Chennai Court November 2005 Judgments
Commissioner, Kadayanallur Panchayat Union and anr. Vs. A. Puthuran Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC392; (2006)2MLJ547
Parbha Sridevan, J.1. Defendants are the appellants. The respondent/plaintiff in auction obtained the fishing rights in the pond belonging to the appellants for the year 1991-1992. He paid a sum of Rs. 32,927. According to him, because of the failure of rains, there was no water in the pond. The Plaintiff did not receive the order confirming the auction and therefore, he asked for refund of auction amount. Since the appellants refused to refund the amount, suit was filed. The Trial Court, decreed the suit and the Appellate Court, confirmed it. Against that, the present Second Appeal has been filed.2. The following substantial questions of law has been raised:Whether in law are not the Courts below wrong in overlooking that the respondent having accepted the conditions in auction is estopped from questioning the same.3. Learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that the contract given to the respondent was a lease and when there is demise of property in praesenti, there is no frus...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Selvam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC353
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. All these three appeals arise out of a single accident and hence, this common judgment.2. United India Insurance Company Limited/second respondent in M.A.C.T.O.P. Nos. 525 to 527 of 1999 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai is the appellant in all the appeals.3. The brief case of the claimants is as follows:In respect of an accident that took place on 12th/13th April, 1999 at 3.00a.m., the claimants in the said petitions and others were travelling as labourers in an open goods van (goods carriage vehicle) bearing registration No. TN-25-B-1441 belonging to the first respondent from Chengam to Erode. Near Kanagagiri, due to the rash and negligent driving of van driver, the van was capsized, in which one d person died on the spot and others have sustained grievous injuries. On account of injuries sustained, claimants in M.A.C.T.O.P. Nos. 525 to 527 of 1999 have filed separate petitions, praying for a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 each. In M...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Selvam and A. Govindarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2005
Reported in: 2007ACJ873; (2006)1MLJ154
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. All these three appeals arise out of a single accident and hence, this common judgment.2. United India Insurance Company Limited/second respondent in M.A.C.T.O.P. Nos. 525 to 527 of 1999 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai is the appellant in all the appeals.3. The brief case of the claimants is as follows:- In respect of an accident that took place on 12/13.04.1999 at 03.00 AM, the claimants in the said petitions and others were travelling as labourers in a open goods van (Goods Carriage Vehicle) bearing registration No. TN-25-B-1441 belonging to the 1st respondent from Chengam to Erode. Near Kanagagiri, due to the rash and negligent driving of van driver, the van was capsized, in which one person died on the spot and others have sustained grievous injuries. On account of injuries sustained, claimants in MACTOP. No. 525 to 527 of 1999 have filed separate petitions, praying for a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. In MACTOP. No. 527 ...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Dock Labour Board Rep. by Its Chairman Vs. K. Geetha,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2005
Reported in: 2007ACJ839; (2006)ILLJ1053Mad; (2006)1MLJ83
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. C. Kannaiyan, R.P. Mazdoor, a workman employed by the Madras Dock Labour Board, went for duty to the Port on 3.2.1994 for the II shift between 2 p.m. and 10 p.m. While performing his duty, he fell into the sea and drowned. The dead body was taken out of the sea water on 6.2.1994. The officials of the Dock Labour Board informed the family members of the said Kannaiyan about the same. The widow, daughter and son of the deceased filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,15,916/- The Commissioner, after enquiry, passed an order awarding Rs. 75,824/- as compensation. Aggrieved by this order, the Madras Dock Labour Board has filed this appeal.2. The substantial questions of law on the basis of which this appeal has been filed, are as follows:1) Whether the deceased Kannaiyan died in an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment under the Appellannt/Board?2) Whether the Commissioner fo...
Tag this Judgment!A. Aariff Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary to Gov ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ91
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Writ Appeal Nos. 1293 to 1297 of 1998 are directed against common order passed in Writ Petition Nos. 9553 of 1998 etc., batch dated 24-9-1998 in and by which learned Single Judge had upheld the validity of the amendment to First Schedule to the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act enhancing the tax in respect of contract carriages (Omni Buses) from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 2,000/- per seat per quarter.2. Writ Petitions namely, W.P. Nos. 212/2002 etc., batch have been filed questioning the order of the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 1184 Home (Tr.I) Department dated 30-11-2001, increasing the tax in respect of contract carriages from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per seat per quarter with effect from 1-12-2001.3. Since the contentions and issues raised in Writ Appeals and the batch of Writ Petitions are common and similar, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Brief facts:Motor Vehicle Tax in Tamil Nadu is governed by Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 (hereina...
Tag this Judgment!C. thekkamalai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1997; (2006)1MLJ108
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. The appellant, Thekkamalai, who is a cobbler, and his wife Lakshmi, an agricultural worker, are the residents of Gandhi Nagar in Vaiyampatty in Manapparai Taluk in Trichy District and they belong to Scheduled Caste. In July, 1989, Thekkamalai was taken to the police station for an enquiry in connection with some missing amount from an accident place. His wife Lakshmi was also brought to the police station to see her husband in the lock-up. It is alleged that in the police station she was threatened by the police personnel to reveal the theft of money and she pleaded innocence. It is further alleged that she was taken to a certain place by the Sub Inspector of Police, who, after removing her gold and brass ornaments, forcibly raped her. As the matter was taken up to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manapparai, an F.I.R. came to be registered in Cr. No. 153 of 1989 for the offence under Section 376 and 379 of I.P.C. and a criminal case in S.C. No. 90 of 1992 against...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Dock Labour Board Vs. K. Geetha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC452; [2006(108)FLR1023]
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. C. Kannaiyan, R.P. Mazdoor, a workman employed by the Madras Dock Labour Board, went for duty to the Port on 3rd February, 1994 for the 2nd shift between 2 p.m. and 10 p.m. While performing his duty, he fell into the sea and drowned. The dead body was taken out of the sea water on 6th February, 1994. The officials of the Dock Labour Board informed the family members of the said Kannaiyan about the same. The widow, daughter and son of the deceased filed an application, before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,15,916. The Commissioner, after inquiry, passed an order awarding Rs. 75,324 as compensation. Aggrieved by this order, the Madras Dock Labour Board has filed this appeal.2. The substantial questions of law on the basis of which this appeal has been filed, are as follows:(1) Whether the deceased Kannaiyan died in an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment under the appellant/ Board?(2) Whethe...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of Public Service Commission, Represented by Its Secretary V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC768; (2006)1MLJ112
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of both the parties, Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, dated 05.02.2004, made in O.A. No. 428 of 2003, the Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi, has filed the above Writ Petition.3. The subject matter of the dispute relates to the recruitment of two posts of Lecturers in Sociology and Social Work in Government Colleges, Pondicherry Administration. The posts were advertised on 11.05 .2002 with closing date as 30.05.2002. Of the two posts, one was reserved for OBC candidates and the remaining one was unreserved. The age limit for the said posts is not exceeding 35 years on normal closing date and not exceeding 40 years for SC candidates and relaxable for OBC candidates upto 3 years in respect of vacancies reserved for them and upto 5 years for Government servants. The pay scale fixed for the said posts is Rs. 8000-13500/-. The essential educational qualif...
Tag this Judgment!Deivendran Vs. Subbiah Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2005
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ26
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order of allowing amendment application.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Palaniappan and Ors. v. Govindaraj and Ors., , and submitted that when the respondent's case is that they had l/3rd share in the property and the petitioner had 2/3rd share, it is not open to them to change the whole case by amendment, according to which, the respondents now want to plead to case that they have 2/3 rd share and the petitioner had l/3rd share in the property. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is not just in the plaint that this mistake is said to be crept in, but even in the proof of affidavit and in all other pleadings, the same case was projected by the respondents, which is now altered after the trial has commenced.3. Learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that by amendment, the nature of the case is not altered, but it is only allocation of shares. According to the counsel, the res...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Santhalakshmi Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Chennai)1134
1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Coimbatore, dt. 26th Feb., 2003. The relevant assessment year involved in this appeal is 2001-02.2. The only issue in the assessee's appeal is that the AO as well as the CIT(A) has erred in raising TDS demand under Section 201(1) of the IT Act, 1961, and consequential interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act in spite of certificate issued by the AO to the beneficiary GTV Spinners Ltd. under Section 194C(4) of the Act. The briefly stated facts are that the assessee-company paid charges for conversion of yarn to M/s GTV Spinners Ltd. from 1st July, 2000 to 31st March, 2001 amounting to Rs. 1,38,90,700. These conversion charges were paid without deduction of tax between 1st July, 2000 to 31st March, 2001 only on the ground that the contract party, M/s GTV Spinners Ltd. had obtained a certificate for non-deduction of tax from the concerned AO.However, after going through the certificate, it is gathered that the c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »