Chennai Court November 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.
S. Sridharan Vs. Appollo Sindhoori Capital Invest Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2006
Reported in: [2007]78SCL434(Mad)
S. Rajeswaran, J.1. This O. P. has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to set aside the award A. M. No. 8 of 1997, dated August 5, 1997, passed by the second respondent and to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner the costs.2. The facts are as follows:The first respondent is a member of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., the third respondent herein. The petitioner is a constituent and use the facility of the first respondent for buying and selling in stock and shares listed before the third respondent. On September 6, 1996, one Mr. Harish, representing as manager of the first respondent, met the petitioner and informed him that the petitioner would not be permitted further trading using the facility of the first respondent. He further informed him that he would be straight away dealing in respect of the petitioner's pen-ding positions and if any consequential losses should occur, the same would ...
Kaling Vanidhya Vs. the Commissioner of Customs,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(113)ECC206; 2006LC206(Madras)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. By the impugned notice styled as a demand notice, the petitioner was informed that they exported ladies woolen, woven vest and children skirts valued at Rs. 22,16,833/- on FOB claiming drawback amount of Rs. 5,14,694/- under S. No. 61.01 at 10% and 14.5% on FOB value. It was further stated that the drawback was eligible for the above said exported items under Sub.S. No. NIL at NIL% whereas the said amount of Rs. 5,14,694/- paid erroneously was recoverable under Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 read with Section 75(ab) of the Customs Act, 1962. Thus, the petitioner was directed to pay the said amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of the demand notice with interest. The notice further proceeds to say that if the petitioner is inclined to give any explanation to the same, that may be given orally or in writing on or before 26.9.2003 and thereafter, orders will be passed in accordance with law.2. I...
Neerkathalinga Pandian Vs. Mrs. Komala and Mr. P. Chandra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1909
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. Aggrieved over the order of the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, passed in I.A. No. 109 of 2004 in O.S. No. 16 of 2004, this revision has been filed.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:(a) The first respondent herein filed O.S. No. 16 of 2004 against the revision petitioner and one Chandra, his wife for declaration that the plaintiff is the daughter of the first defendant (revision petitioner) born out of the wedlock between the first defendant and the second defendant i.e., the second respondent herein. The case of the first respondent as the plaintiff was that the first defendant and the second defendant got married during 1966 at the residence of the second defendant at No. 9, Elephant Tank, Triplicane, Chennai-5 by exchange of garlands and they lived as husband and wife. The first respondent-plaintiff was born on 16.5.1957 in K.G. Hospital at Triplicane, Chennai. During 1969, the second defendant gave birth to another chi...
Dr. A. Rajapandian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary, Dear ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC529; (2007)1MLJ820; 2007(3)SLJ300(NULL)
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. As these writ petitions involve common question of law and facts, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. In August, 2005, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (in short 'the Commission') invited applications in respect of appointments to the post of 'Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (Direct Recruitment) in the Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Services for the year 2005-06. The total number of vacancies specified in the notification was 250. Clause 6 of the Notification prescribed the following qualifications:6. Qualification:Candidate should possess the following or its equivalent qualification on the date of the Notification viz. 05-08-2005:i. B.V. Sc. Degree of any University or Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission for the purpose of its grant; andii. Must be a Registered Practitioner within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Registration of Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1957 (Tamil Nadu Act XXI of 1957)Clause 12 of the Notification ...
Shri Rajasthani JaIn Samaj Educational Trust, Rep. by Its Managing Tru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ80
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This revision is filed against the order dated 9.11.2005 made in E.A. No. 3285 of 2004 in E.P. No. 2248 of 2001 dismissing the said E.A., to record the petitioner/third party as an obstructor. The first respondent is the decree holder and respondents 2 to 4 are judgment debtors.2. This Civil Revision Petition has a long checkered history. The dispute relates to the property situated at No. 5/13, Thambiah Reddy Road, West Mambalam, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). The suit property originally belonged to the father of the 1st respondent, namely, M.Venkatesa Sarma. He executed a Will on 11.5.1973 and a Codicil on 25.1.1974 wherein a deviation clause is incorporated stating that if the 8th respondent, who is his son and quarrelling with his father, does not come for compromise during his life time, he could not get any right or interest in the property at all, which is his self acquired property. The 1st respondent, during the life time o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Coimbatore Alcohol and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2006
Reported in: [2008]296ITR356(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 875/Mds/1999 dated December 23, 2005.2. The Revenue is the appellant. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1994-95, the assessee replaced machinery and incurred an expenditure. They claimed the said expenditure as a revenue expenditure and the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer holding that the cost of replacement of machinery is capital expenditure. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who allowed the appeal holding that the replacement of machinery is revenue in nature. On appeal at the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the same upholding the order of the Commissioner.3. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has preferred this appeal raising the following substantial questions of the law:(a) Whether the replacement of machinery parts will ...
Savarimuthu Vs. Maricannu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC470
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 24.8.1995, passed in I.A. No. 3900/1995 in O.S. No. 618/1994, on the file of the II Addl. District Munsif, Pondicherry.2. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner.3. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 24.8.1995 made in I.A. No. 3900/1995 in O.S. No. 618/1994. In that I.A., the respondent/defendant prayed to set aside the exparte decree dated 3.11.1994 and the trial court allowed the application for setting aside the exparte decree by imposing a cost of Rs. 200/-.4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was sent to the respondent there was no appearance either in person or through counsel on behalf of the respondent.5. learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the defendant was set exparte on 21.10.1994 and exparte decree was passed against him on 3.11.94. But I.A. No. 3900/1995 was filed only on 11.7.1995 without a petition to condo...
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. S. Selvaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC180; 2008ACJ307
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 23.11.1998 made in M.C.O.P. No. 3408 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V1-Judge, Small Causes Court), Madras, the respondent herein the Transport Corporation, has filed the above appeal. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded the petitioner in the said M.C.O.P. has filed Cross Objections seeking enhancement of compensation.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant confined his submissions to the quantum of compensation alone and has not questioned the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence and liability of the Transport Corporation to pay the compensation.3. The short facts that are necessary for deciding the issue regarding the quantum of compensation payable alone is set out hereunder:The respondent herein was travelling in a bus owned by the appellant and it was plying in route No. 7G on 2.8.1996 and before he could get down from the bus the driver of the bus suddenly started th...
J.V. Bhoopalan Vs. Rajamanickammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC472
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 26.2.2003, made in R.C.A. No. 134/1994 on the file of the rent control appellate authority-cum-II Addl. Sub Court, Coimbatore, confirming the order dated 18.8.1994 made in R.C.O.P. No. 203/1990, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-rent control authority, Coimbatore.2. The tenant is the revision petitioner.3. The original landlord D. Shanmugam filed RCOP No. 203/1990 against the revision petitioner for an order of eviction on the ground that the revision petitioner has committed wilful default in the payment of rent. By order dated 18.8.1994 the rent controller allowed the RCOP by holding that the revision petitioner/tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent. Against the order of the rent controller, the tenant filed RCA No. 134/1994 and the Rent Control appellate Authority by order dated 26.2.2003 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of rent controller. Aggrieved by the order...
G. Ramalingam Vs. T. Vijayarangam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC243; (2007)1MLJ591
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The unsuccesful plaintiff in O.S. No. 170 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Arni is the appellant in the above second appeal.2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:The plaintiff and defendant are brothers; the defendant under an agreement of sale dated 26.12.1990 agreed to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 19,000/-; an advance of Rs. 6,000/- was paid on the same day, the plaintiff was having the balance amount of Rs. 13,000/- and had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, due to the pendency of a partition suit in O.S. No. 105 of 1984 between the plaintiff, defendant and others, the matter was dragging and ultimately the properties were allotted to the share of the defendant; because of the uncertainity regarding the allotment of these properties to the defendant, the defendant cou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »