Chennai Court June 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.
Chokkappan Vs. Subramani,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC406
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the fair and decretal order of remand dated 19.10.2006 made in A.S. No. 5 of 2006 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Gobichettipalayam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.3.2005 made in O.S. No. 100 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Sathyamangalam.2. The appellant herein, who is plaintiff in O.S. No. 100 of 1995, filed the suit for declaration of title to the suit property and to restrain the defendants by means of a permanent injunction from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and by means of a mandatory injunction to remove the encroachment of 42.8 sq.ft. in the first item and 235.3 sq.ft. in the second item and to fence the building with the above extent and to deliver possession of the above portion after removing the encroachment.3. According to the plaintiff, the suit property in both the items 1 and 2 were possessed by one Annamalai Mudali and Nal...
The Superintending Engineer (Highways and Rural Works) and the Superin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR380(Madras)
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. Original Petition No. 780/2003 has Been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter called 'the Act', to set aside the award passed by the 2nd respondent dated 9.4.2003 in AC No. 3/2001.2. Application No. 3131/2006 has been filed by the 1st respondent to permit him to file additional counter statement in O.P.No. 780/2003.3. The Superintending Engineers of Guindy and Villupuram filed the above O.P., to set aside the award dated 9.4.2003 passed by the 2nd respondent herein.4. The petitioners entered into an agreement dated 21.8.1997 with 1st respondent to execute the permanent restoration of the flood affected Government Road, Villupuram District-Package-IV(A) Salem Ulundurpet Road K.M. 73/8-101/0(B) Salem Ulundurpet Road K.M. 101/0 to 117/6 Villupuram Division. The contract value is Rs. 4,74,67,357/- and the work has to be completed within a period of 9 months from 21.8.97, i.e., on or before 20.5.98. However, the works were...
Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad325; 2007(3)ARBLR510(Madras); 2007(4)CTC284
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. These appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned single Judge in Application No. 169 of 2007 in O.P.D. No. 34482 of 2006 and Application No. 353/07 in O.P. No. 535 of 2006. By the impugned order, Application No. 169 of 2007 in O.P.D. No. 34482 of 2006 filed by Chennai Container Terminal Private Limited (for short 'CCTPL') seeking to recall and set aside the order dated 9.1.2007, as well as Application No. 353 of 2007 in O.P. No. 535 of 2006 filed by Union of India (for short 'UOI') to implead itself as the second petitioner in the petition were dismissed by the learned single Judge. Both CCTPL and UOI have appealed against the order.2. The facts leading to these appeals are that in November 1997, tenders were invited by the Chennai Port Trust ('ChPT for short) to take over, maintain, manage and operate the existing Container Terminal at Chennai Port for a period of 30 years on a revenue sharing basis. The P & O Ports Australia, which was a successful bi...
K. Kumaran Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu by Secretary to Government Agri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC763
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The Petitioner was working as an Horticulture Officer at Kumbakonam and he was issued with a charge memo dated 8.5.2004, alleging (1) that on 14.5.1987, the watchman, who was on duty on that date, on seeing two unknown persons plucking mangoes in the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Orchard, measuring to an extent of 1303 Acres, obstructed the said two persons, who after attacking the watchman with aruval, cycle chain, ran away and the watchman recovered the said deadly weapons and mangoes and handed over the same to the Petitioner on 15.05.1987, requesting him to take action, but the Petitioner failed to take action, thereby committed the misconduct of dereliction of duty and (2) that the Petitioner did not give any complaint to the police with an intention to help the said two persons, who attacked the watchman with deadly weapons and (3) that the Petitioner acted arbitrarily and failed to collect the tender amounts of Rs. 3,31,000/- and Rs. 2,01,321/- within the stipul...
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2674; 2007(4)CTC545; (2007)4MLJ717
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. C.M.A. No. 1878 of 1999 is preferred by the Metropolitan Transport Corporation challenging the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 26.2.1999 made in M.C.O.P. No. 3460 of 1996 insofar as the awarding Rs. 3,26,440/- as compensation to the claimant. The Claimant has filed Cross Objection 68 of 2000 for the disallowed portion of his original claim of Rs. 7,00,000/-.2. The claim petition was filed by the injured claimant alleging that on 23.8.1996 at 2.45 p.m. when he was riding cycle in the junction of Bricklin road and Purasawalkam High Road from north to south, the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation bearing registration No. TN-02-N-0295, driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver of the Transport Corporation Bus, dashed against him and he was thrown five feet away and in the said accident, he sustained grievous injuries and that his cycle was also damaged. Hence the Claimant has filed the claim petition claiming compensation of R...
Services Association of Seventh Day Adventists P. Ltd. Vs. Assistant D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: [2008]298ITR234(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. These appeals are filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the assessee, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'B', Chennai, in I. T. A. Nos. 960 and 961/Mds/2002, dated April, 21, 2006, raising the following common substantial questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in taking cognizance of the fresh grounds in appeal, for making out a new case, for the first time before the Tribunal, totally deviating from the assessment proceedings and the appellate proceedings before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in remitting the entire issue back to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), by considering the fresh grounds raised for the first time totally deviating from the assessment proceedings and the appellate pr...
Adair Dutt and Co. (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Estate Officer and Chief Commis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: [2008]298ITR223(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present civil revision petition is filed against the order dated December 23, 2004, made in C. M. P. No. 2233 of 2004 in C. M. A. No. 168 of 2004 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.2. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. The petitioner is a tenant in the ground floor of the building situated at door Nos. 109 and 110, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. The area occupied by the petitioner is 800 sq. ft. approximately. The landlord of the building entered into an agreement on March 30, 1989, with a third party for sale of the said building for a sum of Rs. 26 lakhs. The appropriate authority constituted under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act ('the Act' in short), initiated proceedings and purchased the building. The appropriate authority ordered the building to be purchased by the Central Government for the sale consideration as shown in the agreement. Later the appropriate authority passed a...
Y-46, Sarel Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd. Rep. by Its Sp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR400]; (2007)IIILLJ221Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent-appellate authority dated October 25, 2004 under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, in having allowed the appeal filed by the second respondent filed under Section 41(2) of the said Act, has filed the present writ petition.2. Heard the arguments of Mr. M.E. Ilango for Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. V. Chellammal, learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned Counsel for the second respondent and have perused the records.3. The second respondent had served as a Secretary to the petitioner/Society. He was dismissed on charges of certain misconduct. Against the said order, he filed an appeal being TNSE 7/2003 before the first respondent/appellate authority. Before going before the authority, he raised a dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'I.D. Act'). Since ...
National Federation of Indian Women Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3385
Dharma Rao Elipe, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to immediately ban publication of photographs and details in the newspapers, journals and magazines of women who are rape victims.2. The petitioner, who is a General Secretary of the National Federation of Indian Women, Tamil Nadu Council, has filed the above said probono publico. It is stated that the above said association is a National Organisation of Women engaged in the service of working for protecting the rights and interests of women and their social upliftment and it is working for the last 48 years. It was started by freedom fighters, Aruna Asaf Ali and Kalpana Dutt. The organisation has taken genuine interest in women and has espoused the cause of many a woman in distress.3. The present writ petition has been filed against the derogatory press publication of photographs and details of a women who are victims of rape in the State of Tamil Nadu. It i...
Cit Vs. Giza Impex P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: [2007]293ITR301(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 17-2-2006, made in I. T. A. Nos. 1363 and 1364/Mds/2002 and 1135 and 1136/Mds/2005 for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1997-98 respectively, raising the following common substantial questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no dispute about the allowability of deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of the transfer/ export of the master copies of the film songs and music along with the rights to make copies and sell cassettes outside India ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating the transfer/export of the master copies of the film songs and music along with the rights to make copies and sell cassettes outside India as a sale of goods or merchandise for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »