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.
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. L. Sunderarajan and S. Muthu Pand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2863
S. Palanivelu, J.1. Insurance Company has filed this appeal, aggrieved over the award, made in MACT O.P.No. 2219 of 1998, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, awarding a sum of Rs. 30,300/-., for the injuries sustained by first respondent.2. When this matter came up for hearing on two occasions, there was no representation for the respondents. Hence, the matter was directed to be posted today for orders.3. Claimant, first respondent herein, lodged a complaint with regard to the accident. He had stated therein that on 17.10.1997 at about 08.15 a.m., while he was going on a Sunny scooter, bearing registration No. TN 09 X 7209 with his daughter-in-law as a pillion rider along M.M.D.A. Colony in Arumbakkam, a van, bearing registration No. TSL 3507, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed against the said two wheeler, causing injuries to the duo.4. As far as the negligence on the part of the driver...
S. Narasiman S/O. Sankaraiah Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ15
P.K. Misra, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, namely, the State of Tamil Nadu and the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions, Anna University, to delete the names of the students who have already applied for and got admission to a professional course in the previous academic year and have now applied for admission to Engineering courses 2007-2008 and students who have written the Higher Secondary Course examination prior to 2006-2007 from the ranking list for admission to Engineering courses for the academic year 2007-2008 and consequently to revise the ranking list for admission to Engineering courses for the academic year 2007-2008.2. Admission to Professional Courses such as Medicine, Engineering, Dental, Agriculture, etc., were hitherto being effected on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination i.e., Plus 2 or Higher Secondary Course and Common Entrance T...
Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions, Rep. by Its Partner Cum Power of At ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR261(Madras); 2007(5)CTC17; (2007)5MLJ257
R. Banumathi, J.1. These intra-Court Appeals are preferred against the common order made in O.P. Nos. 446/2002 and 78/2003, dismissing the original Petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.2. Both the appeals arise out of common order. Since common points fall for consideration, both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. For convenience, M/s. Sree Amman Constructions is referred as Claimant/Contractor and the Railway Administration/Department is referred as 'Railway'.3. Brief facts which led to the arbitration are as follows:The Southern Railways called for tenders on 01.06.1995 in respect of the work 'JTJ-ED Section : contractor 12.54 Kms. CTR of Exg.90R/52 kg. Railways laid on CST.9/Wooden sleepers to 11.7 density with now 60 Kg/52 Kg. Rails on PSC Sleepers with elastic fastening between Km.219/31-231/3- U/L with PQRS equipment'. Contractor submitted its quotation for the above said work and the same was accepted by t...
Dharmaraj Vs. Rajalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ866
ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. The petitioner who is the 10th defendant in O.S. No. 680 of 2005, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai, has come forward with this revision challenging the order dated 07.03.2005 made in I.A. No. 189 of 2004. The respondent is the plaintiff.2. The suit is for partition filed by the respondent. In the written statement, the 10th defendant has taken a stand that the suit properties are not available for partition, in view of a registered Will said to have been executed by one P. Kailasam Pillai in favour of him on 05.06.1995.3. During the trial, in order to prove the said Will, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 189 of 2004, to examine the attesting witnesses. But, unfortunately, the summon sent to those witnesses had been returned with the endorsement that they have gone to Mumbai. Therefore, making a statement that the attesting witnesses are not found, the petitioner wanted to examine the other persons who have got acquaintance with the handw...
C. Augustine Jacob Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Its Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC210
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent published in Gazzette of India (Extraordinary) Under Section 3A in No. 156 dated 21.02.2006 and the consequent notification published in the Gazzette of India (Extraordinary) Under Section 3D(1) in No. 1249 dated 18.10.2006 and quash the same as illegal.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:The petitioner is the owner of the land to an extent of 2600 sq.ft., comprised in Survey No. 769/1A1C part, 769/1A4B in New No. 84, Old No. 61, 2nd Main Road, Sri Balaji Nagar, Chennai - 600 053. The land acquisition proceedings were originally initiated in the year 1988 for formation of bye-pass road connecting NH4 and NH5, in which the petitioner's land was not included but the same was given up and fresh notification was published in newspaper on 21.02.2006 for acquisition of the petitioner's lands also, the petitioner has sent hi...
Pyramid Films International Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Mad)545; [2008]296ITR134(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessee, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'A', Madras in IT(SS)A No. 52(Mds)/2002 dated 09.06.2003. On 03.02.2004, this Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the addition of Rs. 34.25 lakhs not received by the appellant as the income of the appellant for the block period 1.4.1987 to 17.3.1997?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal having accepted the fact that the sum of Rs. 34.25 lakhs was not received by the appellant, is justified in holding that the said sum represents the appellant's income?2. The facts leading to the above substantial questions of law are as under:The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the production of feature films. There was a search ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: [2009]311ITR165(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Tax Case Appeal No. 752 of 2007 is filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench dated 16.11.2005 made in I.T.A. No. 1556/Mds/98. The relevant assessment year is 1994-95. The following substantial questions of law are formulated:1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to account for only the 'additional finance charges' on a cash basis, while it is otherwise following a mercantile system of accounting and also accounting for the very same transaction on a mercantile basis under Company Law 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee may be permitted to follow a mercantile system of accounting with respect to Company Law and a hybrid system of accounting with respect to Income Tax 2. The facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows:The assessee is a non-banking financial company. ...
Rajamanickam Vs. Ramayi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC719; (2007)6MLJ543
M. Jaichandren, J.1. The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 1.7.1996, made in A.S.No. 5 of 1996, on the file of the Sub-Court, Bhavani, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 27.3.1985, made in O.S. No. 1 of 1988, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Bhavani.2. The defendant in the suit O.S. No. 1 of 1988, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S. No. 1 of 1988, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Bhavani, praying for a decree of declaration of title, possession and for past and future mesne profits.3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the plaintiff, are as follows:The plaintiff is the daughter of one Nadupalaniammal. On 8.3.1956, the said Nadupalaniammal had purchased the suit properties from one Chinnapalaniammal. On 19.4.1973, the plaintiff's mother, Nadupalaniammal, had executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant had entered into possession of the...
Dinakaran Vs. Venkaesan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC77; (2007)6MLJ825
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The above Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 4.1.2005 made in I.A.No.258 of 2004 in O.S.No:152 of 2000 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Arni, dismissing the I.A., filed by the plaintiff under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC to reject the Koorchit dated 19.5.1997, sought to be marked by the respondents/defendants on the ground that it is an unregistered document.2. The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule properties into 4 equal shares and to allot one share to him. The respondents are contesting the suit. It is the case of the respondents that their father died in the year 1994, after his death they entered into an understanding about the sharing of the joint family properties on 7.6.1996, thereafter to give effect to the understanding reached, they entered into a family arrangement (Kootchit) on 19.5.1997 with regard to the suit schedule properties. In continuation of understanding reache...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M. Abdul Kareem
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: [2009]311ITR162(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, C Bench, Chennai dated 30.12.2005 made in I.T.A. No. 776/Mds/2004 for the assessment year 2001-02. The substantial question of law formulated for entertainment of the appeal is as follows:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is eligible to claim simultaneous benefit under Section 10(10C) as well as Section 89(1) in respect of the compensation received under the voluntary retirement scheme ?2. The issue relates to the assessment year 2001-2002. The assessee was an employee of Canara Bank. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2001-2002, the assessee retired from service from the Bank under the voluntary retirement scheme. On retirement, the assessee received from the employer bank several retirement dues including exgratia. The exgratia had been worked out by the employer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »