Chennai Court April 2007 Judgments
Mrs. V. Gurulakshmi and Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Owning Southern Rail ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ658; AIR2007Mad280; (2007)3MLJ1058
K. Venkataraman, J.1. The claimants before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order passed in O.A. No. 7 of 2000 dated 28.3.2001. The Southern Railway is the respondent in this appeal.2. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as follows:(a) One Viswanathan, husband of the first appellant and father of the second appellant, was travelling from Kovilpatti to Tirunelveli. On 6.3.1999, he boarded Madurai-Tuticorin local passenger No. 729 in order to proceed to Tirunelveli. He had to change over to a connecting train at Maniachi Junction. He was standing at the entrance of the train and he was pushed by the alighting passengers and due to jerk of the train, he accidentally fell between the train and the platform while stopping at Maniachi Junction. His right leg was crushed before the train came to a halt. Immediately, he has been rendered medical aid and sent to Tirunelveli for treatm...
Tag this Judgment!Doss and Vs. Vamanan and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC847; (2007)3MLJ1018
ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. The present revision is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Alandur dated 18.9.2006 made in I.A. No. 2287 of 2003 in O.S. No. 2077 of 1997.2. The backdrop of the case which is necessary for the disposal of the present revision is as follows:The respondents herein filed the suit against the petitioners in O.S. No. 2077 of 1997 before the learned District Munsif, Alandur for delivery of vacant possession of the property, damages for use and occupation, and for costs. In the said suit, the petitioners have been set exparte and an exparte decree has been passed against them. To set aside the same, the petitioners have preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1014 days. The said application has been dismissed by the learned District Munsif and the present revision is directed against the said order.3. Mr. Ravichandran, the learned Counsel app...
Tag this Judgment!The Asstt. Commissioner of Vs. Rogini Garments
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: (2007)108ITD49(Chennai)
1. The following question was referred under Section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the consideration of this Special Bench: Whether relief under Section 80-IA should be deducted from profits and gains of business before computing relief under Section 80HHC? 2. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. The controversy posed in the question rotates around the interpretation of Section 80-IA(9) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which is as under: 80-IA(9). Where any amount of profits and gains of an undertaking or of an enterprise in the case of an assessee is claimed and allowed under this section for any assessment year, deduction to the extent of such profits and gains shall not be allowed under any other provisions of this Chapter under the heading "C-Dedactions in respect of certain incomes", and shall in no case exceed the profits and gains of such eligible business of undertak...
Tag this Judgment!The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. Paridhan Exports and Poshak
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: (2008)298ITR127(Chennai)
1. These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the respective orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) VIII, Chennai. Since common issues are involved in both the appeals, these are being disposed off by this consolidated order.2. The only dispute raised by the revenue in these appeals is that whether the Honourable High Court's order is a direction for reopening of the assessment and therefore time limit prescribed Under Section149 is not applicable.3. The brief facts of the case are that a notice Under Section 148 was issued by the assessing officer. On 24.3.2003 in both the cases and both the assessees filed Writ Petition No. 12575 and 12576 of 2003.Single Bench Judge of the Hon'ble High Court quashed the notice issued by the Department, against which the department filed appeal before the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court. In the common order dated 02.04.04 the issue was adjudicated vide para 2: We heard the Learned standing counsel for the Income...
Tag this Judgment!The State Bank of India Rep. by Its Executive Committee Vs. Mr. A.K. K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad272; 2007(3)CTC791; (2007)5MLJ826
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This writ appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.M.P. No. 44088 of 2005 in W.P. No. 41049 of 2005 dated 16.3.2007, granting an order of stay in favour of the writ petitioner on the ground that there was no notice to the writ petitioner herein before the transfer and assignment of the book debt with the securities of the first respondent to the second respondent by the appellant herein, namely, the State Bank of India.2. The writ petitioner, the first respondent herein, availed financial facility of a sum of Rs. 64 lakhs in the form of term loan, working capital finance and cash credit facility from the appellant herein in the year 1982. It is stated that the first respondent was engaged in the manufacture of railway wagons and allied products. Due to various problems, the writ petitioner suffered setbacks in his business activities. It is also stated that the squeezing of credit limits by the appellant also had its impact on the functio...
Tag this Judgment!M. Elumalai, Vs. M. Bhuvaneswari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ967
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. Writ Petition Nos. 36932 and 39236 of 2005 were filed by the petitioners, the former for a mandamus to appoint the petitioner therein as Staff Nurse and the latter for a mandamus to consider the petitioner therein for appointment as Staff Nurse. The grievance of the petitioners was that only the persons who have studied in Government Nursing Colleges (Government Nurses in short) and have got a diploma had been called for interviews and appointed in the Government General Hospitals and Primary Health Centres, to the exclusion of other persons who have studied in private institutions (Private Nurses in short), and this is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Respondents 4 to 7 in the writ petitions were persons who had studied in Government Nursing Colleges and who had been called for interviews. The writ petitions were allowed as prayed for. As against that, respondents 4 to 7 filed Writ Appeal No. 726 of 2006. The State filed Writ Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Geetha and ors. Vs. Arunakumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3290; 2007(4)CTC514
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the accused person against the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in transferring the case C.C. No. 6063 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai to the file of Mahila Court, Chennai.2. While considering the matter, a contention has been raised before the learned single Judge to the effect that a Sessions Judge was posted as Mahila Court after such Mahila Court was established by the Government. However, the power of a Metropolitan Magistrate could not have been conferred on such Mahila Court or the Sessions Judge without a specific notification by the State Government establishing such court of Metropolitan Magistrate and, therefore, the proceedings pending before Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate should not have been transferred to such Mahila Court.3. Since such question raised a question of law of importance and also relating to jurisdiction and const...
Tag this Judgment!Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Dr. Biswajit Roy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad237
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Original Application has been filed for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent from in any manner disclosing or using the confidential information of the applicant by carrying on directly, or indirectly any business which is of competing nature, contacting the applicant's customers or employees and thereby interfering with the applicant's business, pending arbitration of the disputes between the parties.2. The brief facts as culled out from the affidavit are as under:3. The applicant Company is engaged in a very specialized field of business involving unique know-how and technical data and these are peculiar to them. The respondent joined the company as a Scientific Officer in January 2001. Over the years he became an integral part of the senior management team and he was given access to information which are vital for the operations of the applicant's Bangalore Genie Division namely, product and process know-how, R&D; processes, procedu...
Tag this Judgment!Sivakumar Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3481
ORDERS. Tamilvanan, J.1. This Criminal Revision is preferred by the petitioner / accused against the judgment, dated 19.05.2004 in C.A.No. 10/02 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge / FTC, Vellore, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupattur in S.C.No. 151/99, dated 25.10.2000.2. The revision petitioner / accused is the husband of the deceased Umavathi. P.W.2 and P.W.5 are the brothers of the deceased. P.W.3 is her mother. For about 3 years prior to the occurrence, the revision petitioner / accused married the deceased and it was an arranged marriage. Out of the said wedlock, they got one male child. As per the complaint given by P.W.5, the brother of the deceased, after the marriage the revision petitioner and the deceased had frequent quarrel, due to their misunderstanding. Two months prior to the occurrence, she came to the house of his brother, due to such quarrel and one month prior to the occurrence, the dispute was settled b...
Tag this Judgment!R. Kanthimathi, Vs. Bank of India Dharmapuri Branch Rep. by Its Senior ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC7; 2007(4)CTC524
ORDERS. Tamilvanan, J.1. Cri.O.P.No. 6773 of 2006 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking an order to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No. 326 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Dharmapuri and quash the same.2. Crl.O.P.No. 6774 of 2006 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking an order to call for the records relating to the case in STC No. 1577 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Dharmapuri and quash the same.3. Crl.O.P.No. 6774 of 2006 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking an order to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No. 285 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Dharmapuri and quash the same.4. It is seen from the records that the respondent herein filed similar complaints under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the petitioners / accused for alleged offence punishable under Section 138 rule with 14...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »