Chennai Court December 2005 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.
The Chairman, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority Vs. S. Radhakr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC241; (2006)1MLJ181
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. These writ appeals arise out of the common order by the learned single Judge in a batch of writ petitions, challenging the demolition notices issued by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'MMDA').2. The writ-petitioners claim to be the purchasers of the offices/flats in the residential apartments, promoted and developed by M/s. R.R. Constructions, situate at Door No. 16, Saravana Mudali Street, T. Nagar, Madras. The promoter had applied to the appropriate planning authority for the planning permission for construction of a residential complex of ground plus three floors, with four flats each in the first, second and third floors and the ground floor for being used as parking space for the flat-owners. The planning permit was issued by the Corporation of Madras on 25-5-1981. In violation of the permit, the promoters had converted the ground floor, which was shown in the planning permission as parking spac...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri Chamundeswari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Mad)435; [2007]290ITR583(Mad)
ORDERP.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question said to arise out of its order in ITA 3542 (MAD)/90, for the opinion of this Court in pursuance to the direction of this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and taking into account the Supreme Court's decision in : [1976]102ITR287(SC) and : [1991]189ITR285(SC) , the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the re-assessment made in the case for the assessment year 1980-81 2. The brief facts relating to the above reference are as under:The assessee respondent was doing business in production and sale of cimenatography films. The relevant assessment year is 1980-81 and the corresponding accounting year ended as on 30.6.1979. The respondent assessee by his return on income, on 05.1`2.1980, admitted a loss of Rs. 1,01,120/- and the original assessment was completed under Section 1...
P. Thangamarimuthu Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR1131]; (2006)IILLJ208Mad; (2006)1MLJ452
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Madurai (Division-I) on 22.11.93. While he was on duty on 11.9.2003 in the bus belonging to the Corporation with Regn. No. TN-58-N-0423 from Papanasam to Madurai, it met with an accident and rammed into a stationary lorry. The petitioner was seriously injured in the accident and both of his legs were crushed, resulting in amputation. He was sent for examination before a Medical Board on 30.12.2003, and the Medical Board certified as follows:Thiru P. Thangamarimuthu, Conductor, CR08603, Pudukulam Branch, TNSTC, Madurai appeared before the Medical Board on 30.12.2003 and was examined and found that he was previously admitted and treated at Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai and above knee Amputation for both lower limb done for the same. As per the work requirements described by the Managing Director, TNSTC, Madurai Division, he is considered as medically unfit to the job of C...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: [2006]286ITR635(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions of law were referred for the opinion of this court by the Tribunal for the assessment year 1986-87:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act in respect of interest received from the members of the society ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the incentive subsidy received by the assessee is a capital receipt and cannot be included in the total income ?2. It is submitted by learned Counsel on either side that the first question referred to above is covered by the decision of this court dated September 26, 2001, made in Tax Case Nos. 845 to 847 of 1995 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Learned senior Central Government standing counsel appearing for...
Universal Radiators Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Special R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: [2006]281ITR261(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The assessee, Universal Radiators Limited, Coimbatore filed the above appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 19.11.1998 raising the following substantial questions of law:-' 1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax, directing the Assessing Officer to withdraw the depreciation granted to the appellant on properties allotted to it on the dissolution of the partnership firm, Universal Real Estate Agency on 30.3.1976 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that allotment of properties to the partners on the dissolution of the firm result in transfer requiring registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, totally ignoring the principles to the contrary laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in : [1995]212ITR592(SC) ...
Rajasundari W/O. Sivaramakrishnan Vs. Gowri @ Avaduai Ammal W/O. C.R.S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad156; 2006(1)CTC700; (2006)1MLJ164
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 20.09.2004 passed in I.A.No. 10477 of 2004 in O.S.No. 12449 of 1996 by the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, partly allowing the Petition filed under Order 23 Rule 1(3) C.P.C and declining to grant leave to file a fresh suit. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.2. Claiming that she is the adopted Daughter of Sankara Narayana Pillai, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit in O.S.No. 1826 of 1993 before the High Court for Partition and Separate possession of 'A' and 'B' Schedule Property. 'A' Schedule property consists of six items. Item (vi) of 'A' Schedule property is situated at Chennai. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit after obtaining leave to sue. When the Suit was pending, due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of Subordinate Courts, the Suit was transferred to City Civil Court, Chennai and renumbered as O.S.No. 12449 of 1996. Resisting the Suit, the Defendants have fi...
S. Veerasamy Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Commissioner of L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ391
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard both sides.3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records of the 3rd respondent in his letter dated 29.7.2004, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant patta to the petitioner for the lands in S. Nos. 674/B, 720, 721/2, 735, 736, 737 and 738 to the total extent of 3.23 acres situated at Vengatavaram Village, Sevelimedu Mathura, Kancheepuram District.4. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is an agriculturist by profession and that he is in possession of 3.23 acres in S. Nos. 674/B, 720, 721/2, 735, 736, 737 and 738. In the year 1978, the petitioner sought for assignment of the lands under his cultivation from the second respondent. In regard thereto, the petitioner was asked to contact the office of the 3rd respondent ...
Pastor I. Vinil Sathish President and Chief Bishop Full Gospel Penteco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC22; (2006)1MLJ158
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent pertaining to his order dated 24.11.2005 in OM A3 10008/2005 and quash the said order and consequently, direct the respondents to forbear from interfering the right of the petitioner in conducting the Full Gospel Pentecostal Church at Door No. 10/31B, Madavillai Azhaganparai post, Kanyakumari District.2.1. The petitioner is the President and Chief Bishop of the Church, viz., Full Gospel Pentecostal Church, which was established in the year 1933. A member of the said church, gifted some lands to the church and some lands were also purchased by the church. Prayer meetings were conducted in the said lands for the last 20 yea Rs. According to the petitioner, at the instigation of other religious people, two original suits before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Iraniel, were filed by certain persons against the prayer me...
M. Sekaran Vs. the General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpora ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2005
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ258Mad; (2006)1MLJ295
P. Sathasivam,J.1. Since the issue raised in the Writ Appeals and the Writ Petitions relates to employment/re-employment of persons retrenched in the Transport Corporations, these matters are being disposed of by the following common judgement.Writ Appeals:- 2. The Writ Appeals are filed by the appellants against Order of K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J., in Writ Petition Nos. 11785 of 2003 etc., batch dated 13-05-2003.3. According to the appellants, the respondent-Transport Corporation recruited about 75 Drivers through Employment Exchange during March, 2001. Those drivers underwent the selection process and got selected. On selection, they were sent for training at Chithode Training School. On completion of training, they were issued orders dated 18-04-2001 appointing them on consolidated wages for two years describing them as trainee drivers and posting them in various depots. They discharged the duties of regular drivers as they were sent on line duty and they were relievers to regular dri...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Jaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC730; 2006ACJ1503; 2006(1)CTC173
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. All the appeals arise out of a single accident and hence, this common judgment.2. United India Insurance Company Limited 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 31.01.2002 at 02.40 PM, in the Dharmapuri-Salem Main Road near the Erapatti Bus Stop, in which one Paramesivam and one Ramalingam died and one Ganesan @ Sundararaj sustained injuries, for which the legal representatives of Paramesivam filed M.C.O.P. No. 1337 of 2002 claimed Rs. 15 lakhs as compensation; legal representatives of Ramalingam filed MCOP. No. 1338 of 2002 claiming Rs. 20 lakhs as compensation; and Ganesan @ Sundararaj sought for a compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs in MCOP.1339 of 2002.4. It is the case of the claimants that on 31.01.2002 at about 2.40 PM at the main road from Dharmapuri to Salem, the two deceased and the injured were travelling in a tempo bearing registration No. TN 27 L 6984 belonging to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »