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.
Prashanth Textiles Limited, Represented by Its Managing Director V. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ660
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. Both the writ petitions have been filed challenging the special notice undated and consequent common proceedings Rc. No.436/98 dated 17.3.1999 revising the property tax.2. The case of the petitioner in both the writ petition is that he is the owner of the property in Veerakeralam Town Panchayat. Notices under Rule 9/10 of Schedule IV to the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 were issued by the respondent Executive Officer by way of a Special Notice in respect of property tax in proceedings Nos. 127451 and 127452. Such notices did not contain any reason for the revision of tax. Therefore, on 12.3.1999, objections were submitted by the petitioner on several aspects objecting to the revision of tax, which culminated in passing of the common impugned proceedings/order Rc. No.436/98 dated 17.3.1999. It is the special notice and the proceedings dated 17.3.1999, which are under challenge before this Court. Though an appeal has been preferred to the President o...
K. Selvaraj Vs. the State Express Transport Corporation (Tamil Nadu Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)2LLJ300Mad
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. By consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.2. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 21.3.2003 of the second respondent and the consequential order of the first respondent dated 16.2.2004 and to direct the respondents to provide alternate employment to the petitioner pursuant to G.O. Ms. No. 746, Transport Department, dated 2.7.1981.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit are as follows.(a) Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the then Tiruvalluvar Transport Corporation from 9.10.1978 and he is having 25 years of unblemished record of service. On 8.12.2001 during the course of his employment, the bus in which the petitioner was travelling, met with an accident, due to which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and the petitioner sustained crush injuries below his left knee including fracture of b...
Tvl. Ragam Polymers Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)8VST131(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner filed O.P. No.1261 of 2003 before the Tribunal praying to quash the order of assessment passed by the respondent in TNGST No.126868/94-95 dated 30.09.2003 consequent to the remand order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)-IV, Chennai passed in petitioner's Appeal in AP. No.311 of 1999 dated 17.07.2001 as violative of the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of the TNGST Act since the same has been passed without issuing a notice and without following the directions of the Appellate Authority issued in the petitioner's aforesaid Appeal which is binding on the respondent herein. 2. The facts, in short, are:For the assessment year 1994-95 the petitioner was originally assessed on the basis of the returns and books of accounts in the year 1996. Later on, on the basis of the inspection report of the Enforcement wing officials (D3 proposals) the respondent revised the order of assessment for the assessment years 1993-...
M. Saminathan Vs. Vijayalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC44; (2007)2MLJ393
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The plaintiff/appellant pending the Appeal Suit No. 150 of 2003, filed the I.A.299 of 2005 under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint relief from Permanent Injunction to one of Mandatory Injunction and the same has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi. As against the same, the present revision has been filed. 2. The plaintiff in his petition stated that he purchased the suit property from one Perumal in the year 1993 under Ex.A.1 and constructed a terraced house. In the south eastern portion he has constructed a septic tank. Subsequent to his purchase, the respondent/defendant purchased the eastern property from the very same Perumal in the year 1994 under Ex.B.1. The defendant attempted to encroach upon the eastern portion of the plaintiff's property. Immediately he file d the suit claiming the relief of permanent injunction. Since caveat was pending, he was not able to get any interim relief. Taking advantage of the same, the def...
Mrs. Sargunam Vs. Duraisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ746
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the Decree Holder and respondent in E.A. No. 18 of 2000 in E.P. No. 1452 of 1997 in O.S. No. 5394 of 1989, as against allowing the said execution application filed under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure by the respondent herein, praying to dismiss the E.P. No. 1452 of 1997 and to declare that the decree dated 13.01.1999 passed in O.S. No. 5394of 1989 as null and void.2. The case in brief is as follows:The petitioner herein filed O.S. No. 5394 of 1989 for the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction and for a permanent injunction on the file of the VIII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai and obtained an ex parte decree on 13.01.1992. The petitioner/plaintiff filed E.P. No. 1452 of 1997 for execution of the said ex parte decree before the X City Civil Judge, Chennai. At this juncture, the judgment debtor/defendant has filed E.A. No. 18 of 2000 in E.P. No. 1452 of 1997. The learned X Assistant City Civil Court, Judge, ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rotork Controls India Ltd. (Formerly Be ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC477; (2007)209CTR(Mad)297; [2007]293ITR311(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. All these appeals are clubbed together, for passing a common order, considering the identity of the issues raised therein. 2. The common question that arises for consideration is, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the warranty provision is an allowable deduction and, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that a provision made in respect of future claims that may not rise at all is a deductible expenditure in the current year 3. In T.C. No. 94 of 2005, apart from the warranty charges, there is yet another question relating to the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, regarding payment of corporate service charges paid to a closely connected company. 4. The facts in all these appeals centre on the question of warranty charges. Taking T.C. No. 163 of 2003 for consideration of facts, it may be seen that the assessee made a provision as regards warranty charges payable under the terms of sale. It is stated that such a prov...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gnanambikai Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2007
Reported in: [2007]293ITR72(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal made in ITA No. 2777/Mds/1993, dated 8.8.2002. 2.1. The Revenue is the appellant. During the relevant assessment year 1991-92, the assessee filed a return of income on 27.12.91 in response to a notice Under Section 143(2) admitting a total income of Rs. 6,43,610/-. The assessing officer inter alia disallowed a sum of Rs. 13,08,387/- being bonus paid in excess of provision made, and held that the same will be allowed on payment basis in the following assessment year.2.2. Aggrieved against the said order of the assessing officer, the assessee went on appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who, by order dated 28.10.1993, upheld the order of the assessing officer, following its earlier order, holding that where the quantum of bonus is decided by way of a settlement between the workers and the Management, it is only a contractual liability and hence, deduction c...
Regional Director, (Tamilnadu) Employees State Insurance Corporation V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ734Mad
K. Venkataraman, J.1. The respondent in E.S.I.O.P. No. 18/1991 before the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the appellant before this Court.2. The respondent has filed the said Original Petition under Section 75 of the E.S.I. Act praying for setting aside the order dated 30.3.1990/4.4.1990 passed by the Regional Director in his order under Section 45A of the ESI Act, 1948. The appellant herein has passed an order under Section 45A of the said Act, directing the respondent herein to contribute a sum of Rs.8,766/- stating that the respondent herein has not paid the contribution as per the provisions of law in respect of the coffee allowance and security charges. Challenging the said order, the respondent herein has filed ESIOP. No. 18/1991 before the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The said Original Petition has been resisted by the appellant herein by filing a written statement. The learned Judge of the E.S.I. Court has allowed the said Original Petition an...
The Management of Dairy Development Corporation and the Tamil Nadu Co- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ43Mad
ORDERM.E.N. Patrudu, J.1. The petitioners are challenging the order of the first respondent, the Presiding Officer, Chennai in C.P. No. 428 of 1990. The learned Presiding Officer has directed the petitioners to pay wages as follows:(i) Mr. Dhiravia Gandhi H.V.D. Rs. 1,04,720.00(ii) Mr. Shanmugam H.V.D. Rs. 1,04,720.00(iii) Mr. Muthu H.V.D. Rs. 1,04,720.00(iv) Mr. Sundaram H.V.D. Rs. 50,430.00(v) Mr. Periasamy H.V.D. Rs. 1,14,615.00(vi) Mr. Prabakharan H.V.D. Rs. 30,098.00-----------------Total : Rs. 5,09,303.00-----------------2. The legality and correctness of the said order is questioned in this writ.3. Respondents 2 to 7 are the Drivers of the Heavy Vehicles of the Transport Unit of the petitioners and they entered on strike on 20.11.1980. They applied for Medical leave and when they were referred to Medical Board, they did not report duty. They did not produce any fitness certificate given by the Medical Board. Instead of that they filed claim petition C.P. No. 253/81 for their wag...
Ramdoss and Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Balaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC591; (2007)3MLJ82
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The defendants are the revision petitioners and the revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in I.A. No. 399 of 2005 in O.S. No. 41 of 2005 dated 13.04.2006 on the file of Sub-Court, Arni, Tiruvannamalai District. 2. The suit filed by the respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- due under promissory note. The defendants who are the revision petitioners have filed the written statement denying the execution, apart from denying due consideration for the promissory note. The defendants were set exparte and an exparte decree was passed on 07.11.2005. The defendants filed I.A. No. 41 of 2005 under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the exparte decree and the same was filed within 30 days from the date of the exparte decree. 3. The learned Trial Judge having found that the application to set aside exparte decree has been filed within the period of limitation, namely, 30 days and al...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »