Chennai Court December 2007 Judgments
Cooperative Nagar Residents Welfare Association Represented by Its Pre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ1285
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner, a Residents Welfare Association, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 4172/2006-GR dated 26.04.2006 and also the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka. No. 3701/05/R3 dated 03.02.2006 and quash the same.2. The petitioner's case in short, as culled out from its affidavit, is as under:2.1 The first respondent, vide his proceedings dated 04.08.1997, granted permission to the second respondent to form a layout at Thandalam Village, Tiruvarur District. 2.2 Under Clause 16 of the said proceedings, the second respondent was required to set apart open space in the layout for the purpose of park, children's playground, library, community hall and school and hand over the same to the local administration by way of a gift deed. 2.3 Based on this permission from the first respondent, the fourth respondent formed a layout in the name and...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kandasamy Vs. the District Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2007
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ113
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. By consent of all the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. This writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the second respondent in Na.Ka. No. 80/2006/A dated 21.03.2007 and further direct the respondents to extend the license to the petitioner for collecting toll.3. Every year, the second respondent, Avinashi Town Panchayat auction the right to collect toll from the users of the daily market and the successful bidder is granted the licence to collect the toll every day during the licence period. The petitioner successfully participated in the auction from the year 2002-2003 onwards and has been granted licence to collect toll from the users of daily market. The petitioner held the licence as a successful bidder from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007. One of the terms and conditions of the auction as contained in Clause 7, is as under:The licensee shall not put up any temporary structures and shops either at his cost or at the expense of ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Kuttalingam and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by District C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ624
P.R. Shivakumar, J.1. The plaintiffs who lost their case in both the courts below have come forward with the Second Appeal.2. The appellants herein filed O.S. No. 70 of 1985 on the file of the Sub-Court, Nagercoil praying for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents herein/defendants from demolishing the structure on the western side of the suit property and for recovery of damages to an extent of Rs. 3000/-. The said prayer was based on the contention that the appellants/plaintiffs had purchased the suit site along with the building standing thereon and constructed a new building in 1946 itself after demolishing the old structure and that the defendants had taken steps to demolish a portion of the building contending the same to be an encroachment made in the Highways Poromboke belonging to the Government. According to the appellants/plaintiffs the building was constructed well within their boundary of their patta land and that even if there was any encroachment,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax-i Vs. Vijayashree Finance and Investment Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Mad)191
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. By framing the following two substantial questions of law, the revenue has filed the present appeal:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the profit on sale of land carried to capital reserve cannot be added to book profit under Section 115J?2. Whether in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that since notes form part of the accounts, even where profits of a non recurring nature have not been made part of the book profits, although the schedule VI stipulates the same, the assessing officer cannot add the same to re-work the book profit?2. The facts culminating in filing of the appeal are as follows:The assessee is a company in which public are not substantially interested. As provided under Section 115J of the Act, the assessing officer found that the assessee has transferred the amount of Rs.10,17,207/- realised from the sale of the land to 'capital reserve' and d...
Tag this Judgment!Pankaj Kumar Nevatia Vs. Pradeep Kumar Nevatia and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)CTC186; (2008)4MLJ36
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appellant Pankajkumar Nevatia filed the above two appeals against the common order dated 27.03.2001 made in O.Ps. Nos.95 of 1995 and 865 of 1997.2. O.P. No.95 of 1995 was filed by the appellant under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying to receive and take on file the arbitration award dated 28.12.1994 handed over to the Registrar of this Court on 03.01.1995 and to pass a decree in terms of the said award and for interim relief of injunction restraining the respondents 12 to 27, the joint stock companies in which the parties were share holders, from issuing dividends, bonus, bonus shares, right shares and other benefits to anybody till the disposal of the petition. O.P. No.865 of 1997 was filed by Pramodh Kumar, the first respondent (in O.P. No.95 of 1995) under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to set aside the award dated 28.12.1994.3. The learned single Judge allowed the OP. No.865 of 1997 by setting aside the award of the arbit...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mohammed ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ628
ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. The above Civil Revision Petitions and Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are focussed as against the Common Judgement and Decree dated 28.10.2005 passed in MCOP. Nos. 426, 427, 448, 449, 524 to 535, 545, 546, 548, 620, 621, 687 and 699 of 2005 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Principal District Judge, Dindigul.2. Heard both sides.3. The Tribunal vide common Judgement dated 26.10.2005 awarded compensation as under:Sl. M.C.O.P. Nos. Claimants CompensationNo. awarded1. 426 of 2005 Salha Beevi Rs. 50,000/-2. 427 of 2005 1. Salha Beevi 2. Sikkandar Rs. 1,64,000/-3. 448 of 2005 Jansi Rani Rs. 7,000/-4. 449 of 2005 Kannamani Rs. 6,000/-5. 524 of 2005 Minor Bowmitha Banu Rs. 9,000/- 6. 525 of 2005 Mahaboob Beevi Rs. 97,000/-7. 526 of 2005 Masootha @ Masootha Begam Rs. 28,100/-8. 527 of 2005 Minor Prabaharan Rs. 50,000/-9. 528 of 2005 Jameela Beevi Rs. 35,000/-10. 529 of 2005 1. Sarrammal (died) 2. Abdul Ajees @ Abdulla Rs. 40,000/-11. 530 of 2005 Mohamme...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Kannan Vs. K.K. Nagananthini
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ698
G. Rajasuria, J.1. This appeal is focussed as against the order passed in H.M.C.M.A. No. 17 of 2000 dated 11.09.2002 on the file of the District Judge, Ramanathapuram, confirming the order passed in H.M.O.P. No. 12 of 1999 dated 20.09.2000 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram.2. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder as husband and wife.3. The nutshell facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal would run thus:Broadly but briefly, the case of the husband who filed H.M.O.P. No. 59 of 1998 for divorce as against the wife, could be narrated thus:(i) The Hindu marriage between the petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife took place on 31.01.1994 in Madurai as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Thereupon, they lived together at Chromepettai, Chennai. The petitioner at the time of marriage was working as Project Scientist at Chennai and the respondent/wife was a student of B.Sc., and she complete...
Tag this Judgment!K. Meenakshi Vs. S. Mohana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1781
ORDERR. Regupathi, J.1. The above petition is filed seeking for a direction to call for the records relating to C.C. No. 212/2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram and quash the same.2. The petitioner is an accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, has taken the case on file and issued summons to the petitioner on payment of process fee. Though the petitioner has taken up the proceedings before the learned Magistrate, the present petition to quash the proceedings has been filed before this Court on certain technical grounds.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the first instance, has referred to the docket entries/endorsements made by the learned Magistrate on various dates. On 03.04.2003, the learned Magistrate made the following endorsement on the complaint made before him:Check and Call on 10.4.2003,and, on 10.4.2003, the following endorsement...
Tag this Judgment!Paridhan Exports Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Mad)541
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeal is filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai dated 27.7.2006 made in I.T.A. No. 232/Mds/2003 for the assessment year 1998-1999.2. The facts as culled out from the statement of facts are as follows:The assessee, a registered firm engaged in the business of manufacture and export of garments and also carrying on money lending business. For the assessment year 1998-99, the appellant-assessee filed its return of income on 2.11.1998 declaring nil total income after claiming deductions under Section 80HHC and 80IA of Income Tax Act 1961. The return of income was processed and assessment completed under Section 143(1)(a) on 14.8.2000. Subsequently notice under Section 148 was issued on 24.8.2000 and the assessment was reopened. The appellant filed letter dated 4.10.2000 requesting to treat the original return of income filed in response to notice under Section 148. The assessing officer asked the assessee to explain a...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Its Secretary Ministry of Finance, Vs. Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(125)ECC17; 2008(151)LC17(Madras); 2008(226)ELT490(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The correctness of the common order of the learned single Judge dated 11.9.2000 in allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondent herein in W.P. Nos. 7888 to 7892 of 2000 seeking for the relief of writ of mandamus directing the respondents/appellants herein to complete discharge of the bonds dated 28.12.1993, 20.7.1994, 8.12.1994, 12.9.1994 and 16.11.1994 executed by the writ petitioner/respondent herein for the due performance of the export obligation under licence bearing Nos. 34358, 401670, 401265, 402523 and 403095 respectively dated 23.12.1993, 30.6.1994, 28.4.1994, 7.9.1994 and 26.10.1994 respectively, is put in issue in these appeals2. The facts of the case go as follows:The respondent Company was manufacturing and exporting drugs by importing certain drugs meant for manufacturing the finished formulation for export purpose. During the year 1992, the Government of India announced its export and import policy. Under Chapter XVII of the Export and Im...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »