Chennai Court June 2005 Judgments
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K. Ganesan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC279
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. The insurance company, which had suffered an award at the hands of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 3,65,000 (for the injuries sustained), is before this court chal lenging the said award only on the question of quantum of compensation awarded. In the above context, we perused the judgment under challenge. The injured/respondent No. 1 claimed a sum of Rs. 7,00,000 as the total compensation. His case is that he was earning a sum of Rs. 7,500 to Rs. 10,000 per month by supplying building materials. PW 3 is the doctor, who examined the injured. PW 1 in his evidence would state that he had suffered a skull injury and injury on hands and legs as well. He would state that he was initially admitted in a private hospital called Sridevi Hospital and when the hospital authorities express ed their difficulties to treat the injured, he was admitted in the Government General Hospital, Chennai as an inpatient from 25.10.2000 till 14.11.2000. Exh. P1 is th...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Cit, Salary Circle 11 Vs. Ian Peter Morris
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: (2006)7SOT279(Chennai)
The revenue has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) mainly on the ground that he has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 21 lakhs alleged to have been received by the assessee on account of restrictive covenant, which was treated by the assessing officer as revenue receipt.The brief facts of the case are that assessee was a founder director of Log-In Systems Innovations Ltd. ("Log-in Systems" for short), from where he was receiving only salary. This company was engaged in the business of software development and consultancy. The entire business of the company was sold as a going concern to Synergy Credit Corporation Ltd. ("Synergy" for short) for Rs. 6 lakhs on 15-10-1993.Synergy also offered appointment to the assessee as Executive Director on 8-10-1993 and he was ultimately appointed in that position with effect from I- I 1- 1993. Through a separate agreement dated 15-10-1993 entered with the assessee, Synergy Credit Corporation Ltd. imposed a restriction on the ass...
Tag this Judgment!Karthik @ Karthikeyan Vs. the Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC386
P. Sathasivam, J.1. One Karthik @ Karthikeyan, who was detained as 'Goonda', as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned order dated 12.08.2004, challenges the same in this Petition.2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for respondents.3. After taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made the only contention that a perusal of the grounds of detention, particularly paragraph No. 4, does not show that the Detaining Authority has applied his mind and in the absence of imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, the detention order cannot be sustained.4. With regard to the said contention, we verified the awareness or satisfaction of the Detaining Authori...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raka Food Products
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Mad)151; [2005]277ITR261(Mad)
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This Income-Tax Appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore against the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench dated 12.09.2002.2. The substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are as follows:-(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the CIT(A) order that the sale of factory along with machineries, furniture shall be treated as long term capital gains in spite of the fact that depreciation had been claimed on the building, machinery and furniture?(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case proviso to Section 50 of the Act would be applicable in respect of depreciable assets sold along with non-depreciable assets sold in a single transaction of sale?3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.4. The substantial question of law raised by the revenue relates to the direction of the CIT (Appeals) that the profit on sale of a bakery ...
Tag this Judgment!Karamchand Thapar and Brothers (Cs) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2005
Reported in: [2006]144STC405(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner assailed the order of assessment on the ground that the assessing officer has framed the assessment by suppressing the fact of the petitioner filing objections to the proposal notice. It is a very serious violation of a statutory provision and also the principles of natural justice. In order to verify the allegation, this Court on June 16, 2005 passed the following order Mr. B. Nedunchezhian, learned Government Advocate, is directed to produce the files by June 18, 2005 so as to enable this Court to find out as to whether the letter of the petitioner dated June 8, 2005 reached the assessing officer prior to passing of the assessment order. Post on June 18, 2005.2. As the Government Advocate has failed to produce the file on the adjourned date on June 18, 2005, the following order was passed:. In spite of the order dated June 16, 2005, when the matter is taken up for orders today (June 18, 2005), the learned Government Advocate for the respo...
Tag this Judgment!V. Dhanam, Vs. P. Sudhakaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC409
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. This civil revision petition has been brought forth challenging the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, made in R.C.A.No.41 of 2002 wherein the order of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry, in HRCOP No.68 of 2000, was affirmed by passing an order of eviction of the petitioners herein.2. The landlord respondent came with an application for eviction of the petitioners herein, the tenants, under Sec. 10(2)(i) and 10(vii) of the Pondicherry Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act on the grounds of wilful default and denial of title. The case of the landlord before the lower Court was that the property originally belonged to the petitioners/tenants; that they sold the same by way of a sale deed dated 3.6.1999 for a consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-; that the said payment was made; but, they could not hand over possession; that they wanted a short accommodation by 10 days; that even then, they could not vacate the property; that they also executed ...
Tag this Judgment!Prof. Arun Nigavekar, Chairman, University Grants Commission Vs. Dr. R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ336
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 10.05.2005 by which the learned single Judge quashed the appointment of the appellant as Chairman of the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'UGC') by notification dated 16.07.2002.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record as well as the impugned judgment.3. The ground for quashing the appointment of the appellant as Chairman of the UGC was that according to the learned single Judge the said appointment was in violation of the second proviso to Section 6(1)(c) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') Section 6(1) of the Act states:-'6. Terms and Conditions of Service of members, -- (1) A person appointed as Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other member after commencement of the University Grants Commission (Amendment) Act, 1985 shall, unless he sooner becomes disqualified fo...
Tag this Judgment!Subaida and Habeeba Vs. K.A.M.P. Meerania Muslim Educational Society b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad112; 2005(3)CTC603
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Maria Misria, the appellant in S.A. No. 1092 of 2004 as Secretary representing K.A.M.P.Meerania Educational Society, Kalakad, filed a suit for declaration as against Subaida and Habeeba, the appellants in S.A. No. 439 of 2004 that the plaintiff representing the Society alone is entitled to act as Secretary in O.S. No. 701 of 1996.2. The suit ultimately was dismissed. However, in the appeal filed by the plaintiff in A.S. No. 94 of 1999, the lower appellate Court modified the decree and gave the lesser relief in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved over this, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed S.A. No. 439 of 2004 before this Court. As the plaintiff was not satisfied with lesser relief, she filed S.A. No. 1092 of 2004 seeking for entire relief. Both these appeals are heard together and common judgment is being rendered.3. For the convenient sake, Subaida and Habeeba, the appellants in S.A. No. 439 of 2004 are referred to as the defendants and Maria Misria, the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Gurusamy and ors. Vs. Santhanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ343
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. Some of the defendants, who have failed in their attempt, seeking reception of certain documents, are the revision petitioners.2. The respondent in this case has filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of her 1/12 share in the suit property, which is opposed by the defendants. While the suit is pending, the contesting defendants have filed a petition, of course, quoting a wrong provision for reception of documents, as detailed in I.A. No. 451 of 2004. Totally, they have filed 13 documents or so.3. One of the documents filed along with the petition, dated 25.6.1984 appears to be a release deed. The plaintiff opposed the reception of documents on the ground, since the release deed sought to be produced is an unregistered one, the same cannot be received. As far as the other documents are concerned, I find from the counter affidavit that there was no objection for their reception.4. The learned District Munsif, Ramnad, without ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: CavIn Plastics and Chemicals P. Ltd.; in Re: Cavinkare P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2005
Reported in: (2006)6CompLJ319(Mad); [2008]86SCL233(Mad)
D. Murugesan, J. 1. These company petitions are filed under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, by the transferor company M/s. Cavin Plastics and Chemicals Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Cavin Plastics') and the transferee company M/s. Cavinkare Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Cavinkare') to sanction the scheme of amalgamation, annexed with it, so as to be binding on the shareholders of the petitioner-companies and on the petitioner-companies.2. At the instance of the transferor and transferee companies in Company Applications Nos. 499 and 500 of 2005, this Court by its order dated April 1, 2005, dispensed with the convening, holding and conducting of meeting of the shareholders and fixed a date for presentation of the company petitions for the purpose of amalgamation for the reasons stated therein. As such now the above company petitions are filed.3. The petitioner/transferor company Cavin Plastics has its objects to buy, purchase, acquire, reco...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »