Chennai Court July 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.
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nagarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ913; (2008)1MLJ430
S. Palanivelu, J.1. Insurance Company has filed this appeal, aggrieved over the award of Rs. 1,50,000/-, Rs. 2,85,000/- and Rs. 3,50,000/-, made in MACT O.P. No. 324,325 and 329 of 1996, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court, Tiruppur, for the injuries sustained by first respondents/claimants.2. One of the claimants, namely, Shanmugasundaram lodged an FIR with the police, stating that on 20.01.1996, at about 11.00 p.m., while he was going by his motorcycle, bearing registration No. TN 38 2434, along with his colleagues Ponnuchamy and Nagarajan near Karuperumal Temple in Jallipatti, a lorry, bearing registration No. TN 41 Y 1444, came from the opposite direction and on seeing the lorry approaching in a hectic speed, he stopped the motorcycle, but the lorry dashed against the motorcycle, causing injuries to the trio.3. Before the Tribunal, in the counter filed by the appellant, it was pleaded that the driver of the lorry was not negligent, whereas the person, who was d...
Lason India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Vs. the Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: (2008)301ITR306(Chennai)
1. In this appeal assessee has raised various grounds but at the time of hearing learned counsel of the assessee submitted that the only issue involved was regarding set off of losses against the balance of income against which deduction under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is allowed.2. After hearing both the parties, we find that assessee is engaged in the business of providing software services and had clamed deduction under Section 10B to the extent of 90% of the profits from the undertaking which was eligible for deduction under Section 10B. Against the balance profits assessee had claimed set off of losses from earlier years amounting to Rs. 34,16,275/-. In response to the query, why losses pertaining to assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000 should be allowed to be set off against the balance income, it was submitted before the AO as under: In the A.Y. 2003-04, we were eligible to claim 10B deduction for 90% of the eligible income and the balance 10% became taxable as ...
Venkatesan Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4593
ORDERS. Tamilvanan, J.1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment, dated 27.01.2005, made in C.A.No. 427 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge / FTC II, Chennai, whereby the conviction and sentence imposed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, dated 14.10.2004 in C.C.No. 10140 of 2001 has been confirmed.2. Ms. S. Shanthi, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that though there is a concurrent finding, the guilt against the revision petitioner has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. According to her, the evidence is not sufficient to hold that the driver of the lorry, bearing Registration No. TNE 7484 was driven on 27.04.2001, at 11.45 a.m. in a rash and negligent manner and caused motor accident, whereby the deceased sustained multiple injuries.3. Per contra, Mr. R. Muniyappa Raj, the learned Government Advocate (crl. side) drew the attention of this Court to the evidence of the eye witnesses and also corresponding...
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Rural Dev ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ36
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu against the judgment dated 24th Nov., 2004, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 15347/97. By the aforesaid judgment, learned single Judge, while allowed the writ petition, declared Rule 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997, made under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, as illegal and unconstitutional.The appellant has assailed the judgment mainly on the ground that the learned single Judge failed to consider the mandate of Constitution empowering the Panchayat under Part IX of the Constitution and the rule has been declared ultra vires on mere presumption that the delegation of power to the 'Head of the Panchayat' is excessive and uncalled for.2. Inspite of service of notice, the contesting respondent/writ petitioner has not appeared to oppose the appeal.3. For determination of the issue, it is necessary to discuss relevant background of the rules, including Rule 2(e), as no...
Fdc Limited and ors. Vs. Sanjeev Khandelwal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: LC2007(3)139; 2007(35)PTC436(Mad)
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the defendants against the fair and decretal order dated 26.3.2007 made in I.A. No. 141 of 2007 in O.S. No. 70 of 2007 by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, granting ex parte ad-interim injunction, pending disposal of the suit, restraining the defendants from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs/respondents Patent No: 197822.2. In all, seven CRPs have been filed, of which five relate to the infringement of Patent and two relate to the infringement of Trade Mark. In CRP Nos. 1188, 1189, 1226, 1454 and 1546 of 2007, Mr. Sanjeev Khandelwal is arrayed as the firs respondent and in CRP.Nos:1190 and 1227 of 2007, Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt., Ltd., is arrayed as the firs respondent. The Registration of Patents stands in the name of Mr. Sanjeev Khandelwal and the Registration of Trade Mark stands in the name of Khandelwal laboratories Pvt., Ltd., and as such there is no conflict in interests between the f...
N. Boraiah Vs. Pandurangan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC650
M. Jaichandren, J.1. The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 23.4.1996, passed in A.S. No. 52 of 1995, on the file of the Subordinate Court, at Ootacamund, The Nilgiris District confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.11.1994, passed in O.S. No. 515 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif Court at Ootacamund, The Nilgiris District.2. The plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 515 of 1991, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff had filed the Suit before the District Munsif Court at Ootacamund, The Nilgiris District, praying for the reliefs of declaration, mandatory injunction and for permanent injunction.3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the plaintiff, are as follows:The plaintiff is the owner of the building named as Reliance Building, measuring 0.18-6/16 acres in R.S. No. 1752. The plaintiff had demolished some of the buildings which had been there and had constructed the said building in the property. The eastern bound...
N. Boriah Vs. the Nilgiri Co-operative Printing Press by Its Special O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Mad69; 2008(1)CTC137; (2008)1MLJ1114
M. Jaichandren, J.1. The Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 9.7.1993, made in A.S. No. 28 of 1989, on the file of the District Court, The Nilgiris, at Ootacamund, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 3.8.1989, made in O.S. No. 54 of 1986, on the file of the District Munsif Court, The Nilgiris at Ootacamund. 2. The plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 54 of 1986, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff had filed the suit before the District Munsif Court, The Nilgiris District, at Ootacamund, praying for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction.3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the plaintiff, are as follows:The plaintiff and his brothers are the owners of the land and building in R.S. No. 1752 measuring 18-3/8. The plaintiff and his brothers had purchased the said property in the year, 1966, and when they purchased the said property, there were buildings on it some of which were over one hundred years old. The pla...
Bharath Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: (2009)26VST646(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated December 19, 2006 and subsequently for a direction to refund entry tax collected to the petitioner paid by them as per the petitioner's representation dated June 29, 2007.2. The petitioners are manufacturers of mild steel rods, angles, channels, bars, flats and squares at Salem and assessee on the files of the Commercial Tax Officer, Shevapet (North) Circle, Salem.3. The petitioner caused entry of goods such as M.S. Ingots from other States for the purpose of use in the manufacturing activities and therefore, it would come under the expression 'importer' as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act. Subsequent to the notification of the State Government dated March 27, 2002, the petitioner was made liable to pay entry tax. The respondent in his proceedings in TNGST No. 2740155/2002-03 (entry tax) dated December 19, 2006 determined the purchase price of M.S. Ingots at Rs. 3,98,...
The Management of Indian Airlines Limited Vs. S.M.K. Khan and the Pres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1284
S. Palanivelu, J.1. This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant management, aggrieved over the allowing of the Writ Petition, filed by the first respondent workman, challenging the order of compulsory retirement passed against him.2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:2.1. First respondent joined the service under the appellant management as a Security Guard on 12.09.1966. When he was to attain the age of 55 years, his case came up for review before the Regional Director (South). The said superior officer issued a Memo, dated 11.05.1998, to first respondent, stating that his retention in service beyond the age of 55 years required a perusal of his past records and on examination of the previous service particulars, he proposed to retire the first respondent from the service of Indian Airlines Limited, in terms and Service Regulation 12, with effect from 10.08.1998 (close of work). 2.2. The grounds adduced in the memo are, despite various warnings and punishments, the incumbent...
S. Sivaparamam, Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary, Rev ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1279
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petition is filed for declaration that the land comprised in Survey Nos. 649/18, 649/19, 649/25 bearing Plot Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 28, 31 and 32 measuring 17,790 sq.ft. situated at V.O.C. Nagar of Velachery Village, Chennai belonging to the petitioners does not attract the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 or Section 3(1)(a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.2. The case of the petitioners is that under various documents they have acquired title in respect of the abovesaid properties and the purchases were made in the year 1985 and independent pattas were given and they have been in absolute possession. The petitioners have approached the 4th respondent-Tahsildar on 29.3.2006 for inclusion of their lands in Town Survey Register by issuing new patta. In spite of the fact that the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 which came into effect in 1978 has lost its legal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »