing Registration No. TNV 9787 belonging to the present Respondent No. 2 was coming from opposite direction and hit against the scooterist. The claimant was thrown out of the scooter and sustained several injuries including multiple injuries in his right forearm as well as fracture of both bones of his right leg. He was treated in Government Hospital, Cuddalore initially and subsequently at Madras Institute of Orthopaedics and Traumatology as well as Vijaya Health Centre, Madras. He had undergone treatment as in-patient at Vijaya Health Centre, Madras for 45 days and underwent surgery of both the bones of his forearm on 20.3.1993 and ORIF Olecranon on 25.3.1993 and Nailing of tibia on 6.4.1993. Subsequently, he continue...
L.H. Vidyapoornan Vs. L.H. Premavathy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad193; 2005(1)CTC334; (2005)1MLJ454
T.V. Masilamani, J.1. The appellant in O.S.A. No. 148 of 2000 is the 5th defendant in the suit in C.S. No. 522 of 1992 and the respondents 1 to 5 are the plaintiff and the defendants 1, 2, 4 and 6 respectively.The appellant in O.S.A. No. 149 of 2000 is the plaintiff in T.O.S. No. 31 of 1998 (5th defendant in C.S. No. 522 of 1992) and the respondents 1 to 3 are the defendants 1 to 3 in T.O.S. No. 31 of 1998 (defendants 1, 2 and plaintiff in C.S. No. 522 of 1992) respectively.2. Since the learned Single Judge tried both the suits jointly after recording evidence in C.S. No. 522 of 1992 and treating the same as the evidence in the other suit also, the parties and witnesses referred to in C.S. No. 522 of 1992 are referred to hereunder as they were referred to in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge for the sake of convenience. Thus, the common judgment is pronounced with reference to these appeals.3. The plaintiff in C.S. No. 522 of 1992 filed the suit for partition and separa...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M. Chellappan and P.L. Gandhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Mad)490; [2006]281ITR444(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The revenue is the appellant in these appeals filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench dated 16.9.2003 made in I.T.A. Nos. 609, 610 and 611/Mds/2003 and I.T.A. Nos. 617, 618 and 619/Mds/2003.2.1 Brief facts of the case, so far as they are relevant are as under:The assessees' filed returns of income and the same were processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (for brevity 'the Act'). The assessees' derived income from property and share income from firms. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 148 of the Act finding that the assessees claimed excessive deductions under Section 24(1)(vi) of the Act while computing income from property. The Assessing Officer disallowed the excess claim made by the assessees.2.2. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the Assessing Officer, the assessees preferred further appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of the Assessing...
Urc Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. the Indian Institute of Technology,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC573; 2004(5)CTC631; 2005(2)CTLJ264(Mad); (2005)1MLJ283
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. This matter has been specially ordered for hearing as directed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 2920 and 2922 of 2004.2. The first respondent called for a tender for construction of various works including construction of a new hostel block (ground + 6floors). Though the original pre-qualification notice included the criteria for other works, including a mega mess for boy's hostel, buildings and infrastructure for Bio-chemical Engineering and Bio-Technology Department at IITM, and a Sewerage treatment plant, this writ petition is only concerned with the construction of a new hostel block.3. On 10-05-2003, the notification for pre-qualification of contractors was called for. The qualifications are as follows:'Interested Contractors, who have executed three similar works costing not less than 40% of the estimated cost put to tender (atleast one of them should be in Central Government/Central Autonomous Bodies like educational Institution / Central / Public Sec...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Janakiammal Ayyandar Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: [2005]277ITR274(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. These appeals are directed against the orders dated 23.4.2004 and 14.6.2001 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'A' Bench made in I.T.A. Nos. 1972/Mds/1997 and 316/Mds/1997, respectively, with reference to the assessment years 1994-95 and 1993-94.2.1. The brief facts, relevant for the disposal of these appeals are as under:The assessee/trust claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act (for brevity 'the Act') stating that since it has applied more than 75% of its income for charitable and educational purposes, the income is eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The Assessing Officer, finding that the activities of the assessee in running business of paper caps is hit by Section 11(4A) of the Act, held that the trust is not entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act.2.2. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Madurai, who, following the ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nameel Leathers and Uppers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Mad)284; [2005]273ITR350(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.5.2004 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'C' Bench made in I.T.A. No. 1438/Mds/1997, with reference to the assessment year 1993-94.2.1. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:In the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (for brevity 'the Act'), the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's calculation of relief under Section 80HHC taking the adjusted business profits as 'Nil' by ignoring the loss.2.2. The Assessing Officer, by proceedings dated 7.11.1996, sought to rectify the said intimation and passed an order under Section 154 of the Act holding that the negative figure obtained on adjusted profits has to be deducted from the positive figure obtained by taking 90% of the export incentives multiplied by the export turnover and divided by the total turnover and that the net figure would constitute the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act.2.3. Aggrieved by the ...
Rangasamy @ Rangan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Inspector of Polic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC447
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment passed in S.C.No. 331 of 2001 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, imposed on the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C for having murdered one Chinnan, his father-in-law by cutting with aruval. The accused is the appellant.2. The prosecution case is as follows:(a) The appellant/accused is the son-in-law of the deceased Chinnan and on 5.5.2000 at about 6.00 p.m. the accused in a drunken state of mind, demanded money from his father-in-law Chinnan and when Chinnan refused to part with the money, the accused warned him of dire consequences. At about 10.30 p.m. on the same day, while the deceased was sleeping at the outside the house near the doorstep in E.B. Quarters of Mahalingapuram, Pollachi, the accused with the intention of murdering the deceased Chinnan, came there and cut the deceased Chinnan with aruval on his neck indiscriminately...
Masiammal Vs. Narasakka,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC727; (2005)1MLJ62
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 28.3.2003, made in Memo dated 18.3.2003 passed by the District Munsif, Kothagiri.2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the case are as follows:The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 164/80 for partition before the Sub-Court, Ooty. Thereafter, on 22.4.82, the District Judge, Ooty, transferred the suit to the District Munsif Court, Coonoor and it was renumbered as O.S. No. 16/1984 and issues were also framed. On 12.6.1995, the same was transferred to District Munsif Court, Kothagiri by the District Judge, Ooty, and it was renumbered as O.S. No. 1/1995. P.W.1 has been examined in chief on 21.4.99 before the District Munsif, Kothagiri. On 18.3.2003, a memo was filed on behalf of the defendants 56 to 61 respondents herein stating that the District Munsif, Kothagiri has no territorial jurisdiction to decide that suit. Counter has also been filed. The impugned order was passed on 28.3.2003. Against which...
R. Nagarajan and Vs. R.N. Nachimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC662; (2005)1MLJ66
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the order requesting the trial Court to decide the payment of Court fee as a preliminary issue.2. According to the revision petitioner herein, a suit is filed for declaration and possession. In a notice given by the plaintiff in the suit, it has been stated that the value of the property is Rs. 2,15,000/- but when the suit was filed, the suit was valued at Rs. 10,000/- and the Court of Rs. 750/- has been paid. In the written statement filed by the revision petitioner/defendant in the suit, this ground has been raised stating that the property has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fee. The defendant wants the matter to be decided as a preliminary issue but the learned District Munsif has dismissed the petition. Against the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the decision of this Court reported in Raju Gramani v. Srinivas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »