Chennai Court March 2007 Judgments

Ganga Nair Matriculation School Represented by Its Correspondent K.G. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)3MLJ94

ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner school has filed this writ petition seeking to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent vide his proceedings O.Mu.No.6653/E2/2004 dated 30.09.2004 and to quash the same and to consequently direct the second respondent to grant recognition to the petitioner school as requested by them in letter dated 20.03.2004.2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as under:The petitioner school which is run by Ganga Nair Social Welfare Trust, obtained provisional permission from the Director of School Education, Chennai vide his proceedings dated 19.09.2000 for conducting classes for standards I to VI and started functioning with a strength of 80 odd students. The property in which the school is situated has been leased out by one Sivananda Paramahamsar Madayala Trust to an extent of 37 cents and also by the Trust which runs the school to an extent of 2.33 acres. The petitioner school has made a cash endowment of Rs.1,20,000/- for...

Sri. K. Mahendar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Mad)598; [2008]303ITR245(Mad)

Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal is by the assessee challenging the order of the Tribunal on the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,02,624/- has to be assessed as 'capital gains' in the assessment year 1991-92 under Section 45(5)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?(ii) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the facts and circumstances of the case was right in law in upholding the applicability of Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 especially when all the facts were placed before the assessing authority even while filing the return and at the assessment stage itself?2. The assessee and his brothers received certain lands in a partition in the year 1956 made by their father who died in the year 1969. The said lands were acquired by the Government in the land acquisition proceedings. The assessee received compensation from the Go...

Mrs.Thilagavathy Vs. the Manager, Indian Bank Porur Branch, Porur, Che ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH J. {Open Court} The complainant in OP No.411/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) is the appellant herein. The grievance of the complainant was that the pay order presented by him for collection was returned by the opposite party for wholly untenable reasons and the opposite party was therefore liable to pay her compensation. 2. The defence set up was that the Bank through which the pay order was sought to be collected viz., State Bank of India, Kodambakkam Branch, had claimed Rs.1,11,000/- as against the pay order value of Rs.1,10,000/- and since this was in excess, the opposite party returned the pay order for the reason excess amount claimed. There was no deficiency in service. 3. The complaint came to be dismissed by the District Forum. As against the dismissal, the present appeal has been filed. 4. It is seen from the records that State Bank of India, Kodambakkam Branch, encoded the pay order value wrongly for Rs.1,11,0...

M/S. Klm Royal Dutch Airlines, Coimbatore and Another Vs. Mr. Appusamy ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH J. {Open Court} The Opposite party in OP No.15/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: - During a business tour the complainant had purchased air ticket through the 2nd and the 3rd opposite parties to travel to some places, operated by the 1st opposite party. Starting from 20/9/99, he visited various places in Europe to secure export orders. On 8/10/99, he left Birmingham enroute to Mumbai and on that day he had entrusted and registered three baggages with the 1st opposite party to be delivered to him at Mumbai. The 3rd opposite party had received the baggage in a good condition and assured to deliver the same at Mumbai. On 9/10/99 when the complainant arrived at Mumbai at about 1.30 am he was delivered only two baggages and the third baggage a black leather baggage containing the complainants belongings worth Rs.3 lakhs was not delivered by the 3rd opposite party....

The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, (Vpm Dvn ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008ACJ1799; (2007)6MLJ960

S. Manikumar, J.1. In an accident which occurred on 09.05.1998, the claimant sustained fracture of left leg, which was subsequently amputated. He claimed compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/-. The Tribunal on evaluation of pleadings and evidence awarded compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim. Not satisfied with the quantum, the claimant has filed C.M.A. No. 145 of 2001. The Transport Corporation, which was found vicariously liable for the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, filed C.M.A. No. 868 of 2001, challenging the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence and quantum. Therefore, both the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant' and the 'Transport Corporation'.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:(i) On 09.05.1998, the claimant boarded the bus owned by the Transport Corporation ...

S. Mariammal Vs. Krishnamurthy,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)3MLJ321

S. Manikumar, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2004 in A.S. No. 53 of 2004 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.2. Brief facts leading to the appeal are as follows:(i) The plaintiff purchased the suit property from Thiru. Gnanasambandam and his sons under the registered Sale Deed dated 13.05.1981. The vendor Thiru. Gnanasambandam purchased the suit property and other properties from Thiru. Bhagwandas. The plaintiff owns some other lands in the village, where the suit property is located. The suit property is situated in S. No. 20/9, to the North of Sivan North Street, Puttur village. When the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff, there was a house and it was later on altered. There was also a cattle shed. Thiru. Subbarama Nadar, who owned the land in S. No. 20/9 had donated a small portion of the land to the school and his son had sold some portion of the land in the same Survey number to one Thiru. Subramanian. The s...

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Vpm Dv ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1050

S. Manikumar, J.1. Aggrieved by an order dated 08.02.2001 made in M.C.O.P. No. 347 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Cuddalore, the Transport Corporation preferred this appeal.2. Brief facts leading to the appeal are as follows: On 24.10.1996, at about 7.10 p.m., when the respondent/claimant was traveling in a bus, owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation, another bus bearing Registration No. TN-31-N-0552 came in the opposite direction at a high speed, dashed against the rear portion of the bus. As a result of which, the respondent/claimant sustained grievous injuries and multiple communited fractures in distal humerus with intera anticular extensions and fracture of Olecranon in his right hand. Immediately, he was rushed to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore and thereafter, he was referred to Krishna Hospital, Cuddalore. Again, he was treated in Bone and Joint Clinic, Chennai and underwent two sur...

The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., (Chenn ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008ACJ1981

S. Manikumar, J.1. Aggrieved by the award dated 19.12.2000 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 3753 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai, the Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal.2. Brief facts leading to the appeal are as follows: On 08.07.1995 about 12.30 hrs, when the respondent/claimant was travelling in a bicycle as a pillion rider, rode by his friend Seeyalasundaram from east to west on the left side of Pallavan Salai, a bus, owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation came from behind in a rash and negligent manner, hit the cycle. The respondent/claimant sustained compressed fracture of L1 vertebra (spinal cord) and injury on the head. He claimed compensation of Rs. 9 lakhs.3. The appellant-Transport Corporation resisted the claim petition, contending inter alia that on 08.07.1995, when the bus, owned by the appellant Transport Corporation was proceeding towards Korukkupet from Vivekananda House and near Muneeswaran...

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Anjalai and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008ACJ1974; (2007)6MLJ1618

S. Manikumar, J.1. Aggrieved by the award dated 01.02.2000 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation - II, Chennai in W.C. No. 179 of 1997, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:(i) Respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased, M.Ponraj. They are the claimants before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. The deceased was a contract labourer engaged by various Electricity Board Contractors and others, who have taken contract with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board from 1988. On 06.04.1996, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Official, Mr. Devaraj attached to Kolathur Section sent the deceased with other two workers, namely, Baskaran and Raman, under the leadership of one Raju, Maistry to rectify the cable fault at Door No. 38, Bharathiar Street, Lakshmipuram, Chennai 600 099. The said Baskaran removed all the four feeder fuses of the said street and kept the same in the safe custody of Mr. ...

Arockiaprakash Vs. Rangasamy

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2007(3)CTC383; (2007)5MLJ46

S. Manikumar, J.1. This appeal arises against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2004 in A.S. No. 145 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore.2. The defendant in the suit is the appellant. The brief facts of the case are as follows:(i) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant executed a promissory note on 07.08.2000 at Vridhachalam for Rs. 1,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The defendant is working in Neyveli Lignite Corporation. Since the defendant did not repay the amount under the promissory note, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the same.(ii) The defendant filed written statement and contended that he has not borrowed any money from the plaintiff and that he did not execute any promissory note. According to him, the suit promissory note is a fabricated document. The defendant's father instituted a suit in O.S. No. 90 of 2000 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Vridhachalam against one Karuppan ...