Chennai Court April 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.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. R. Sathiyamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC218
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Messrs United India Insurance Company, Chennai-2 is the appellant. The appellant challenges the quantum determined by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai dated 10-8-2000 made in M.C.O.P.No. 2971 of 1996. Since the appellant-Insurance company challenges the quantum determined by the Tribunal, it is unnecessary for this Court to go into the finding relating to negligence and the liability of the Insurance Company.2. In respect of grievous injuries sustained in a road accident, the minor claimant/first respondent herein, namely, S. Abhinesh prayed for a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-through his father and next friend M. Suresh. His father was examined as P.W.1 and he deposed that due to the accident, his son sustained fracture in his fight hand, fracture in his right shoulder, and damage to his right eye, and he had taken treatment for a period of 3 months at Stanley Government Hospital. Ex. P-1 is the discharge summary; Ex. P-2 is the medical report issued by ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N.S.S. Investments (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: [2005]277ITR149(Mad)
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. Heard the counsel for parties. The question referred to us is as follows:-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the profit on sale of shares to the extent of Rs.43,93,175/= is to be treated as capital gains instead of as business income, as adopted by the Assessing Officer?'2. The finding of fact recorded in para 15 of the order of the Tribunal is that the shares in question were never treated by the assessee as stock-in-trade and they were held for earning dividend only. A company can hold some shares as stock-in-trade for the purpose of doing business of buying and sale of such shares, while at the same time it can also hold some other shares as its capital for the purpose of earning dividend income. Here the shares in question were held as the assessee's capital and not as stock-in-trade. Hence, there would be capital gain and not business income. Hence, we answer the question referr...
T. Soundararajan Vs. the Director General of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ12
ORDER1. Pending writ petition, the writ petitioner had an interim order in his favour in W.P.M.P. No. 18390/2004, which was an ex parte order. The said order came to be vacated at the instance of the Government, which filed W.V.M.P. No. 1475/2004. The writ appeal is directed against that order. The Hon'ble First Bench on 15.02.2005 directed the writ appeal to be posted along with the writ petition. That is how the writ appeal and the writ petition are before us. 2. The writ appeal stands admitted. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ appeal and the writ petition are taken up for final disposal. The writ petitioner, who was working as a Head Constable, was promoted temporarily on 05.12.1997 to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve), which post he was holding till 06.05.2004. It appears that during that period of his temporary office, three proceedings were initiated against him, which ended in awarding black marks in case of two misconducts and s...
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division I) Ltd., R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ1141Mad; (2005)2MLJ537
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. The above two writ appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 6.3.2003 in W.P. Nos.16527 to 16536, 16537 to 16546, 16565 to 16574 and 16575 to 16584 of 2000. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petitioners challenged their termination of service on the ground of violation of sections 25F, 25G and 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act directly by filing writ petitions in the High Court. It has been repeatedly held by this Court and by the Supreme Court that such writ petitions should not be entertained. If any one alleges violation of any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, his remedy is to raise an industrial dispute under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and not to directly file a writ petition in this Court. This kind of practice of directly approaching the High Court in such matters cannot be approved or encouraged.3. In Madura Sugars Staff Union and Ors. v. Madura Sugar Mills, 200...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayakumar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC447; 2005(3)CTC36
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The National Insurance Company Limited has filed the appeal disputing the compensation amount of Rs. 2,21,378/- awarded in M.C.O.P.No. 1448 of 1999 on 9.6.2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. 5), Coimbatore at Thiruppur in respect of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident that took place on 6.9.1999.2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation of Rs. 2,01,600 awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is on the higher side.3. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that the loss of income fixed by the Tribunal to the claimant who is a labour in Banian Company and aged about 20 years at the time of accident, by adopting multiplier is not proper. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no satisfactory evidence adduced on the side of the claimant that he has lost the income total...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. S. Abhinesh (Minor) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC218
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Messrs United India Insurance Company, Chennai-2 is the appellant. The appellant challenges the quantum determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai dated 10.8.2000 made in M.C.O. P. No. 2971 of 1996. Since the appellant-Insurance Company challenges the quantum determined by the Tribunal, it is unnecessary for this Court to go into the finding relating to negligence and the liability of the Insurance Company.2. In respect of grievous injuries sustained in a road accident, the minor claimant/first respondent herein, namely, Section Abhinesh prayed for a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- through his father and next friend M. Suresh. His father was examined as P.W. 1 and he deposed that due to the accident, his son sustained fracture in his right hand, fracture in his right shoulder, and damage to his right eye, and he had taken treatment for a period of 3 months at Stanley Government Hospital. Ex. P-1 is the discharge summary; Ex. P-2 is the medical report i...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Vijaya Kumar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC237
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The National Insurance Company Limited has filed the appeal disputing the compensation amount of Rs. 2,21,378 awarded in M.C.O.P. No. 1448 of 1999 on 9th June, 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. 5), Coimbatore at Thiruppur in respect of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident that took place on 6th September, 1999.2. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel, for the appellant is that the compensation of Rs. 2,01,600 awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is on the higher side.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that the loss of income fixed by the Tribunal to the claimant who is a labour in Banian Company and aged about 20 years at the time of accident, by adopting multiplier is not proper. The learned Counsel further submitted that there is no satisfactory evidence adduced on the side of the claimant that he has lost the income total...
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Division I) Ltd. Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ240
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2004 in M.C.O.P. Nos. 1680 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.2. The claimants/respondents 1 and 4 made a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 1680 of 2002 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Salem, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs. 8,42,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Two Thousand only) with interest with reference to an accident said to have been occurred on 17.07.2001 at about 10.30 p.m., on the G.S.T. Road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. T.N.27-N-1360 belonging to the appellant Corporation, as a result of which the husband of the first claimant and the father of claimants 2 to 4, aged about 43 years, who was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month as a lorry driver, died.3. Even though the claimants claimed that the deceased Pad...
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Division I) Ltd. Vs. Sha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC305
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P. No. 1680 of 2002, dated 10.11.2004, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.2. The claimants/respondents 1 and 4 made a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 1680 of 2002, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Salem, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs. 8,42,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs forty-two thousand only) with interest with reference to an accident said to have beeen occurred on 17.7.2001 at about 10.30 p.m., on the G.S.T.Road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. T.N. 27-N-1360 belonging to the appellant-Corporation, as a result of which the husband of the first claimant and the father of claimants 2 to 4, aged about 43 years, who was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month as a lorry driver, died.3. Even though the claimants claimed that the deceased Pad...
E.M.K. Rajammal, Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and S. Ramesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC404; (2006)3MLJ728
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioners are the newly impleaded parties as legal representatives of the deceased insured of the vehicle, E.M. Kandasamy, who was arrayed as the first respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 3952 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(IV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.2. The revision is filed challenging the correctness of the order of the Tribunal dated 10.12.2004 in M.P. No. 2304 of 2004 in the said claim petition after remand by this Court. The said petition was filed by the first respondent herein, the Insurance Company to implead the revision petitioners herein as the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent in the Claim Petition, viz., E.M. Kandasamy, the insured, which petition was allowed and aggrieved against such order, the revision petitioners have filed this revision.3. The second respondent herein has filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 3952 of 1996 on 24.7.1995 claiming compensation in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »