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.
Karuthapandi Vs. R. Sivakumar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1547
J.A.K. Sampathkumar, J.1. This case is posted, as directed, to hear the submission in regard to maintainability in respect of court-fee.2. Heard Mr. T.S.R. Venkatramana, the learned Counsel for the appellant.3. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that claimants are not questioning the award amount in the appeal and that the consideration in the appeal is only with reference to the liability fixed among the respondents, which is incapable of valuation and the court-fee payable is rupee one only and as such the claimants are not liable to pay any court-fee more than a rupee. He also relied on the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act to sustain his claim.4. He has also drawn my attention to the definition of pecuniary damages and special damages given in the Law Lexicon with Legal Maxims, 2nd Edn., written by Venkataramaiya, which reads as follows and contended that the claimants are not liable to pay any court-fee as directed by the Registry:Pecuniary Damages.-Such as can be estimate...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Attur Agricultural Producers Cooperativ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2006
Reported in: [2008]306ITR151(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal made in I.T.A. No. 689/Mds/2001, dated 6.1.2006 with reference to the assessment year 1996-1997.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the marketing of agricultural products. The assessee advanced loans to its members and received interest therefrom. The assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act and the Assessing Officer negatived the claim of the assessee as the primary objective of the assessee is not that of the credit society that is engaged in the business of banking. On appeal, by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), following the appellate order for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 held that the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of interest income received on advances made to his customers for the purpose of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Ac...
Sathish Raj and V. Rajendran Vs. Atlanta Applied Dynamics (India) Pvt. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR436(Madras); (2006)4MLJ1613
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 25.1.2006, made in M.P. No. 581/2005 in R.C.O.P. No. 1443/2005 on the file of the XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai.2. The petitioners in RCOP No. 1443/2005 on the file of the 14th Small Causes Court, Chennai are the revision petitioners.3. RCOP No. 1443/2005 was filed by the revision petitioners against the respondents herein for an order of eviction under Section 10(2)(i) and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The respondents herein have filed a preliminary objection in the RCOP stating that there is a clause in the lease agreement dated 16.2.2004 stipulating that the dispute should be referred to arbitrator and already that clause was invoked by the revision petitioners before this Court in C.S. No. 416/2005 and this Court appointed an arbitrator on 21.7.2005. It is further stated in the preliminary objections that arbitration proceedings ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mottaiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC584; 2007ACJ1254
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal preferred by the insurance company, respondent No. 3, before the Tribunal, arises out of the judgment dated 21.7.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Udumalaipettai in M.C.O.P. No. 207 of 1990.2. According to the claimant before the Claims Tribunal on 14.4.1990, she along with her son and others, was proceeding to Kaaliammal Temple in the vehicle bearing registration No. TN 41-1117 and while so, near Devipattinam, the driver, respondent No. 1, drove the vehicle belonging to respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, thereby causing accident on account of which, she and others travelling in the vehicle got injured. It was her case that she was a coolie earning Rs. 350 per month and she was liable to be paid a compensation of Rs. 50,000 under various heads. On her side, she herself was examined as PW 1 and five exhibits were marked as documentary evidence.3. Driver, respondent No. 1, remained ex parte be...
Muthuraj Vs. V.M. Kandasamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1230
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. The injured-claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. 4, Coimbatore at Tiruppur, is the appellant herein and he has challenged the order dated 21.3.2003 passed by the Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 577 of 1998.2. Before Claims Tribunal, it was the case of the claimant that on 11.12.1997 at about 6.45 p.m., when he was riding the scooter bearing registration No. TLB 2572 in Coimbatore NSR Road near Bharathi Park junction, bus belonging to the Transport Corporation, came from behind and dashed against the scooter thereby causing fracture in his right hand and abrasions all over his body. It was his case that he was aged 35 years and working as Generator Mechanic and Supervisor in S.P.R. Engineering for a salary of Rs. 4,000 per month and he is liable to be paid compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 by the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. It was his further case that he is a resident of Th...
Indian Refrigerator Company Limited Represented by Its Authorized Sign ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(113)ECC469; 2006LC469(Madras); 2007(210)ELT350(Mad)
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. This writ petition arises out of the interim order No. 04/01/2004 dated 23.01.2004 passed by the first respondent in Appeal No. 92 of 2003 under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, directing the petitioner to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- during the pendency of the appeal.3. The case of the petitioner Company, in brief, is as under:a. The petitioner Company, viz., Indian Refrigerator Company Limited (in short 'I.R.C.L.') is in the business of manufacture of electronic consumer goods such as colour television, washing machines, refrigerators, mixer grinders, compressors and parts thereof and for manufacturing those goods, it buys the unassembled parts in SKD condition from Videocon Appliances Limited, Aurangabad and Applicom India Limited, Attapalli and sells the finished goods to Videocon International Limited for the purpose of marketing.b. Videocon International Limited, keeping ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Iv Vs. A.D. Jayaveerapandia Nadar and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Mad)428
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24.2.2003 made in ITA. No. 1911/Mds/98, the Revenue has preferred this appeal raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts paid to associate concerns by way of reimbursement of day to day expenses would not be hit by Section 40A(3)?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conditions under Section 40A(3) that payments should be made only by crossed cheque or demand draft do not apply to payments made to associate concerns?2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:2.1. The respondent/assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of export of garments and textiles. The assessee filed a 'nil' return of income for the assessment year 1993-94 on 29.10.1993. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ...
G. Sumathi Vs. Arumugham and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1893
S. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 29.03.2006 made in A.S. No. 72 of 2005 on the file of the District Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the judgement and decree, dated 04.07.2005, made in E.A. No. 218 of 2001 in E.P.16 of 2000 in O.S. No. 223 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:The appellant has purchased a house property from the second respondent. The first respondent as creditor to second respondent filed O.S. No. 223 of 1998 on 15.7.1998. The suit was decreed on 28.10.1999, and an order of attachment of the property was made on 18.1.2001. While so, the appellant purchased the property from the second respondent on 26.2.2001 in pursuance of an alleged sale agreement dated 1.7.1998. Now at this stage, in pursuance of the decree in O.S. No. 223 of 1998 and the subsequent attachment, by which the property was brought to sale, in E.P. No. 16 of 2001, th...
S. Murugesan Vs. V. Vijay Sai,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC560
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The Plaintiff, who lost his case before both the courts below, is the appellant in this second appeal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed as they were arrayed in the suit.2. The Plaintiff filed the suit in OS. No. 10153/1996 before the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,38,141/- being the present cost of construction together with interest thereon at 24% p.a. and another sum of Rs. 1,49,700/- being the advance amount together with interest thereon at 24% p.a. and for permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants from disturbing his possession and enjoyment of the I Floor and the terrace as well as all other common portions or amenities as enjoyed by the Plaintiff being part of the schedule mentioned property in any manner and the trial court decreed the suit that the Plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 12,225.42/- towards the cost of the construction from the Defendants 2 to 4 at the time of vacating ...
North Arcot Distict Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Labour Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2006
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR968]
D. Murugesan, J.1. Both the appeals arose out of a common order made in Writ Petition No. 19871 of 1993, dated 30 August 2000. For the pupose of disposal of the writ appeals, we only refer the pleadings in Writ Appeal No. 1138 of 2001.The appellant is the North Arcot District Central Co-operative Bank, Ltd. The second respondent was issued with two chargememo, dated 16 October 1975 and 23 December1976. In chargememo, dated 16 October 1975, the second respondent was charged for 16 misconducts and in the additional chargememo, dated 28 December 1976, he was charged for 8 misconducts. As the explanation was not satisfactory, he was dismissed from service.2. It appears that the second, respondent who was working as a Secretary of the appellant Co-operative bank filed an appeal before the Joint Registrar and the same was dismissed. Questioning the order made in the appeal, he filed a revision before the Government, which was also rejected. Thereafter, he preferred a review before the Govern...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »