Chennai Court January 2007 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.
Sashikala Rep. by Her Power Agent K. Sridharan Vs. S.A. Sahida Beevi a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ856
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This judgment shall govern these two appeals.2. The plaintiff aggrieved over the rejection of her request by both the Courts below in a suit for permanent injunction that the respondents/defendants should be restrained from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also the grant of a decree in the counter claim made by the respondents seeking permanent injunction against the plaintiff that she should not interfere with the possession and exclusive enjoyment of the suit property, has took it on two appeals. The first appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, these two appeals at the instance of the plaintiff.3. The plaintiff filed the suit for the above relief inter alia stating that she became the absolute owner of the suit property in R.S.No.1833/14 measuring 2 grounds and 244 square feet at Cutchery Road, Mylapore, by virtue of a settlement deed dated 9.8.1972, executed by one T.S.Sadasivam; that from...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Revathi,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC6
S. Manikumar, J.1. Minor daughter of the respondents died in an accident which occurred 18.1.2003. They claimed compensation of RS.2,00,000/-.2. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.3. Though several grounds have been raised in the memorandum of appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the law as regards compensation for the death of an infant child is settled. Therefore, there is no necessity to go into the grounds raised in this appeal.4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Latha Wadhwa v. State of Bihar reported in : (2001)IILLJ1559SC has held 'that the claim for compensation on a mere speculative possibility of benefit is not sufficient for the parents to be entitled to compensation for the death of an infant.' The Apex Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-, amongst which Rs. 1,50,000/- as proper compensat...
P. Velraj S/O. Pandiyan Nadar and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC625; (2007)4MLJ1090
P.K. Misra, J1. All these writ appeals are directed against the common order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 19030 to 19036 of 1999 dated 15.10.2001. Since the questions raised in these writ appeals are same, all the appeals were heard together and shall be governed by the present common judgment.2. The appellants in all these appeals claim that on 22.7.1997 they purchased lands on the basis of the registered sale deed executed by the power of attorney holder of the original owner of the lands, namely, P. Asirvatham, relating to Survey Nos. 483, 485 and 486 at Mogappair Village. The lands purchased by the appellants as well as several other lands belonging to different persons were covered under Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', in G.O.Rt.No. 2.61 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 23.10.1975. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 9.11.1978. The present dispute is confined to ...
Dr. Nandu Dwarakasingh Chhabria and Inter Equipment India Pvt. Ltd. Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC667; [2007]136CompCas751(Mad)
ORDERM.E.N. Patrudu, J.1. The Common question is involved in both the writ petitions. Hence common order is passed.2. The petitioners obtained an overdraft loan from the first respondent viz., M/s. Vijaya Bank to an extent of 25.00 lakhs on 16.1.1989. According to the petitioners the loan was sanctioned for paying the amount directly to the Customs authority, debiting the loan account of the petitioners herein towards security for due repayment. The petitioners pledged 6,900 fully paid up equity shares of Reliance which are in the name of the first petitioner. The petitioners have also pledged other property and according to the petitioners it is valued at Rs. 14,67,000/- and it belonged to the second petitioner. It was also agreed to mortgage the imported stock worth Rs. 50,00,000/- which will be cleared from the customs. A corporate guarantee was also provided. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the first respondent's agent M/s. Rajeswari Shipping Agencies did not clear the ...
Dr. S.H. Sithik Basha Vs. Fazal Ahmed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad78; 2006(5)CTC609; (2007)1MLJ320
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment in C.C. No. 177 of 1997 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Chengleput. The complainant is the appellant herein.2. The short facts in the complaint preferred by the complainant relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:The complaint was preferred against the accused under Sections 499 and 500 IPC. The occurrence has happened between 4.9.1995 and 18.1.1996. The appellant, deceased Dr. S.H. Sheik Dawood, third accused Fazal Ahmed and Kalilur Rahman are the sons of deceased Sheik Hussain. The second accused Ayisha Begum, is the daughter of Sheik Hussain, fourth accused is the son of second accused. The appellant's father deceased Sheik Hussain, belongs to Salem District. He had married Hathoon Bi as per the provisions of Mohammedan Law. In the wed lock, they have been blessed with Sheik Dawood and second and third accused . After the death of Hatho...
Asvini Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (Now Amalgamated with Asvini Fisheries Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Mad)452; [2007]290ITR183(Mad)
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J.1. The present reference at the instance of the assessee relates to the Assessment Year 1992-93. The question relates to the relief under Section 80HHC. The following are the questions of law raised in the reference under 256(1) of the Income Tax Act:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance of earlier years should be set off while computing the profits of business for the purpose of determining the relief under Section 80HHC?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the entire amount receivable under an agreement for sale of goods should be treated as sale consideration for purposes of computing relief under Section 80HHC?(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in rejecting the ground raised by the applicant regarding computation of r...
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the United India Insurance Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(-)PTC0(Mad)
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. As against allowing the Interlocutory Application field by the plaintiff for amendment of the Plaint, the defendants have preferred this revision. 2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein for declaration that it is entitled to claim damages in a sum of Rs. 89,000/=. Pending the suit, the plaintiff filed Interlocutory Application to amend the calculation namely the damages to the articles at Rs. 78,680/= instead of Rs. 89,000/= and for godown at Rs. 1,000/= and for the total loss of Rs. 89,680/=. He has also prayed for paying the court fee of Rs. 6726.50.3. The revision petitioner/defendant resisted the said application contending that by way of amending the Plaint, the plaintiff is converting the suit as a money suit and as such the present amendment is hit by limitation.4. The learned trial Judge on a consideration of the pleadings and the averments of the learned Counsel appeared for both sides allowed the said Interlocutory Application ...
K. Jaganmohan Vs. D. Ruckmani and K. Aruna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC152; (2007)2MLJ466
C. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioner filed the petition in O.P.No. 300 of 2002 for grant of Letters of Administration of the Will, dated 19.5.1997, executed by the testator Mr. T.V. Kabali. At the instance of both the respondents, this Court by Order dated 29.7.2002, converted the original petition into Testamentary Original Suit.2. The first defendant is the widow of the Testator T.V. Kabali and the plaintiff is their son and the second defendant is their daughter. According to the plaintiff, his father T.V. Kabali was in Government service and he was allotted Plot No. C.458, Door No. 31, 46th Street, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83 in T.S.No. 59 of Block No. 57 (Part) of Kodambakkam Pudur Village measuring about 1 ground and 635 sq. ft. by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and he purchased the same by a registered sale deed, dated 12.6.1990 and it is his self-acquired property. It is further stated by the plaintiff that T.V. Kabali bequeathed that property in favour of the plaintiff absolutely by Wil...
Thiruvengadachari, Represented by His Power of Attorney Agent R. Villa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC577; (2007)3MLJ193
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 229 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif Court, Mannargudi, who has won the case before the trial Court but lost it before the first appellate Court in A.S. No. 316 of 1995 on the file of Principal District Court, Ngapattinam.2. The suit is for an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.3. The facts in brief are as follows:The plaint schedule properties were conveyed by the defendants to the plaintiff by way of surrender deeds dated 15.6.1990 and 25.6.1990. The suit properties are situated at Vadakaru Vayal Village. Plaintiff is cultivating the suit lands and was paying land tax to the suit properties. Suit has been filed by the plaintiff, through his power of attorney agent. 'Kuruvai'crop was raised by the plaintiff in the suit property during last year. Hence the plaintiff could not accede to ...
S. Rajasekaran Vs. K. Sargunam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ696
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. As against the dismissal of the Interlocutory Application praying to decide the court fee issue as the first and primary issue by framing necessary additional issue in that regard, the first defendant has filed the present revision.2. According to the revision petitioner/defendant, the suit document has been valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 1,00,500/= and a court fee of Rs. 7538.50 has been paid. But, as to the actual market value of the property, the court has failed to frame necessary additional issue. Hence the I.A., for framing necessary issue and to decide the same as the first issue.3. The respondent/plaintiff contested the said I.A., contending that believing the defendants who are none other than his son and daughter he has signed in the settlement deed, but later he found that the settlement has been prepared with a mala fide intention and hence the suit has been filed for declaring that the settlement deed is null and void. The suit property has been c...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »