Chennai Court June 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.
Chellammal Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ360
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. The unsuccessful tenant who lost her case before the authorities below is the revision petitioner herein.2. The respondent herein filed RCOP No. 18/1994 Under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 ( hereinafter called 'the Act') for evicting the revision petitioner/tenant from the petition property. The respondent/landlady pleaded that she is in need of the petition mentioned property for her own use and occupation and once and for all she wanted to settle at the property. She further stated in the RCOP that she is not owning any other house excepting the petition mentioned property. The revision petitioner herein as tenant resisted the RCOP by contending that the requirement of the landlady is not bona fide and the same has been filed to evict her as she did not pay heed to the landlady's demand of Rs. 400/- per month as rent. The learned Rent Controller by order dated 26.6.2001 allowed the RCOP against which the revi...
S. Sridha and anr. Vs. Kannupaiyan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1820
R. Sudhakar, J.1. Though the miscellaneous petitions are listed for hearing, by consent of learned Counsel appearing for both parties, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. The appeal is against the award and decree dated 2.11.2000 in M.C.O.P. No. 640 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Salem. The owner of the lorry and the insurance company are the appellants therein.3. This is a case of fatal injury. The claimants are the father and mother of the deceased. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 35 years. He was working as a coolie in a unit engaged in stone-cutting and sizing. According to the claim petition, he was earning Rs. 5,000 per month. The fatal accident happened on 9.5.1999 at 8.30 a.m. when the deceased was walking along Salem-Sankari Main Road from north to south on the left side. The deceased was hit by the lorry bearing registration No. TN 37-B 4145 and he died on the spot. A claim for compensat...
Srivatsa Tube Corporation and New India Assurance Company Vs. K. Latha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC433; (2006)3MLJ283
R. Sudhakar, J.1. The appeal is against the award and decree dated dated 30.7.1998 in M.C.O.P.No.342 of 1990 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Tindivanam. The owner of the lorry and the Insurance Company are the appellants herein. Respondents 1 to 4 herein are the claimants before the Tribunal. 2. The deceased was driver of the Police vehicle and the claimants are the legal heirs. The accident took place on 17.6.1990 at 5.15 a.m. at the place 8 km from Tindivanam on the Trichy-Madras National Highway. At the time of the accident, the lorry belonging to the first appellant, driven by its driver, dashed against the Police Jeep, thereby the driver of the Police Jeep sustained injuries and he died on the spot. Along with the deceased, another passenger of the vehicle also expired. According to the claim petition, the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first appellant and consequently, the claim petition was filed seeking a...
The Management of M.M. Neythalur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Ban ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2006
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ868Mad
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar1. This writ petition has been filed by the management challenging the award of the Labour Court (first respondent herein) passed in I.D. No. 46 of 1996 dated 6.10.1997.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that during the period of employment of the second respondent as Attender in-charge of stock of fertilizers and pesticides, it was found that there was a deficit of stock to the tune of Rs. 29,506.30. According to the management, the second respondent misappropriated the said amount and to conceal the same, he made wrong entries in the register. The said allegations being serious misconduct, the second respondent was placed under suspension by order dated 17.12.1994, pending enquiry. On the basis of the inspection, a memo was issued on 7.9.1994, followed by another memo on 20.9.1994. The second respondent submitted his explanations on 29.9.1994 for both the memos. A regular charge memo was issued on 13.2.1995 wherein six charges...
S. Sridhar and the New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kannupaiyan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ779
R. Sudhakar, J.1. Though the miscellaneous petitions are listed for hearing, by consent of learned Counsel appearing for both parties, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. The appeal is against the award and decree dated 2.11.2000 in M.C.O.P. No. 640 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Salem. The owner of the lorry and the Insurance Company are the appellants herein.3. This is a case of fatal injury. The claimants are the father and mother of the deceased. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 35 years. He was working as Coolie in a unit engaged in stone-cutting and sizing. According to the claim petition, he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. The fatal accident happened on 9.5.1999 at 8.30 a.m. when the deceased was walking along Salem-Sankari Main Road from north to south on the left side. The deceased was hit by the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-37-B-4145 and he died on the spot. A claim for compensati...
Vairavikulam Lime Products Private Limited Vs. Government of India, Mi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad353; 2006(3)CTC609; [2007(3)JCR143(Mad)]; (2006)3MLJ317
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The common question that arises for consideration in these batch of Writ Petitions, which has been referred to this Full Bench, is as follows:Whether the order of the Government of Pondicherry, in G.O.Rt. No. 30, Industries, dated 28.05.1997, withdrawing its earlier order in G.O.Rt. No. 9 of 1991, Industries, dated 11.02.1991, granting Subsidy Incentive Scheme to the industrial units for five years, even before the expiry of the said period, is valid or not 2. The short facts, leading to the reference of the matter to this Full Bench, are as follows:(i) Writ petitioners are industries, situated in Karaikal and Mahe regions of the Union Territory of Pondicherry. (ii) The Government of Pondicherry called upon the promoters to set up industries within the Union Territory of Pondicherry, promising certain incentives and various concessions. (iii) On 11.02.1991, the Government of Pondicherry issued an order in G.O.Rt. No. 9 of 1991, providing for a fresh schem...
Bilahari Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Mad)512; [2007]288ITR39(Mad); (2006)4MLJ1644
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. These appeals arise out of the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 5.7.2002 made in I.T.A.Nos.2138(Mds)/93, 1793(Mds)/96, 810(Mds)/95, 2073(Mds) /95 and 1361 (Mds)/96, at the instance of three assessees for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94.2. The brief facts, which are common so far as three various assessees are concerned, giving rise to the above appeals, are as under:2.1. The assessees are private limited companies subscribing to chits as their business activity. The assessees were maintaining its accounts on mercantile basis and computing loss or profit, as the case may be, at the end of the chit period in respect of chits terminating in a particular previous year, following completed contract method. 2.2. Before the assessing officer, the assessees claimed that the discount arose at a particular point of time when the prized chit amount was received and the discount was a statutory and contractual liability incurre...
Savithiriammal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ389
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 07.02.2004, made in W.P.18730 of 1996, in and by which, the learned Judge quashed the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and permitted the Government to proceed further by issuing another Declaration under Section 6 within the prescribed time limit. Not satisfied with the limited relief granted, the Writ Petitioner has filed the above Appeal.2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vijayaragavan, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.3. At the foremost, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ petitioner/appellant is the daughter of one Thiruvenkatasamy, who owned lands in S. Nos. 267/5 and 268/3, Ganapathi Village, Coimbatore Taluk. According to him, the said lands and other surrounded lands were sought to be acquired at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for construction of houses under ...
The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Metropolitan Developm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ823
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 0.28.75 Cents (12523.5 sq.ft.) of land comprised in Survey Nos. 409/9 and 409/11 belonging to the claimants/ respondents 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. 17,16,225/-. The claimants 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. 4 of 2004 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 the sup...
Kirloskar Computer Services Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi General Finance Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR156(Madras)
S. Rajeswaran, J.OP No. 491 of 20031. This original petition has been filed to set aside the award of the second respondent dated 28.04.2003 in Arbitration Case No. 43 of 2002.2. This original petition has been filed to set aside the award of the second respondent dated 28.04.2003 in Arbitration Case No. 41 of 2002.OP No. 493 of 20033. This original petition has been filed to set aside the award of the second respondent dated 28.04.2003 in Arbitration Case No. 44 of 2002.OP No. 501 of 20034. This original petition has been filed to set aside the award of the second respondent dated 28.04.2003 in Arbitration Case No. 40 of 2002.5. In all the above four original petitions, the dispute involved, the parties to the agreement and the facts of the cases are one and the same excepting a few deviation on facts. Therefore, a common order is passed. In fact, the petitioner company in all the four original petitions have filed a common counter statement before the arbitrator in the four separate ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »