Chennai Court January 2007 Judgments
The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Padmavathy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ349
S. Manikumar, J.1. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. Wife and seven children of the deceased are the claimants. 2.The deceased was aged 52 years at the time of accident and was working as a Telephone Supervisor in B.S.N.L., Vellore. On 22.10.2003, about 9.30 a.m., when the deceased was travelling in a motor-cycle, bearing Registration No. TN 22H 1611 along the left side of the road from his residence to his office, near Ponnu marriage hall, a lorry, bearing Registration No. T.P.02 T 0473 dashed against the motor-cycle from the rear side and the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the same day.3. Respondents/claimants claimed Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal on evaluation of pleadings and evidence awarded compensation of Rs.12,12,096/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, under the following heads:(i) Loss of earning: Rs. 10,97,096.00(ii) Funeral expenses: Rs. 5,000.00(iii) Loss of consortium: Rs. 25...
Tag this Judgment!P. Gopirathnam and ors. Vs. Ferrodous Estate (Pvt) Ltd. Rep. by Its Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC619; (2007)3MLJ11
P.K. Misra, J.1. Defendants are the appellants against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge directing the defendants to execute sale deed. Such suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff / respondent, which was a private limited company engaged in the construction of multi-storeyed building flats.2. Defendant No. 1 is the father (now deceased) and Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are the sons. On the death of Defendant No. 1, the other heirs were brought on record as Defendant Nos. 5 and 6. The agreement on which specific performance sought for was dated 12.6.1980. The extent of schedule property is 8 grounds and 2354 sq. ft. According to the case of the plaintiff, the defendants agreed to sell such property described in the schedule free from all encumbrances for a net price of Rs. 5,40,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was deposited by the plaintiff with Auditor M/s. Venkataraman & Co., and balance of Rs. 4,40,000/- was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff to th...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. M. Rose,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ468
ORDER1. The Review Application has been filed to review the judgment dated 1.9.2.005 in O.S.A. No. 192 of 2005. Such appeal was against the judgment of the learned single Judge in C.S. No. 370 of 2002, wherein the present applicant in the Review Application was the first defendant.The plaintiffs had filed the, said suit against the present applicant (first defendant) for the relief of vacant possession of the disputed property and for payment of Rs. 18,00,000/- towards damages and use of the property for the period from April 1999 to March 2002. The disputed property had been let out to M/s. Caltex India Ltd., on 15.2.1972 for a period of 20 years. Subsequently, such property was purchased by the plaintiffs. As per the provisions contained in Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited and of the undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Limited Act, 1977 (Act 17 of 1977) M/s. Caltex India Limited was nationalised and M/s. The Hindustan Petroleum corporation Limi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corpo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Mad)116; [2007]292ITR362(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The Revenue has preferred the above tax case appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25.2.2003 in ITA No.1088 & 3589/Mds/1990 for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 raising the following substantial questions of law for consideration:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that depreciation should be allowed on stand by spare parts even though they were not taken for use during the year?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenses related to obtaining fixed deposits from the public is a revenue expenditure liable for deduction?2. The facts, in brief, are as under:2.1. The assessment years with which we are concerned are 1986-87 and 1987-88. The assessee filed its returns, inter alia, claiming depreciation on standby items such as, spare parts in respect of critical parts of plant and machinery for both the assessment years...
Tag this Judgment!Vaidiyanathan, Vs. P. Sambanda Mudaliar (Died) S/O. Subaraya Mudaliar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ415
P.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants against the reversing judgment.2. The suit was filed for declaration that 'A' schedule property exclusively belongs to the plaintiffs or in alternative for partition of half share in 'B' schedule property of which 'A' schedule is a part. According to the plaintiffs' case, the properties originally belonged to two brothers, Palanivel and Chockalingam. Palanivel had two sons Narayanasamy and Manickam. The plaintiffs are the grandsons of Narayanasamy, being the son of Gnanasambandam. On 21.7.1912, in a partition, the properties described in 'A' schedule were allotted to Chockalingam and the properties described in 'B' schedule of the same document were allotted to Narayanasamy and Manickam, two sons of Palanivel. Out of 310 acres comprised in Survey No. 67, which was dealt with in partition, after sale of certain portions, the total extent was reduced to 2.72 acres and in resettlement proceedings in 1922, the properties had been allotted and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sakunthala, Vs. R. Gopal and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ636; 2007(2)CTC529
S. Manikumar, J.1. Appellants/petitioners 3 to 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased first petitioner. They have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and decree dated, 24.03.2000 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 481 of 1988 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Judge), Chengalpattu.2. On 02.08.1988, at 5.45 p.m., when the deceased first petitioner was walking along G.N.T. Road, Sengundram, near Adityan Stores, a lorry bearing Registration No. TDH. 8199 driven by its driver from north to south, rashly and negligently, hit the deceased first petitioner, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries all over the body. He claimed Rs. 90,000/- as compensation. 3. The second respondent Insurance Company denied the manner of accident and contended that the owner of the vehicle, the first respondent herein, has not furnished necessary particulars, such as Registration Certificate, driving license, etc. The age, avocation, i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Brilliant Tutorials (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Mad)49; [2007]292ITR399(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Tribunal. The appeal relates to the asst. yr. 2002-03.2. Following are the questions of law raised in this appeal:(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that as long as the assessee writes off a debt as bad debt, the question whether it was indeed a bad debt should not be gone into ?(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, after the amendment of Section 36, an assessee is entitled to claim deduction in respect of any debt written off as bad ?(3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in permitting the assessee to claim expenditure on advertisement in one year, while the matching fee receipts were spread over more years and(4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to follow a system of accounting which is not in accordance with the matching principle ?3. The assessee is a compa...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its Chairman Vs. Presidin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR718]; (2007)IILLJ459Mad
M. Jaichandren, J.1. The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in Complaint No. 6/91 and quash the award, dated March 26, 1997.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:The second respondent was employed as a clerk in the petitioner-Bank and he was working in Pandamangalam Branch of the petitioner-Bank, from February 26, 1980. While so, on November Saturday, July 07, 200718, 1986, the second respondent, had taken a jewel loan of Rs. 9,000/- from the Canara Bank, Pothanur Pudupalayam, and a sum of Rs. 11,072.02 was outstanding in the said loan account, as on August 16, 1988. On August 16, 1988, the brother-in-law of the second respondent had come to Pandamangalam Branch and the second respondent had given him a sum of Rs. 11,000/-, from the bank cash, for the purpose of redeeming the jewel...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajendra Rao Vs. G. Vanaja and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: II(2007)ACC266
S. Manikumar, J.1. Not satisfied with award dated 02.12.1999 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 837 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri, the claimant has preferred this appeal.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows: On 20.10.1995 at about 11.00 a.m., when the appellant was proceeding towards Krishnagiri in a lorry bearing registration No. TCG 3400, another lorry bearing Registration No. TN-31-1921, owned by the first respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his lorry and caused heavy damages to the lorry. The lorry owned by the first respondent is insured with the second respondent, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The appellant claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- as damage to the property. 4. The Second respondent-Insurance company resisted the claim, contending inter alia that the accident did not occur in the manner set out in the claim petition. They disputed ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri Rao Baghadur Adk Dharmaraja Educati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2007
Reported in: [2008]300ITR365(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The Revenue has preferred the above tax case appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 16.4.2003 in ITA No. 769/Mds/2000 for the assessment year 1995-96 raising the following substantial question of law for consideration:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the activity of letting out of property is not a business activity, and that the exemption under Section 11 should not be denied to the assessee?2. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the appeal are, the assessee, a trust, claimed exemption of income from properties and lease rentals under Sections 10(22) and 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the income from properties let out is not a business income, and allowed the exemption. The Appellate Tribunal, on appeal, held that the activities of the assessee cannot be treat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »