Chennai Court April 2007 Judgments
Durai Raj and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ700
P.R. Shivakumar, J.1. This judgment shall govern all the three civil miscellaneous appeals, viz., C.M.A. Nos. 749, 750 and 751 of 2000. The injured/claimants, who had preferred M.C.O.P. Nos. 18, 17 and 20 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Kumbakonam, have preferred these civil miscellaneous appeals respectively, challenging the common judgment and decrees passed in the said M.C.O.Ps. dismissing the claim of each one of the claimants.2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals can briefly be stated thus:Pursuant to a vehicular accident that took place on 30.7.1993 at about 3.30 p.m. involving the motor cycle belonging to respondent No. 2 bearing registration No. TN 49-Z 1269 and the bus belonging to transport Corporation, respondent No. 1, bearing registration No. TN 49-N 0155, the injured persons, viz., Durai Raj, Ilangovan and Napoleon filed separate claim petitions on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Kumbakonam...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Funskool (India) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2007
Reported in: [2007]294ITR642(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 913/Mds/94 dated 17-3-2003, raising the following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that investment allowance/depreciation can be allowed on the additional customs duty paid during the year in respect of machinery imported and installed in an earlier year ?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that investment allowance/depreciation not claimed when the return was filed or even during the assessment proceedings ought to be allowed ?2. The assessee-company filed its return of income admitting a net loss of Rs. 1.36 crores. After making various additions, the loss was brought down to Rs. 1.06 crores.3. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) claiming investment allo...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Isakkiappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ751
P.R. Shivakumar, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is. directed against the award dated 30.6.1999 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub-Court), Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P. No. 131 of 1998 directing payment of a sum of Rs. 70,000 together with an interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of claim till realization and costs for the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident alleged to have taken place on 8.9.1997 at about 2 p.m.2. The respondent herein-claimant preferred a claim on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub-Court), Tirunelveli by filing M.C.O.P. No. 131 of 1998 praying for an award against the appellant-respondent for the injuries sustained by the claimant who met with an accident on 8.9.1997 at about 2 p.m.3. The respondent-claimant in his claim petition had made the following averments in support of his claim:On 8.9.1997 at about 2 p.m. the bus bearing registration No. TN 72-N 0287 belonging to the transport Corpor...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Durairajan and anr. Vs. Poonjolai Janaki and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ776
P.R. Shivakumar, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award dated 28.1.1999 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Second Additional Subordinate Judge), Trichy in M.C.O.P. No. 1360 of 1996 whereby a sum of Rs. 2,52,000 was awarded as compensation to the claimants therein, for the death of one Arumugam, the husband of the claimant No. 1 and father of the other claimants. The said amount was directed to be paid by the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle who are the appellants herein with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim till realization and proportionate cost.2. It was the case of the respondents-claimants before the Tribunal that one Arumugam, the husband of the respondentclaimant No. 1 was knocked down by the lorry bearing registration No. TMT 7279 on 22.5.1996 at about 5.30 p.m., while he was trying to cross the road near Thuvaakudi in his TVS-50 moped. The further contention of the respondents-claimants be...
Tag this Judgment!S. Uttamchand Vs. T.M. Devan and R. Anjugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ1359
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. These Revision Petitions have been filed against the order dated 10.6.1996, of the District Munsif, Ponneri, made in E.A. No. 469/1992 in E.P. No. 25/1992 in O.S. No. 918/1975 and against the order dated 10.6.1996 of the District Munsif, Ponneri, made in E.P. No. 25 of 1992 in O.S. No. 918/1975.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of disposing of the above two Civil Revision Petitions are as under:3. The 1st respondent herein was originally a lessee under the father of 2nd respondent herein in respect of the property namely, vacant land measuring about 1-1/2 grounds abutting Thiruvottiyur High Road in S. No. 237/42, situate within the Thiruvottiyur municipal limits, vide lease deed dated 11.10.1968. Pursuant to a family partition deed dated 30.9.1970, the above said property was allotted to 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 918/1975 against 1st respondent for a decree directing 1st respondent to put 2nd respondent in vaca...
Tag this Judgment!Minor S. AswIn Kumar, Rep. by His Father and Natural Guardian Mr. P. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC677
ORDER1. In his address to the Legislative Assembly on 24.5.2006, His Excellency, the Governor of Tamil Nadu has announced that, 'the Common Entrance Examination for admission to professional courses has become highly expensive and a source of unnecessary hardship for the students. With a view to ensuring a level playing field to students from rural areas and poor families and those from urban areas, this Government will constitute a Committee of educational experts to recommend suitable measures for abolition of Common Entrance Examination from the academic year 2007-2008'.2. Prior to 1984-1985 admission to professional colleges in Tamil Nadu was done based on the academic marks plus the marks in an interview. The interview was replaced by an entrance test conducted by the Anna University for admission to the professional colleges from the year 1984-1985. This procedure of admitting the students to the professional colleges based on the academic marks plus the marks obtained in the ent...
Tag this Judgment!K. Subramanian Vs. K. Rajendran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4092
ORDERT. Sudanthiram, J.1. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner herein who is 7th accused in C. C. No. 3 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Mettur Dam.2. The first respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner and six other accused for offences under Sections 109, 148, 448, 420, 427 and 453 IPC, and the complaint was taken on file for offences under Section 148, 448, 427, 453 and 109 IPC.3. The first respondent filed a private complaint alleging that there was enmity between himself and A. 1 to A.4. The first accused was constructing house in poramboke land in S. No. 32/1 and in order to provide pathway in the patta land of the first respondent, accused Nos. 5 to 7 have made attempts. On 17-5-2003 at 8.00 a.m. while the first respondent went to see the Tahsildar, he was brought to Mettur Police Station, saying that a complaint has been given by the first accused. He was also informed that A. 5 to A. 7 ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Thangaraj Vs. Sankaran Financiers Rep. by Its Proprietor G. Chandra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad284a
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. This appeal arises against the judgment dated 11.08.1993 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, in O.S.No. 483 of 1988, in decreeing the suit. Defendant is the appellant.2. The suit is based on a pronote, which is marked as Ex.A-4 purported to have been executed by defendant on 16.08.1986 agreeing to repay the said amount on demand to plaintiff or as directed by him with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The pronote also shows that there was a cash consideration of Rs. 22,000/- thereunder, which was attested by Gajaraj, who was examined as P.W.1 and scribed by one Pichandi.3. The appellant/defendant pointed out that neither the scribe nor the plaintiff was examined. But the plaintiff has chosen to examine his father as P.W.1, who claims to have known the facts of the case including the suit borrowal. The defendant's contention is that under different circumstances he has signed in a blank pronote form and given it to plaintiff. When defendant thus admit...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ms. J. Jayalalithaa
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)111TTJ(Chennai)875
1. These appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are directed against the common order dt. 31st Jan., 2002 passed by the CIT(A), Central-II, Chennai and relate to the asst. yrs.1987-88 to 1992-93.2. The solitary common issue raised by the assessee in the cross-objections relates to the validity of the assessments made pursuant to the notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961.3. We have heard the rival submissions. The original assessment for the asst. yr. 1987-88 was completed on 23rd Dec. 1994. Later it was reopened under Section 147 and notice under Section 148 was issued on 23rd March, 1998. The return was filed on 9th Nov., 1998. According to the AO the return should have been filed on or before 24th April, 1998.Because of the delay of seven months the return was treated as non est and the assessment was completed on 28th March, 2000 under Section 144 r/w Section 147 for non-filing of the return of income.4. According to the AO originally the asse...
Tag this Judgment!M.M.T.C. Limited Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)9VST667(Mad)
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari calling for the records in Proceedings T/0300163/1999-2000 on the file of the respondent and to quash his order dated 11.03.2004.2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is as under:a. The petitioner is a Government of India undertaking established for importing goods into this country. The petitioner, by entering into contracts with dealers who intend to import various items of goods, makes arrangements for the same and collects commission for the service it renders. In other words, the petitioner imports goods specifically for customers who have entered into contract with it for import of goods and such sales by the petitioner have been treated by the Sales Tax authorities as sales in the course of import and exempt under Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax, 1956.b. While so, a proprietary concern by name Royal Trading Company (in short RTC ) had placed an order with one Sinexim Co. (P) Limited, Singapore for purchase ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »