Chennai Court October 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.
B. Mohamed Yousuff Vs. Prabha Singh Jaswant Singh, Rep. by Its Power o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: LC2007(1)107
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The writ appeal, 2 writ petitions and 4 civil revision petitions arise out of a cobweb of litigation, in which, the word 'Maharaja' and his caricature are caught in a triangular contest. 2. The parties involved in this contest, carry on business in the sale of rice and grains, under the brand name 'MAHARAJA' with or without a caricature/device of a Maharaja. Since they are arrayed in different positions in the writ appeal, writ petitions and civil revision petitions, their description as petitioners or respondents would defy uniformity and would only create confusion. Therefore, they are referred to herein, as the 'Delhi Party', 'Tindivanam Party' and 'Kangayam Party', for the sake of convenience, since they have their head offices at Delhi, Tindivanam (Villupuram District, Tamilnadu) and Kangayam (Erode District, Tamilnadu) respectively. 3. Since the parties hereto have wielded against one another, almost all the weapons available under the Trade Marks Act, 19...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K. Ramasamy,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC565; 2008ACJ516; (2006)4MLJ1747
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The second respondent-Insurer in MCOP No. 490 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Tiruvannamalai being aggrieved by the award dated 16.08.1999 made therein has filed the above appeal. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent is absent.3. The only ground on which the above appeal has been filed is that the driver of the LPG tanker lorry bearing registration No. HR38-4456 belonging to the fifth respondent herein and which is involved in the accident causing the death of one Durai, who was the cleaner of the lorry bearing registration No. TMS 3317, was not authorised to drive heavy vehicles carrying hazardous goods as required by Rule 9 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that though the driver of the tanker lorry involved in the accident was holding Ex.R-2-licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle, no endorsement has been made in ...
Murugesan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1949
K.N. Basha, J.1. The sole accused Murugesan has come forward with this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pasumponmuthuramalingam Thevar District, Sivagangai, in S. C. No. 20 of 1994, dated 12-8-1994 convicting the appellant under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentencing' him to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The accused faced the trial under the following backdrop:(i) P. W. 1 is the son of the deceased. P. W. 2 is the daughter of the deceased and wife of the accused. The deceased is the father-in-law of the accused. P. W. 3 is the wife of the deceased and all of them were residing in a village called Pappakudi. The accused was also residing in the same village nearer to the house of the deceased. Right from the marriage, there were frequent quarrels between the accused and his wife, P. W. 2, who is the daughter of the deceased. P. W. 2 after quarrelling with the accused used to go to her parental house frequently and thereafter, accused ...
Kangayam Taluk, Rep. by C.D. Dhandapani and ors. Vs. Kangayam Taluk, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ115
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The learned District Munsif, Kangayam, taking note of the relief prayed for in O.S. No. 26 of 2002 and finding that the plaintiffs have not prayed for any relief against the public of Uppupalayam Village and that the relief relates to 'ABCD' fence, has dismissed Application Nos. 412 and 413 of 2004 filed by the third parties seeking for impleadment in the suit as well as to defend the suit in a representative capacity.3. A perusal of the relief prayed for in the suit shows that the plaintiffs have not prayed for a declaratory decree; it is for a permanent injunction against the defendants therein and also for a mandatory injunction for removal of 'ABCD' fence. In the affidavit filed in support of the applications in I.A. Nos. 412 and 413 of 2004, the third parties have specifically stated that all of them belong to Uppupalayam, Vellakovil Village and they filed the said application on behalf of the entire villagers of Uppapalayam. It is furt...
Kathiravan Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cestat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: 2007(207)ELT494(Mad); 2007[5]STR9; [2007]9STT208
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal in Final Order No. 738 of 2006, dated 14-8-2006 in E/Appeal No. 301/2006 whereby the order passed by the second respondent dated 19-1-2006 non-suiting the petitioner for condoning the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal has been confirmed.2. The reason stated by the Tribunal was that the delay was sought to be explained by the petitioner by submitting that one Mr. Kathiravan, the Managing Director of the company was under medical treatment for 10 days from 7-11-2005, that the medical certificate would be produced at the time of hearing and that however no such certificate was produced by the petitioner before the second respondent. On that reason, the second respondent had refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal further found that the petitioner produced a medical certificate dated 17-11-2005 whereunder it was certified that Mr. Kathi...
M. Shahul Hameed Batcha, Legal Heir and Son of Late M.S. Mohammed Marz ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Mad)118
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 7.3.2005 made in I.T.A. No. 2722/1995 and the following substantial questions of law have been raised for consideration:1. Whether the ratio in the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in Sri Shandilal Sugar & General Mills (168 ITR 705) and Suresh Chandra Mittalal (251 ITR 9) would apply to this case which is before the amendment/introduction of Explanation 1 Clause (B) to Section 271(1)(c)?2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, when a non-taxable amount has been offered for assessment even before issue of notice under Section 148, due to the inability of the assessee to adduce proof, penalty could be levied by the assessing officer without recording any satisfaction and establishing mens rea that the amount offered is taxable income?3. Whether the Tribunal has not committed legal error in not adverting to the affidavit by the mother-in-law of the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Soutehrn Roadways Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2006
Reported in: [2007]288ITR15(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.4.2006 made in ITA Nos. 96/Mds/2000 for the assessment year 1999-2000.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of replacement expenditure of Vibrator 0.5 HP Motor and cost of repairing Driver Cabins and Oil Tanker holding that replacement of old by new machinery cannot be treated as revenue expenditure. The assessing officer also disallowed the claim of assessee towards purchase of software treating the same as capital expenditure. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, decided the issues in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal, on appeal by the Revenue, held the issues in favour of the assessee. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue raising the following questions of law:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing a deduction of the amounts spent on replacement of machinery as...
Nexus Transcore Industries Rep. by Its Managing Partner and Nexus Tran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(112)ECC627; 2006LC627(Madras); 2007(207)ELT339(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.2. The case of the petitioners is that they filed 13 and 10 bills of entry respectively for clearance of imported second/defective CRGO electrical steel strip cutting in irregular shapes and sizes through Pondicherry Inland Container Depot and declared the value of the goods at USD 350 per MT. The said bills of entry were assessed provisionally determining the value at USD 485 per MT on the basis of the contemporaneous import price prevailing during the material period and clearance was allowed on execution of necessary provisional duty bonds along with bank guarantees as securities towards the differential duty between the duty arising out of the declared value and provisionally determined value as agreed by both the petitioners and the Department. However, the orders in original were passed on 28.9.2006 by the third respondent non suiting the petitioners to the value reported by them. The va...
S.S.K. Trading Company, Rep. by Its Prop. S. Sampath Kumar Vs. the Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ295; (2007)6VST664(Mad)
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the communication of the respondent, dated 10.10.2005 made in TNGST ASST. No. 2921997/2002-2003 and quash the same and forbear the respondent from preventing the petitioner from sending communication / petition through advocates for statutory notices. 3. The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the impugned communication of the Commercial Tax Officer, Perundurai dated 10.10.2005 informing the petitioner about certain things as found noted in paras 3, 4 and 5 of the impugned order, which are extracted as follows:3. Further, you are informed that the legal practitioner who are authorized as provided for under Section 52 of the TNGST ACT 59 read with Rule 49 and 51 are only for the purpose of appearance before the authority and not for making cor...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pathy Cine Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Mad)507
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. In this appeal directed against the order dated 17.3.2006 of the Tribunal made in ITA No. 1249/Mds/2004, the following questions were formulated as substantial questions of law arising for consideration:(i)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that income from hiring of air conditioners to its directors as 'income from business' and(ii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the exercise of power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax was erroneous ? 2.1. To learn as to how these questions arose, we may refer, in brief, to the facts of the case: The relevant assessment year is 2000-2001. The assessee admitted the lease rent received from M/s. Blue Star Ltd., as 'income from house property' after allowing the statutory deductions. The assessee also admitted 'net loss' of Rs. 5,75,580/- as 'income from business' derived from the busine...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »