Chennai Court January 2007 Judgments
V. Gurunathan S/O. Viswanatha Iyer, Rep. by Power of Attorney, Agent G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC362; (2007)5MLJ103
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the connected records of the first respondent relating to his order Under Section 9(5) of the Principal Act, in his proceedings R.C.7794/88-B, dated 12.07.1990, declaring an extent of 1400 Sq.Mts. of land as excess vacant land in S. No. 192 of pozhichalur village, the notice issued by the first respondent in his Ref.R.C.7794/88-B, dated 11.03.1993, in Form VII requiring the land owner to deliver vacant possession to the Tahsildar, Saidapet (Certified copies issued on 16.11.2003) and the notice issued by him in his Ref. B/1779/95.C, in form XIV Under Section. 12(7) of the Act, dated 20.09.2003, directing the land owner to attend the enquiry for claiming compensation and quash the same so far as the petitioner is concerned and declaring that all proceedings taken by the first respondent to acquire the alleged excess vacant land shall abate Under Section 4 o...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. V. Prema
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Mad)388; [2007]292ITR151(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for our consideration:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition made under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act as unexplained investment.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:2.1. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1988-89. The assessee, an individual, filed her return of income admitting a net income of Rs. 92,872/-. For the same assessment year in the wealth-tax return filed the assessee admitted 3659 grams of gold jewellery. However, during the course of search in the residence of assessee and her husband on 14.12.1987, 953 grams of gold jewellery belonging to the assessee were found. 2.2. In respect of missing jewellery to the tune of 2706 ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Malathy Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Health, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ460
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. The writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to adopt and carryout the recruitment for Pharmacists in Siddha Medicine in accordance to the Employment Seniority maintained by the District Employment Office (Technical), Chennai.The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:2. The petitioner, after having completed her S.S.L.C. Course, had registered with the District Employment Exchange with general qualifications. Later, she had also done her graduation and registered the additional qualifications in the same Registration No. W/8509/90. The petitioner had also qualified herself for Diploma in Pharmacy in Indian Systems of Medicine (Siddha) in the year 1994, with distinction. The Course period was from 1992 to 1994. After completing the Diploma in Pharmacy in Siddha medicine, she had approached the Employment Office for registration. She had registered her name in the District Employment Office (Technical) in...
Tag this Judgment!My. Forex Services (P) Ltd. Vs. City Men Forex and Travels Ltd. and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Mad42
S. Rajeswaran, J.1. Application No. 3827 of 2006 is filed to declare the sale effected on 31-7-2006 by the respondents in respect of the property No. 1 mentioned in the schedule hereunder and sale effected on 3-5-2006 and settlement on 16-6-2006 in respect of property No. 2 mentioned in the schedule hereunder as null and void for the sole reason that when the above encumbrance took place the order of Attachment before Judgment granted by this Hon'ble Court on 4-10-2005 was still in force.Application No. 3828 of 2006 is filed to direct the fourth respondent to deposit the above sale amounts from the auction to the credit of the suit and keep the same pending disposal of the above suit.Application No. 1556 of 2006 is filed to raise the order of Attachment in O.A. No. 1498 of 2005 in C.S. No. 226 of 2005 before Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court dated 4-10-2005.The brief facts are as under:For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the suit.2.1. T...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Mathews, Vs. the Inspector General of Registration,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC243; (2007)2MLJ881
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order, dated 05.08.2004, Na.Ka.A4.4068/2002 of the third respondent and the memorandum No. 433/2004, dated 08.09.2004, of the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to register the sale deeds in respect of the plots in S. No. 161/1, Keelkuppam Village, Arakonam Taluk. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as for the respondents. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the lands of an extent of 7.09 acres situated at S. No. 161/1 in Keelkuppam Village, Arakkonam Taluk, was assigned in favour of one Rosikhan, son of Sivaramulu, in the year 1923, under DKT 492/23, dated 28.12.1923. The said lands were assigned to him as he was a landless poor person under Dharkast rules with certain terms and conditions including that he should not sell or mortgage the sai...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Bedi Vs. Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd. and Federated Mercandising Gro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC231; (2007)2MLJ1162
S. Manikumar, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order and decree dated 04.08.2004 made in O.S. No. 105 of 2003 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. III), Coimbatore.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:(i) The suit is for recovery of money directing the first defendant to pay Rs. 19,25,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 18% per annum and for proper account of all the goods sold and shipped to the second defendant after 05.12.1997 till the date of the suit and to direct the first defendant, namely, M/s. Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd., Coimbatore, represented by its Director to pay a commission of 5% thereon with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. (ii) When the suit was posted on 15.10.2003, the plaintiff and his counsel were not present and hence the suit was dismissed for default. The Counsel for the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 223 of 2004 and prayed for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed for de...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K.N. Gurunathan and K.M. Palanisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: II(2007)ACC104; 2008ACJ378
S. Manikumar, J.1. Aggrieved by the award dated 11.07.2000 made in M.C.O.P. No. 406 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge), Bhavani, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal.2. In an accident, which occurred on 25.04.1994, the first respondent/claimant sustained fracture in his leg. He claimed compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Tribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, found that the second respondent was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs. 72,724/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation.3. Heard Mr.K.S.Narasimhan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned Counsel for the first respondent.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider that even in the claim petition, the vehicle was described as 'Articulated vehicle' - Tractor and Trailer and it is evident from Ex.P5, Motor Veh...
Tag this Judgment!P. Karuppusamy Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corpor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)2LLJ289Mad
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings No.5757/O.Ni.1/97, dated 23.12.1998 and the proceedings No.5757/O.Ni.1/97, dated 14.9.1999, and quash the same and to direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in service with all backwages, monetary and other attendant benefits.The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:2. It is stated by the petitioner that he was appointed as a Front Office Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Limited, through the Employment Exchange, in the year, 1983. While so, on 15.10.1997, he was placed under suspension. On 24.10.1997, a charge memo was framed containing the charges on 11 counts. Though the petitioner had submitted his explanation denying the charges, an enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found to be guilty of the charges. Hence, h...
Tag this Judgment!Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ1960; 2007(2)CTC318; (2007)3MLJ148
S. Manikumar, J.1. The claimant sustained injuries in an accident, which occurred on 05.03.1997. He claimed compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 5,46,100/- with 12% interest per annum. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant has preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No. 154 of 2001. Aggrieved by the finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation, the Transport Corporation has filed an appeal in C.M.A. No. 83 of 2001. As both the appeals arise out of the common judgment in M.C.O.P. No. 1591 of 1997, both the appeals are heard and disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to as 'claimant' and 'Transport Corporation' respectively. 2. Heard Mr. S. Ramachandran, learned Counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation and Mr. M. Swamikkannu, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation submitted that when the bus owned by the Transp...
Tag this Judgment!S. Dhanapal Vs. A. Jerome,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: II(2007)ACC226; 2008ACJ2480
S. Manikumar, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, dated 05.07.2000 made in M.C.O.P.No.344 of 1995 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (First Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate), Salem, the petitioner has preferred this appeal. 2. On 19.04.1993, about 8.30 a.m., when the appellant was proceeding in his Yamaha Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. TCY 1935 from his house to his factory at Meyyanoor main road, another Rajdoot Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. TNS 4409 owned by the first respondent and driven by the second respondent came in a terrific speed and hit the appellant, as a result of which, the appellant sustained severe head injuries, became unconscious and went in to deep coma. He was admitted in Apollo Hospital, Madras as inpatient for effective expert treatment for the head injuries, which were critical and serious. The appellant was doing business in Sago Factory, earning Rs. 7,500/- per month. According to the appellant, the acci...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »