Chennai Court January 2006 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.
Kerala Transport Company Vs. National Insurance Co. Limited and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ46
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No. 626 of 1985 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore is the appellant in the above appeal.2. The suit in O.S. No. 626 of 1985 was filed by the respondents herein, against the appellant for grant of a decree against the appellant for a sum of Rs.93,919.80 with subsequent interest at 18% par annum from the date of the suit till the dale of realisation and for costs. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is as follows:The first plaintiff is an Insurance Company and the second plaintiff is a manufacturer of sewing needles and other connected items having its registered office at Needle Industries Post, Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu. The defendant/appellant is a firm carrying on business as fleet owners and cargo movers having their head office at Calicut, Kerala State. On 22.11.1983, the second plaintiff/second respondent herein, under Invoice No. STD/113 dated 22.11.1983 despatched goods from Coonoor to their depot at New ...
The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition),chennai Metropolitan D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ838
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The referring officer is the appellant herein. 2.1. The Government of Tamil Nadu acquired large extent of lands situate in Velachery, Chennai including an extent of 0.78.25 acres (34085.7 sq.ft.) comprised in Survey Nos.437/1A and 456/9 belonging to the claimant/respondent herein. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value of the land at Rs.76/- per sq.ft. and the referring officer passed award No.1/2003 fixing the compensation at Rs.43,05,495/-. The claimant filed an objection stating that the land would fetch Rs.24 lakhs per ground and requested to make a reference. 2.2. Accordingly, the matter was referred under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.38 of 2003 on the file of City Civil Court, Chennai. Learned Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, on the basis of evidence let in by both the parties, enhanced the market value of the land at Rs.484/- per sq.ft. besides fixing the value of tree at Rs.902/- and awa...
Ramachandran and ors. Vs. Alamelammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ584
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 176 of 1987 on the file of District Munsif Court, Hosur are the appellants in the above Second Appeal. Though, they succeeded before the Trial Court, they were unsuccessful before the lower Appellate Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1993 passed in A.S. No. 13 of 1991 on the file of the Sub-Court, Krishnagiri, the defendants have filed the above Second Appeal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.3. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that the first defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,000 and executed a mortgage deed dated 17.1.1973 in her favour and the time for redemption fixed in the mortgage deed was three months and the loan was obtained for discharge of the family debts. In spite of repeated demands, the first defendant did not repay the loan amount, but instead sold away the mortgaged property to defendants 2 and 3. It was the further...
Managing Director, Brakes India Ltd. Vs. S. Packiaraj and the Assisant ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2006
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ437Mad; (2006)1MLJ233
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The Management of M/s. Brakes India Limited is the appellant herein. S. Packiaraj, the first respondent herein filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the second respondent herein, approving the action of the Management in dismissing the first respondent. The writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge. Aggrieved by that, this writ appeal has been filed by the Management.2. The short facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as follows:(a) Mr. Packiaraj, the first respondent herein was an employee of the appellant Company. He was charge-sheeted for having committed the acts of misconduct by abusing his co-worker Padmanabhan in a filthy language and attacking him with a steel-tumbler on his forehead, which caused a cut injury on 28.6.1990. A domestic enquiry was instituted by the Management. Ultimately, on the basis of the enquiry report, the order of dismissal was passed by the Management on 20.2.1991....
R.K. Nair, Sole Proprietor, R.K. Engineering Enterprises Vs. Saramma G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC620; (2006)1MLJ322
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The tenant in R.C.O.P.No.2390 of 1991 has filed the present revision petition aggrieved against the order passed in R.C.A.No.41 of 1995 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority, VIII Court of Small Causes, Madras dated 10.03.2004.2. The case in brief is as follows:-(a) Original landlord V.O.George filed the petition for eviction under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, to evict the tenant-revision petitioner. In the petition, it is stated that the landlord is the owner of the building at door No.319, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Madras, consisting of ground + three floors. The respondent became a tenant under the landlord in respect in respect of the first shop portion on a monthly rent of Rs.700/- and it was raised in due course. The landlord, who is carrying on business in tyre retreading, sales and service of tyres and tubes in a rented premises at Door No.5, Whites Road, Second Lane, Royapettah, Chennai, for ...
N. Balakrishnan Vs. District Revenue Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ397
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent-District Revenue Officer (DRO) dated 6.11.1994, allowing the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent-Natesan, since deceased, now represented in this writ petition by the respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are the sons of the fourth respondent. The first respondent, by the impugned order dated 6.11.1994, cancelled the Award No. 831/72-73 issued on 29.12.1973.2. Facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as hereunder:(a) One Rajammal, the wife of Rangasamy Servai was assigned land of an extent of 0.03 cent in R.S. No. 130/3-7, Manapparavi Village of Nannilam Taluk for 'kudiyiruppu' by the Joint Special Deputy Collector (Kudiyiruppu) under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of ownership) Act (XL of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). (b) Rajammal and her husband Rengasamy Servai were living in 'kudiyiruppu' land and the said Rajammal di...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Best and Crompton Engineering Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: [2006]284ITR225(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of the order dt. 11th Sept., 1997 in ITA No. 2158/Mds/1990 for the opinion of this Court :Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for relief under Section 91 of the IT Act, 1961, without taking into account the weighted deduction allowed under Section 35B of the IT Act, in respect of the Iranian income ?2. The facts leading to the above question of law are as under:The respondent-assessee is a company in which public are substantially interested. The relevant assessment year is 1981-82. The corresponding accounting year ended on 31st March, 1981. The respondent-assessee is a resident company. The said resident company earned income in Iran for which there was no DTAA, The respondent-company earned income from Iran amounting to Rs. 25,61,426 on which tax of Rs. 10,29,564 was p...
Cit Vs. Best and Crompton Engg. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: [2006]156TAXMAN216(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J. At the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of the order dated 11-9-1997 in ITA No. 2158/Mds/1990 for the opinion of this Court :'Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for relief under section 91 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without taking into account the weighted deduction allowed under section 35B of the Income Tax Act, in respect of the Iranian income ?'2. The facts leading to the above question of law are as under:The respondent-assessee is a company in which public are substantially interested. The relevant assessment year is 1981-82. The corresponding accounting year ended on 31-3-1981. The respondent-assessee is a resident company. The said resident company earned income in Iran for which there was no DTAA. The respondent-company earned income from Iran amounting to Rs. 25,61,426 on which tax of Rs. 10,29,564 w...
K.R.M. Marine Exports Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: [2007]288ITR151(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.Tax Case Nos. 17, 18, 20 and 21 of 2003 :1. These appeals are filed by the assesses in respect of the asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97 against the orders dt. 11th Oct., 2002 and 13th Nov., 2002 passed by the senior Vice President and AM respectively and were admitted on the following common substantial questions of law :1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the amount received from the export house is brokerage or commission or charges or any other receipt qualified for disallowance under Explanation tinder Sub-section (4A) of Section 80HHC ?2. Whether the tribunal is justified in holding that 90 per cent of the receipts from the export; house are deductible from the business profits determined under Explanation to Clause (baa) under Sub-section (4A) of Section 80HHC for the purpose of quantifying relief under Section 80HHC ?2. The assesses is a company engaged in manufacture and export of marine products. Besides own exports,, the assessee exported ...
K.R.M. Marine Exports Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Mad)1; [2006]153TAXMAN437(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian:Tax Case Nos. 17, 18, 20 and 21 of 2003:These appeals are filed by the assessee in respect of the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 against the orders dated 11-10-2002 and 13-11-2002 passed by the senior Vice President and AM respectively and were admitted on the following common substantial questions of law:1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the amount received from the export house is brokerage or commission or charges or any other receipt qualified for disallowance under Explanation under sub-section (4A) of section 80HHC ?2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that 90 per cent of the receipts from the export house are deductible from the business profits determined under Explanation to clause (baa) under sub-section (4A) of section 80HHC for the purpose of quantifying relief under section 80HHC ?'2. The assessee is a company engaged in manufacture and export of marine products. Besides own exports, the, assessee exported the marine ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »