Chennai Court March 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.
Marshals' Supersoft Technologies Limited rep. by Mr. R. Agarwal, Direc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR77(Mad)
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J.1. This writ petition is preferred against the order of assessment dated 30.3.2004, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the same. The petitioner herein challenges the said order on the question of jurisdiction that for the purpose of assessment and other related matters under the Companies Act, the Income Tax Act and other enactments, the registered office is at Pondicherry. Apart from questioning the jurisdiction, the assessee challenges the order of assessment under Section 148 on merits too.2. It is seen that the assessee filed its return of income for 2000-2001 with the office of the respondent herein and claimed tax benefits under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. Admittedly, the return of income was deficient for want of financial statements. The said defect was not rectified within the time stipulated, in spite of a notice calling upon the petitioner to do so. The assessment was reopened under Section 147. The petitioner had filed the financial st...
R. Veeraragavan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad205; (2007)2MLJ824
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The common prayer in all these writ petitions is to issue a writ of declaration declaring that the proviso to Explanation II (5) to Section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund (Amendment) Act, 1995 as null and void being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. As it is felt that common pleading have been putforth by both the parties aiming at the same object all the four matters have been clubbed together for common disposal.3. The brief averments in these petitions seeking issue of writ of declaration are as follows:The petitioners are the retired officials from various Departments. Immediately on their retirement, they, having been qualified with Law Degree, enrolled themselves as Advocates and commenced their practice. The Tamil Nadu Advocate Welfare Fund Act, 1987 was enacted for providing succour to the Advocates community. Those who become the member of the Fund are entitled to the benefits of the Welfare Fund under the Act. All t...
Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR218(Madras); (2007)3MLJ1
M. Jeyapaul, J.1. Application No. 169 of 2007 is filed by Chennai Container Terminal Private Limited, the second respondent in the main O.P.D. No. 34482 of 2006 seeking to recall and set aside the order passed on 9.1.2007 in Application No. 49 of 2007 in the aforesaid Original Petition.2. Application No. 353 of 2007 in O.P. No. 535 of 2006 is filed by Union of India, a third party to the arbitral proceedings seeking permission to implead itself as second petitioner in O.P. No. 535 of 2006.3. A dispute between Chennai Container Terminal Private Limited, Royapuram, Chennai and the Board of Trustees represented by its Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai, Chennai was referred to the arbitrators and the arbitrators passed an award on 8.3.2006. Aggrieved by the said award, the Board of Trustees represented by its Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai, Chennai filed O.P. No. 535 of 2006 as against Chennai Containers Terminal Private Limited, Royapuram and the three arbitrators who...
Shakeena and Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Mad10; [2007]138CompCas976(Mad)
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. Since the impugned orders in these writ petitions are one and the same and the secured asset involved are the same, further common issue involved in both the writ petitions, hence, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners availed of loans from the first respondent-bank by mortgaging their properties; that they were directed to discharge the loan amount with interest at 11.75 per cent, per annum within a period of 60 days; that the petitioner sent representations on December 10, 2004, and December 30, 2004, requesting the respondent-bank to consider a one-time settlement to settle the dues; that since there was no reply, the petitioners filed S.A. Nos. 21 and 22 of 2005 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which were dismissed; that the second respondent sent a letter dated November 11, 2005, informing that the mortgaged property will be brought to sale after the expiry of 30 days from that date by public auctio...
B. Kishore, Proprietor, b Kishore Auto Spares Vs. D. Maragathavalli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC797; (2007)4MLJ251
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Challenge in this Revision is the concurrent findings of Rent Control Authorities, ordering eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the ground of requirement for the business of Landlady's Son.2.1.This Revision arises on the following facts:- Respondent is the owner of Petition mentioned property - Door No. 26, (New No. 54), Ashok Nagar, Chennai - 600 083. Landlady's Son - Robinson is an unemployed Diploma Holder in Automobile Engineering. Eviction Petition was filed seeking the premises for the business of said Robinson. Landlady contended that her Husband retired from Madras Refinery Limited (MRL) and that he has good experience in repairing works and that Landlady's Son has taken necessary steps to start a business at the petition mentioned premises.2.2. Tenant resisted the Eviction Petition contending that Landlady's Son is employed in a Car Show Room and therefore, it is incorrect to state that he is ...
S. Palaniswamy and anr. Vs. Chinnakali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ297
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.6.2003 made in M.C.O.P. No. 733 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District-cum-Fast Track Court No. 4), Coimbatore at Tiruppur.2. The impugned accident had taken place on 2.3.1995 at about 6 p.m., while the deceased Ramkumar, as a cleaner, was travelling and assisting the driver of mini lorry bearing registration No. TN 37-E 8944 proceeding towards west-Palladam to Coimbatore, the bus belonging to the appellant No. 1 and driven by the driver, respondent No. 3, in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and near Perumbalikuttai dashed against the mini lorry, as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot and the driver of the mini lorry, who also sustained injuries, was admitted in the hospital. The claim of the respondents-claimants,-parents of the deceased Ramkumar, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 towards compensatio...
P.V. Bose Vs. the Vice Chairman, Bharathiar Palkalaikoodam,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC480; (2007)3MLJ387
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1.1. In W.P. No. 5736 of 2000 challenge is to the induction of teaching staff, granting them one time relaxation and giving them fitment in Scale of pay as per University Grants Commission (for short 'UGC') norms.1.2. Appointment of Jayashree Narayanan as Principl in charge and her writing Confidential Reports in personal records are subject matter of challenge in other Writ Petitions.2. Since all Writ Petitions relate to same set of facts, all Petitions were heard together and disposed of by this Common Order. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their rank in W.P. No. 5736 of 2000.3.1. Relevant facts in nutshell are as follows:- Second Respondent - Bharathiar Palkalaikoodam (for short 'BPK') was registered under Societies Registration Act in the year 1986 and sponsored by the Government. It was established with an object to promote Dance, Music, Arts and Crafts in the Union Territory of Pondicherry by providing facilities for rendering and trai...
R. Veeraragavan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)KLT19
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The common prayer in all these writ petitions is to issue a writ of declaration declaring that the proviso to Explanation II (5) to Section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund (Amendment) Act, 1995 as null and void being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. As it is felt that common pleading have been putforth by both the parties aiming at the same object all the four matters, have been clubbed together for common disposal.3. The brief averments in these petitions seeking issue of writ of declaration are as follows:The petitioners are the retired officials from various Departments. Immediately on their retirement, they, having been qualified with Law Degree, enrolled themselves as Advocates and commenced their- practice. The Tamil Nadu Advocate Welfare Fund Act, 1987 was enacted for providing succour to the Advocates community. Those who become the member of the Fund are entitled to the benefits of the Welfare Fund under the Act. All...
M. Subramaniam and ors. Vs. the Executive Officer, Chinnavedampatti To ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC808; (2007)3MLJ769
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree in A.S. No. 182 of 1994 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. The unsuccessful plaintiffs before the Courts below are the appellants herein.2. The short facts in the plaint for the purpose of deciding this appeal sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:The plaintiffs are the permanent residents of Chinnavedampatti. They belonged to Adi Dravida Community and the plaintiffs are the leaders and well-wishers of the said Adi Dravida Community. The suit has been filed in the representative capacity of the said community. The plaintiffs are having the temple called 'Ramar Koil' which belonged to Adi Dravida Community exclusively. The said temple is being maintained and worshipped by Adi Dravida Community from time immemorial. Even as early as 6.7.1961 itself, the electricity connection in S.C. No. III of Chinnavedampatti was given to the suit temple. The plaintiff...
K. Muniasamythevar Vs. the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Ins ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ135
Dharma Rao Elipe, J.1. The writ appeals are directed against the order dated 29-3-2006, passed by the learned Judge disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.2. Aggrieved by the interference by the respondents Police with the conduct of the sport-events such as 'Rekla Race', the petitioner has made a representation seeking permission for conduct of the 'Rekla Race' in his village and since no order was passed on the representation, he filed the above writ petition, as Public Interest Litigatin, seeking the relief of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the official respondents concerned from interfering with the conduct of 'Manjuvirattu', 'Jallikattu', Bullock Cart Race (Rekla Race) in connection with village festivals.3. The learned Judge, by the order dated 29-3-2006, held that the writ-petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought for and further directed the State and the authorities concerned to take immediate steps to ban all types of village sport-events such as 'Ja...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »