Chennai Court August 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.
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Subathal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC481
P. Sathasivam, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 14.3.2005 made in M.C.O.P. No. 511 of 2000.2. The respondents 1 to 6 herein claimants prayed for a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 in respect of death of one Nanjappa Grounder who died in a road accident that took place on 6.2.2000. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and after finding that the driver of the Transport Corporation was negligent, passed an award for Rs. 1,20,500. Questioning the same, the Transport Corporation has filed this appeal.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant fairly states that they are mainly aggrieved only with regard to finding relating to negligence. In such circumstances, it is unnecessary to go into other aspects.4. It is the case of the claimants that while the deceased was getting down from the bus, the conductor without noticing him gave whistle, thereby, the driver started the bus, due to wh...
K. Anjanakumari Vs. Bhavani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ982
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. Under the impugned judgments, rendered by the Courts below, the defendant/appellant was directed to deliver possession, which caused grievance and the result is this Second Appeal.2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the original suit.3. The respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the suit property, which was leased out to the defendant/appellant, on his agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 1,150/=. The plaintiff, being the owner, requested the defendant/appellant to vacate the premises, by issuing notice and terminating the tenancy, since the property is required for his personal occupation, not conceded by the defendant/appellant, resulting the suit.4. The defendant/appellant, admitting the tenancy, as monthly one, as well as agreeing the monthly rent also at Rs. 1,150/=, opposed the claim, contending that the suit property is not required for the additional accommodation of the landlord or for her personal occupation and if the defendant is evi...
The Management of Madras Fertilizers Limited rep., by Its Chairman and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ598
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 26.7.1999 passed in W.P. No. 381 of 1992, the Management of Madras Fertilizers Limited has filed the above writ appeal.2. The facts leading to the above writ appeal are as follows:In the year 1984, the management of Madras Fertilizers Limited framed a policy known as MFL Service Policy, in the nature of service Rules, to take effect from 11.12.1984 and applicable to and binding on all employees except those governed by the Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Establishments (Standing Orders) Act. Clause 12 (a) of the said MFL Service Policy enabled the Management to terminate the services of a permanent employee by giving 90 days notice in writing or by paying 90 days pay plus D.A. in lieu of notice. The said Clause read as follows:Rule 12. Terminationa. A permanent employee may be terminated at 90 days notice in writing by the company or by paying 90 days pay plus DA in lieu of notice. A permanent...
K. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Karunakaran Rep. by the Power of Attorney Holder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC327; 2006CriLJ4365; 2006(4)CTC333; 2006(4)KLT416
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner K. Gopalakrishnan, an accused in a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act for alleged dishonouring of the cheque issued to the respondent herein on 05.07.2004, seeks to quash the said case in C.C. No. 93 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Chidambaram.2. According to the petitioner, there is no legally enforceable debt for the issuance of the cheque in dispute. The other main contention of the petitioner is that the complaint was preferred by the respondent herein, in violation of the guidelines issued by this Court in : 2005(3)CTC480 (Y. Vijayalakshmi @ Rambha v. ManickamNarayanan, Proprietor, Seventh Channel Communications represented by its Power of Attorney Agent, Thanigaivelan), wherein the learned single Judge (S.R. Singharavelu, J.) has held that the complaint shall be signed by the payee himself and not by the Power of Attorney holder and that the sworn statement of the complainant also shall be recor...
Dunlop India Limited Vs. the Tahsildar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ662
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petition in W.P. Nos. 17247 of 1998 is filed seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in R.C.Pd1 No. 4/98/A4 dated 8.9.1998, quash the same and forbear the respondents from initiating distress proceedings against the petitioner company declared as 'Sick Industry' by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'BIFR'). 2. The writ petition in W.P. Nos. 4477 of 2001 is filed seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent, culminating to the impugned distraint order dated 2.2.2001 initiating distress recovery proceedings for recovery of Rs. 22,94,080/- towards the Urban Land tax for the period from fasli 1405 to fasli 1410, quash the same and direct the respondents, to forbear from initiating distress proceedings against the petitioner company declared as 'Sick Indus...
Radha Exports (India) Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director M. Krishnan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ769
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. By the consent of either counsel and in view of the urgency, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The respondents 1 and 2 are controlling the Granite Quarries in Tamil Nadu. The third respondent is selecting people to carry on the quarrying contracts, by way of tender system. In the 22nd Global Tender No. 1351, dated 26.5.2004, the petitioner participated, paying Earnest Money Deposit through Amex Bank and security deposits through ING Vysya Bank and Standard Chartered Bank, which were accepted by the second respondent. 3. Information was furnished by the second respondent, calling for applications from the interested persons, to participate in the 23rd Global tender, fixing the technical bid on 24.7.2006 and the price bid on 26.7.2006. Pursuant to the information made available, the petitioner submitted applications for 33 quarries obtaining 33 Demand Drafts, each for Rs. 2,000/=, towards applications fee and 33 Demand Drafts, each for...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Loyal Super Fabrics
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Mad)436; [2008]304ITR78(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the present appeal is, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred for shifting of the factory from Kovilpatti to Cuddalore is a revenue expenditure or capital expenditure under the following facts and circumstances of the case.2.1 The respondent/assessee company is engaged in the business of dyeing and processing of cloth and it filed its return of income for the asst. yr. 1992-93 declaring 'nil' income. In the said return, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 6,80,908, being the expenses incurred for shifting the factory from Kovilpatti to Cuddalore, as revenue expenditure. But, the AO, by an assessment order dt. 29th Feb., 2000, disallowed the claim of the assessee and treated the same as capital expenditure by relying upon the decision of the apex Court in Sitalpur Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT : [1963]49ITR160(SC) and a decision of this Court in CIT v. Bimetal Bearings Ltd. : [...
Parthasarathy and K. Chockalingam Vs. Lachman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2006
Reported in: [2007]137CompCas780(Mad)
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Salem, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners herein.2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:The respondents filed a private complaint against the petitioner and eight others for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that when the cheques issued by A2, the Managing Director of the Company were presented, they got bounced and therefore, the Company as well as the Directors are liable for punishment under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners are A4 and A5. In the said case, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P. No. 5157 of 2003 to discharge them from the case on the ground that both of them had resigned from the Company two years earlier before the transaction and therefore, there is no liability on the part of these petitioners. Learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that in the complai...
Self Financing Private Teacher Training Institutes Association (Regd.) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1477
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. This is yet another tussle with regard to the demarcation of power in the field of education.2. On 21.6.2006, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Government Order appointing a High Level Committee to enquire into the deficiencies in private Teacher Training Institutes and B.Ed. Colleges, and to find out if they possess the required infrastructural facilities and to file a report. The Chairman of the Committee is Thiru. K. Aludaiya Pillai, I.A.S. (Retired). The institutions which are subject of the G.O. are those institutions which have commenced functioning between the year 2001 and 2006, and the Annexure to the G.O. contains the list of all such institutions. On 29.6.2006, the second respondent addressed a letter to the fifth respondent inviting his attention to the aforesaid G.O. According to this communication, the second respondent was of the opinion that it will be impossible for the Committee to visit all the B.Ed. Colleges and therefore, it was decid...
D. Gnanasekaran and M. Anantharamasubramanian Vs. the Chief Educationa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ457
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. When the matters were posted for admission on 3.8.2006, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, relying upon the reasons stated in the impugned order of suspension, requested this Court to direct the respondent to produce the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the District Educational Officer, Pattukottai. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, on 10.8.2006 the report of the District Educational Officer, Pattukottai was produced before this Court. By consent of the learned Counsels of both sides, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal.2. In these writ petitions, the impugned orders of suspension of the petitioners viz., D. Gnanasekaran, Physical Education Teacher and that of M. Anantharamasubramanian, Secondary Grade Teacher at Government High School, Venkaraikottaikadu Village, Thanjavur District, dated 24.3.2006 are challenged.3. The suspension orders in both the writ petitions are passed on identical grou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »