Chennai Court September 2004 Judgments
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Ramesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC120; 2005ACJ687; 2004(5)CTC161; (2004)4MLJ587
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The above appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company questioning the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 3952/1996. The claimant also filed Cross Objection, not satisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal.2. In the accident that took place on 14.5.1995, on the Railway Over-bridge of 100 ft. Road, North Madras Thermal Power Project leading to Egmore, Madras, the claimant sustained injuries. According to the claimant, while he was travelling in the autorickshaw bearing Regn. No. TN 04 B 4657 along with his relation Mr. Ramasubramaniam (D.S.P.) and Sundaravadivelu, the lorry bearing Regn. No. MDM 4669 dashed against the said autorickshaw and caused injuries to the claimant. 3. The Insurance Company filed a counter statement stating that the place, date, time of accident are not admitted. It is also alleged that it is not true that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle MDM 4669. They also questioned the corre...
Tag this Judgment!V.K.B. Hotels India (P) Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director, Mrs. B. Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad190
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1.This Writ Petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from selling the property in public auction in pursuant to the letter issued by the second respondent in TIIC/MDU/BO/SSI/LAO/ MR.2000-01 dated 23.2.2001 and further direct the respondents to reschedule the loan amount due by the petitioner.2. The case of the petitioner Hotel is that they approached the respondent for the grant of loan of Rs.85 lakhs and the same was sanctioned on 24.4.1997; that initially, the respondent disbursed a sum of Rs.44.88 lakhs out of the sanctioned loan of Rs.85 lakhs; that the respondent, instead of disbursing the balance amount of Rs.40 lakhs started demanding repayment of the loan; therefore, the petitioner Hotel repaid a loan of Rs.2.50 lakhs; that the petitioner Hotel has offered sufficient security for the loan; that they met the second respondent and the second respondent also agreed for reschedule, however, started insisting for pay...
Tag this Judgment!Sellammal Vs. Sellakumaraswami Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ578
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. The plaintiff, who lost before the Court below in a suit for partition of A schedule property with a claim for mesne profits or in the alternative, for a declaration of title in respect of B schedule property with a claim for mesne profits estimated at Rs. 10,000/- per annum is before this Court in appeal.2. Heard Ms. M.B. Dominique, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 6. Respondents 7 to 11, though served, have not chosen to enter any appearance through a lawyer. They are also not present in Court.3. We summarise hereunder the plaintiff's case:'(a) Ganapathy Gounder and Karuppa Gounder are the sons of Marappa Gounder. The plaintiff is the widow of Karuppa Gounder. Karuppa Gounder died in the year 1953 leaving the plaintiff alone as his legal heir. Ganapathy Gounder died in the year 1955 leaving behind his widow, the 6th defendant and their sons first defendant and second defe...
Tag this Judgment!N.M.S. Kamaraj Polytechnic College Rep. by Its Secretary and Correspon ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ493
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Management praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings No.810/X2/96-1 dated 20.12.2003 on the file of the Director of Technical Education, Office of the Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai (the first respondent herein) and to quash the same in so far as it relates to the reduction of the punishment imposed upon the second respondent by the petitioner.2. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent was a Lecturer in the Electrical and Electronics Engineering Departments of the petitioner Polytechnic; that charges were framed against five persons including the second respondent herein on the ground that one of the Lecturers by name Premkumar molested one of the girl students of the Polytechnic promising to marry her and also committed rape on her; that so far as the second respondent is concerned he aided the said Premkumar who is the culpr...
Tag this Judgment!T. Stanes and Company Limited Vs. the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Trib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: [2005]141STC221(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1.1. These writ petitions are related to the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 respectively, with respect to which the Joint Commissioner, the second respondent, exercising his suo motu revisional powers conferred under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by an order dated 17.11.1997 revised the order of the first Appellate Authority viz., Deputy Commissioner (CT) Appeal, Coimbatore, which is preferred by the assessee against the levy of penalty made by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) Central Assessment Circle, Coimbatore, the third respondent herein and restored the order of penalty made by the assessing authority under Section 22(2) of the Act. 1.2. Even though the said order dated 17.11.1997 of the second respondent was challenged by the petitioner/assessee before the Tribunal in T.C.Nos.147 to 149 of 1999, the Tribunal by a common order dated 7.2.2002 confirmed the orders of the second respon...
Tag this Judgment!Subuthi Finance Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Chennai)473
1. The present appeal has emanated out of order of the CIT(A)-V, Chennai, and this appeal pertains to block assessment framed by the AO for the block period 1st April, 1992 to 17th Oct., 1996. The said impugned order is arising out of the rectification proceedings moved by the assessee.2. The briefly stated facts and relevant for deciding the issue involved are that a search was conducted by the Investigation Wing of IT Department on 7th Aug., 1996, at Mumbai and which was concluded on 17th Oct., 1996. In view of the search, under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as, the Act), notice under Section 158BC of the Act was issued and proceedings for framing block assessment initiated. The assessee filed return for the block period in response to the notice issued. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed from the search material that the assessee has entered into bogus transaction of sale and lease back with M/s Duckfin International Ltd. and M/s Paras Industrie...
Tag this Judgment!Dayanidhi Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ521Mad; (2004)4MLJ281
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to refer the Industrial Dispute regarding the denial of promotion to the post of Junior Engineer for petitioner for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal.2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation as Electrician in Technical side in 1979 at Thirupathur Depot; that the said Depot was taken over by the Pattukottai Azhagiri Corporation in the year 1982; that thereafter, he was working in Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation as Junior Trasdesman; that the required qualification for Junior Tradesman is only I.T.I.; that he is a diploma holder in Electrical Engineering; that in 1987 the management sent a circular to all Depots directing the Diploma Holders to make application for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer and accordingly the petitioner has applied for the said post.3. The further case o...
Tag this Judgment!L. Loganathan Vs. the Managing Director, Tamilnadu Express State Trans ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ458Mad; (2004)4MLJ254
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order bearing No.59/87128/U2/ Aa.Ve.Po.Ka/Tha.na.No.2/98 dated 25.8.1999 of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.9.1999 for providing an alternative appointment.2. Heard the learned counsel for both and perused the materials placed on record.3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed driver in the respondent Corporation in the year 1991 and during 1997, while the bus driven by the petitioner herein was involved in an accident with another bus, the petitioner herein was seriously injured and the doctor had also certified that he was not fit to drive the public transport and recommended for an alternative job. However, he was not taken back to service by the respondents nor provided any other job, in spite of many representation...
Tag this Judgment!Seshasayee Paper and Boards Limited Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Mad)641; [2005]272ITR165(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Both these appeals are preferred by the assessee. T.C.(A) No. 300 of 2001 is with reference to the assessment year 1991-1992 and T.C.(A) No. 41 of 2002 is with reference to the assessment year 1992-93. 2.1. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing papers. The assessee filed its return under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1991-92 declaring their income as 'nil', which was arrived at after adjusting the carry forward investment allowance relating to the earlier years. The assessee company claimed that the carry forward investment allowance may be absorbed in priority over the carry forward depreciation. However, the assessing authority, while passing the assessment order dated 15.02.1993 relating to the assessment year 1991-92, refused to accept the contention of the assessee and deducted the unabsorbed depreciation for the earlier years first, which reduced the taxable income to 'nil'. In his assess...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kodananad Tea Estates Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)159; [2005]275ITR244(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The question to be decided in these appeals is one and the same as to whether the Tribunal is right in dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue without considering it on merits on the ground that the Departmental Instruction hearing No. 1979 instructs that if the effect involved in the appeals are less than the amount prescribed therein, no appeal need be filed before the Tribunal.2. As the issue involved is the correctness or otherwise of the order of the Tribunal in not deciding the issue on merits by placing reliance on the Departmental Instruction correct or not, we are of the view that we need not dilate the facts in issue. The appeals filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal have been dismissed without going into the merits on the basis of the circular Instruction No. 1903 dt. 28th Oct., 1992 and Instruction No. 1777, dt. 4th Nov., 1987, by which monetary limit for filing of the appeal by the Department before the Tribunal was laid down. As per the cir...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »