Chennai Court February 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.
B.S. Chinnasamy Gounder Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and the S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ1104
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of cancellation of the mini bus permit on the ground of violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules.2. The petitioner was holding two mini bus permits issued by the first respondent herein in respect of vehicle bearing Registration Nos. TN-29-E-5323 and TN-29-E-1409 for the route from Palacode bus stand to Marandahalli bus stand. Based on the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, the Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri, the first respondent issued a charge memo dated 23.6.2004 calling upon the petitioner-permit holder to show cause as to why the permit should not be cancelled on the ground that the two vehicle did not ply on road for more than six months. Such notice was issued in terms of Section 86(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The charge memo was served on the petitioner-permit holder on 1.9.2004, however, it is stated that no explanation was submitted. During the pendency of t...
Govinda Pillai S/O. Kuppa Pillai, Vs. the Special Tasildhar, Adhi Drav ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ753
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Challenge in these Writ Petitions is the Notification No. 10-A in Villupuram District Gazettee dated 12.03.1999 under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act 1998. 2. Facts which led to the filing of these Writ Petitions are as follows: In Pootai village of Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District, there are about 350 Adi Dravidar families, who were identified as houseless poor. Action had been taken to provide house sites by acquisitioning the patta lands to the extent of 5.46.0 Hec., in various Survey Numbers. A proposal under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was submitted by the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravida Welfare. On such proposal, the District Collector in his proceedings dated 27.11.1996 has given Authorisation to acquire the lands under Section 4(2) of the Act, authorising the Special Tahsildar to be the authorised off...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. K. Senthilnathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2007
Reported in: [2007]291ITR30(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal made in IT(SS)A No. 211/Mds/2003, dated 6.1.2004.2. The facts in brief are: There was a search conducted by the Revenue officials under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the residence as well as in the business premises of the assessee on 23.11.2000 and it was concluded on 14.3.2001 and a block assessment was framed for the block period 1.4.1990 to 22.11.2000 and an order was passed for the said block period on 28.3.2003 levying a surcharge at 17% on the tax payable on the block assessment. Aggrieved by the said order of block assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who by order dated 10.11.2000, upheld the levy of surcharge. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 113, whereby it was clarified that surcharge as applicable would be leviable in cases of block assessments, was ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Neotech Company (Firm)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2007
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Mad)310; [2007]291ITR27(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal made in IT(SS)A No. 4/Mds/2004, dated 19.6.2006.2. The facts in brief are: A search was conducted by the Revenue officials under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the residential and business premises of the assessee on 9.7.98 and a block assessment was framed for the block period 1988-89 to 1998-99 and from 1.4.1998 to 9.7.1998 and an order was passed for the said block period on 24.7.2000 levying a surcharge at 10% on the tax payable on the block assessment. Aggrieved by the said order of block assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who by order dated 10.11.2000, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee deleting the levy of surcharge. The Tribunal, on appeal by the Revenue, held that prior to introduction of proviso to Section 113 with effect from 1.6.2002, whereby it was clarified that surcharge as applicable wo...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mozhi Arasi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2199; (2007)2MLJ732
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the order of the Tribunal dated 13.3.2006 in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 682 of 2004, challenging the award of Rs. 24,44,530/-.2. It is seen from the order of the Tribunal that the accident occurred on 20.11.2003 at 5.45 a.m. resulting in the death of one Annamalai. The claimants were the wife, children and the parent of the deceased. They made a petition claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs. Based on the evidence adduced by the deceased himself just a few hours before his death, marked as Ex.A1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the fourth respondent herein, insured with the appellant herein. 3. On the question of compensation, the Tribunal noted that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 40 years old and he was an earning member. It noted that the deceased was working as Senior Assistant ...
S. Duraisingh Gangatharan Vs. the Engineer in Chief, Water Resource Or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ384
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. W.P. No. 9006 of 2005 is filed by the petitioner, challenging the impugned charge memo issued by the first respondent dated 15.12.2004 on the file of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court having been transferred to this Court.2. W.P. No. 24753 of 2006 is filed by the same petitioner for direction against the first respondent, the Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer for the year 2005-2006 and consequently, to promote him without reference to the pendency of charge memos dated 28.10.1999 and 15.12.2004. 3. The petitioner, who was originally appointed as Assistant Engineer temporarily in the Public Works Department, was selected through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission regularly as Assistant Engineer in the year 1986 and he is fully qualified for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. I...
D. Saraswathy, Vs. K. Krishnasamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC712; (2007)4MLJ1252
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Petitioners challenge the order dated 19.01.2007 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur in E.A. No. 24 of 2007 in E.P. No. 29 of 2006 in O.S. No. 694 of 1976, dismissing the Petition filed under Section 47 C.P.C. 2. There had been various rounds of litigation regarding the subject matter. For proper appreciation of the contentious points raised by the parties, we may briefly refer to certain proceedings and relevant facts thereon. The Petitioners and Respondents 2 to 4 are Sons and Daughters of First Respondent - Krishnasamy through his first wife. The First Respondent has got one Son through his second wife - Pannerselvam, who is the Third Petitioner herein. The First Respondent was allotted 1.04 acres in a family partition between him and his brothers. On 07.06.1969, the First Respondent has sold the Suit Property to the Fifth Respondent - Mayankathal. Three Sons of Krishnasamy viz., Respondents 2 to 4 have filed O.S. No. 694 of 1976 on the file of Sub-Cour...
The Correspondent, Britannia Higher Secondary School Vs. the State of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ760
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The issue involved in this case is covered by the judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court reported in 2006 (5) CTC 504 (The Corporate Manager, Csi Corporate Schools v. The State of Tamil Nadu). 2. The impugned order in the present case refers about the proceedings of the second respondent namely the Director of School Education dated 26.10.2004 wherein it was stated that subject roster must be maintained for the purpose of appointment of Middle Grade Graduate Teacher. While dealing with the validity of the proceedings of the second respondent namely the Director of School Education passed in Na.Ka. No. 30687/D1(2)/04 dated 26.10.2004, this Court in the above said judgment while quashing the said proceedings of the Director of the School Education has held that the said requirement is in violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulation) Act, 1973 and G.O. Ms. No. 125 School Education (X2) Department dated 12.11.2003....
P. Bakkiammal and 12 ors. Vs. R. Ramalakshmi and 40 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ778
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The defendants in the suit are revision petitioners in C.R.P. No. 2173 to 2175 of 2004 and the C.R.Ps. are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The proposed parties in the suit are the petitioners in C.R.P. Nos. 358 and 359 of 2005. The plaintiffs, who are the 1st and 2nd respondents in the revisions, have filed the suit in O.S. No. 4634 of 1999 for partition claiming 1/4th share in the suit properties, which consist of 5 items. The defendants 1 to 11, who are the revision petitioners in C.R.P. No. 2173 to 2175 of 2004, have filed the written statement. The suit filed by the sisters against the brother and legal heirs. The plaintiffs have filed I.A. No. 6456 of 2002 in O.S.NO.4634 of 1999 for impleading proposed parties as defendants 12 to 50 on the basis that they are the transferees of the properties belonging to the partnership firm, created by their father S.A.Periyasamy Nadar and stating that the defendants have alienated the said properti...
S. Sekar @ Om Sakthi Sekar Vs. M. Krishnamurthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ729
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 13.01.2003 made in Memo Nos. 95 to 100 in W.P. No. 514 of 1999, in and by which the learned Judge rejected the confirmation sought for in Memo Nos. 95 to 100 by the Official Receiver of Kalaimaghal Sabha. In this appeal we are concerned with the order made in Memo No. 100, relating to the auction in which the appellant herein is said to be the highest bidder.2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant as well as learned senior counsel for Official Receiver/5th respondent Sabha and the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4.3. The appellant is a third party, who participated in the public auction held in respect of land measuring an extent of 4.18.5 hectares (10.35 acres) comprised in Survey Nos. 32 and 179/3 of Thiruchitrambalam Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District. According to the appellant, after wide publicity, the sale had taken place, and he was one...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »