Chennai Court January 2006 Judgments

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Arumugham,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2006(2)CTC368; (2006)2MLJ564

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The Insurance Company is the appellant. The challenge is to the award of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Salem, dated 07.06.2004 in W.C. No. 558 of 2002.2. One Mr. Anandavel was employed as Driller cum Helper in the rig unit fitted on a lorry bearing Registration No. CNP 4779. On 16.09.1996, when the rig unit was in operation, the said Anandavel was stated to have been electrocuted and died. The third respondent is the owner of the said rig unit. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased Anandavel, filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The said claim was resisted by the appellant contending that it had not issued any policy of insurance for the rig unit lorry in favour of the first opposite party covering the period of accident and that any award passed has to be satisfied by the 3rd respondent herein.3. It is now reported by the lear...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Apex Laboratories P. Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2006]284ITR364(Mad)

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, in I.T.A. No. 879/Mds/ 99 dated February 10, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench raising the following substantial questions of law.1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no penalty is imposable under Section 271B for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 44AB on the ground that the returns were filed belatedly neither under Section 139 nor on a notice under Section 142?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty without giving a finding of fact as to whether the tax audit report had been obtained within the prescribed time by the assessee?2. The facts leading to the above questions of law are as under:The relevant assessment year is 1993-94. The assessee filed its return of income on March 13, 1997 along with the a...

The Branch Manager, Canara Bank Virudhachalam Branch Virudhachalam and ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH J. {Open Court} The Opposite parties 4 to 6 in COP No.14/98 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore, are the appellants herein. The 1st respondent was the complainant before the District Forum. The parties herein will be referred to according to their rank in the complaint. The complainants case was as follows: - He was a permanent resident of Virudhachalam for 30 years and was running a provision shop for 20 years. He was well known to the common public, postal authorities and the municipal employees. His son Ashraf Ali was employed in Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Ashraf Alis friend Amanullah issued a cheque for Rs.25,000/- in favour of the complainant drawn on Canara Bank, Virudhachalam. His son sent the cheque by Registered Post. The 3rd opposite party postman, with ulterior motive, made an endorsement on the letter that there was no such addressee. He returned the cover containing the cheque to the Post Office. The 1st and the 2nd opposite part...

Duraivendhan Vs. Hindu Bharathi Education Company and the Branch Manag ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2006(1)CTC446; (2007)1MLJ836

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The claimant is the appellant. The challenge is to the award of the Tribunal dated 11.06.2004 in M.C.O.P. No. 848 of 2002. According to the claimant on 17.7.2002 at about 3 p.m., he was riding on a TVS Suzuki motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN-07-V-6547 near Samiar Madam when the vehicle belonging to the first respondent school, which is a van bearing Registration No. TN-23-Y-7590 dashed against him, in which he suffered serious injuries, for which initially he took treatment in Ambur Government Hospital and later in the Vellore Government Hospital. He has also stated that he took native treatment at Puttur. He made a claim for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/= as against the respondents. In support of the injury sustained by him, the appellant filed Exhibits P.2 and P.5 and examined P.W.2, doctor, who issued the wound certificate.2. The Tribunal on a detailed examination of the evidence placed before it, has found that the cause of accident cannot be solely att...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Idhayam Publications Limited

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2006]285ITR221(Mad)

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, in I.T.A. Nos. 1187/Mds/1998 dated 13.07.2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench raising the following formulated substantial question of law.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, even though the Supreme Court held that Section 269SS is constitutionally valid in law?2. The assessee is running a company in the name of M/s. Idhayam Publications Private Limited for publication of books. The relevant assessment year is 1992-93. In the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had accepted a cash loan of Rs. 2,94,000/- from M/s. Manian Creations, a sister concern, in violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. With the above information, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax initiate...

K. Mohammed Rafee Vs. A.G. Akbar Sherief

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2006)1MLJ699

ORDERS. Tamilvanan, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20.10.2004, made in R.C.A. No. 70/2004, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, confirming the fair and decretal order dated 28.10.2002, made in I.A. No. 155/2002 in R.C.O.P. No. 54/1999, on the file of the Rent Controller, II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchi.2. It is seen that the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 155/2002 was filed before the Rent Controller to mark the Xerox copy of an unregistered document and the same was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, since the appellant/tenant herein raised an objection while the original document was to be marked as inadmissible and on the basis of that objection, the same was not marked as Court document.3. The appellant/tenant has not denied the fact that he had raised objection, while the original unregistered document, was produced by the respondent, for marking. Subsequently, the appellant/tenant filed the Interlocutory A...

Manickam Vs. Sakunthala @ Rajeswari and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2006(2)CTC397; (2006)2MLJ581

K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 673 of 1983 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court Coimbatore, who succeeded before the Trial Court, but lost before the first Appellate Court, has filed the above second appeal.2. The suit in O.S. No. 673 of 1983 was filed by the appellant for partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in the suit property and for mense profits at Rs. 250/- per month from the date of filing of suit, till possession is delivered to her.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.4. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is as follows:The suit property is a house property, bearing Door No. 12/39 A in Arunthathiyar Street, Coimbatore. The suit house was originally purchased by one Savadammal by a Sale Deed Ex.A.5 dated 01.07.1956, from one Marimuthu Reddy for Rs. 2,445/-. The eldest son Ponnuswamy got himself separated from the family. 1/4th share in the house property was...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Flow Tech Power

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2006(202)ELT404(Mad)

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Revenue against the order dated 03.03.2005 made in Final Order No. 302 / 2005 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, raising the following substantial questions of law.1. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have not committed an error of law in holding that the claim for refund is not barred by limitation since the duty was paid under protest when the respondent has not followed the procedures contemplated under Rule 233B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have not committed an error of law in holding that the respondent is entitled for refund since there was no unjust enrichment merely relying upon the Certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and the Profit and Loss Account submitted by the respondent?2. The facts leading to the above...

Arulmighu Sundareswara Swamy Thirukoil Vs. K. Bama

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2006Mad149; 2006(2)CTC109; (2006)1MLJ430

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 227 of 1985 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi, is before this Court, challenging the decree and judgment dated 18.11.1994 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam made in A.S. No. 365 of 1992.2. The Executive Officer of Arulmigu Sundareswara- swami Thirukoil, Neermulai, Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk, filed the suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that all the suit properties were Community properties and owned by 49 Pattadars in the suit village. Out of the income derived from cultivation of those lands, plaintiff Temple's poojas are being performed and the Kurukkal is being paid salary. It is the case of the plaintiff that for this arrangement, there is no document. When one Sundaresa Kurukkal was appointed, the suit properties were entrusted with him. From out of the income derived from the properties, after spending for pooja expenses, he was taking his salary. This practice w...

Sundaram Finance Limited Rep. by the Assistant Manager (Legal) Vs. M.K ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2006Mad218; 2006(1)ARBLR548(Madras); 2006(1)CTC433; (2006)1MLJ506

A.P. Shah, C.J.1. The only issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is, which is the principal civil court in respect of matters arising under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act for short) where the value of the subject matter is less than Rs. 10 lakhs. The question is, whether the Madras High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction under the Letters Patent or the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court constituted under the Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892, will exercise jurisdiction in respect of matters under the Act involving the value of not exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs? In order to appreciate the issue raised before us, it is necessary to set out briefly the relevant facts that have given rise to this appeal.2. An application was filed by the appellant against the respondents under Section 9 of the Act to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents and their men from in any way alienating or encumbering the property belonging ...