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.
T. Jayabharathy Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2007
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Mad)223; 2007(218)ELT509(Mad); [2007]294ITR128(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The substantial questions of law formulated for consideration in this appeal are as follows:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the additions pertaining to the balances in the Indian Bank?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case he Tribunal is right in law in not having posted the appeal for hearing and giving the appellant due notice of the same subsequent to the hearing of the miscellaneous petition filed by the appellant?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in passing the impugned order on the merits of the case in gross violation of the principles of natural justice?2. The appellant/assessee filed an application in IT (SS) No. 23 (MDS)/1996 under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the block assessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97 which has been heard and decided by the Tribunal on 21.09.2004. The same is put i...
Shanti Films Rep. by Its Proprietor K. Rajamanickam and R. Kavitha, Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2007
Reported in: LC2007(3)243
M. Jeyapaul, J.1. C.S. No. 305 of 1997 has been filed by M/s. Shanti Films(i) for declaration that the plaintiff is the limited copyright owner of the 16mm Video and Television rights of the three Tamil pictures titled 'Nadodi Mannan', Adimaippenn' and 'Ulagam Sutrum Valiban' for a period of twenty years from 13.12.1990; and(ii) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their agents, servants, men or anybody claiming through or under them from in any way infringing the copyright of the plaintiff by dealing with, or attempting to deal with the 16mm Video and TV rights of the said three Tamil Pictures, viz., 'Nadodi Mannan', 'Adimaippenn' and 'Ulagam Sutrum Valiban' in any manner whatsoever either by delivering the prints of the said pictures for 16mm Video and Television, etc.2. C.S. No. 173 of 1999 has been filed by R. Kavitha of M/s. Karpagam Circuiti) for a declaration that the plaintiff is the sole, absolute and exclusive owner of the copyrights namely the negative right...
P. Soundarya Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2007
Reported in: [2008]300ITR70(Mad)
S. Manikumar, J.1. The writ petition is for a certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the second respondent dated December 20, 2006, as communicated by the first respondent by order dated February 1, 2007 in EOCC No. 36/1984, and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner for compounding or withdrawal of the offences under the Indian Penal Code in the light of the spirit behind the orders of the Supreme Court dated October 9, 2006, in Criminal M.P. No. 10302 of 2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 969 of 2000 and the order of this Court dated April 21, 2006, in W.P. No. 11191 of 2006 and for further orders.2. Brief facts leading to the writ petition are as follows:The petitioner had filed an application under Section 230A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on May 12, 1983, for issue of a certificate in her favour for settling the property bearing Door No. 20, First Cross Street, Lake Area, Nun...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.G. Granites (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2007
Reported in: [2009]311ITR170(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeal is filed raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in holding that deduction under Section 10B as well as under Section 80HHC could not be rectified under Section 154 ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in holding that rectification order under Section 154 was not proper especially when the audit had raised an objection that the interest income of Rs. 2,14,457/- was to be brought to tax under the head 'income from other sources' ?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in not considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals v. CIT reported in : [2003]262ITR278(SC) , wherein it was held that the interest income has to be considered as income from other sources and that of the Punjab and Haryana Full Bench ...
7th Channel Communications, by Its Proprietor Vs. Roja Combines, Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC609; 2007(35)PTC938(Mad)
R. Banumathi, J.1. Telugu Version rights of Tamil Version 'Vettaiyadu Vilayadu' is the subject matter of these appeals arising out of common order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.04.2007.2. Entanglement in litigation by persons who claim to have advanced monies to the first Defendant - M/s.Roja Combines led to the filing of four suits. The Interlocutory Applications were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common order. All the appeals arise out of common order and since common points arise for consideration, all the Appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment. For convenience, parties are referred in their original rank in C.S.No.168/2006, which is a comprehensive suit.3. Brief facts in a nutshell are as follows:The first Defendant - M/s.Roja Combines is the Producer and absolute owner of Tamil Colour Film titled 'Vettaiyadu Vilayadu' [hereinafter referred as 'suit film'] starring Kamalhassan and Ors., directed by Goutham and music by Harris Jeyar...
Sheriff E. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation, Divisio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: (2008)IILLJ565Mad
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above writ petition are as follows:The Writ Petitioner who was working as a conductor with the respondent Corporation lost his right leg in an accident which occurred on December 25, 1990 while he was on duty. On account of the said accident, the petitioner was no more in a position to perform his duty as conductor. But, however he joined duty on November 1, 1991 after getting a fitness certificate to resume work. But, he was not able to perform his job as conductor. Hence, he was given light work as Reservation Counter Clerk/Time Keeper. As there was no need for the petitioner to stand or walk to discharge the duties of the Reservation Counter Clerk/Time Keeper, he was working as Reservation Counter Clerk/Time Keeper satisfactorily. While so, the petitioner was abruptly denied employment from February 19,1997, by an oral order of the Branch Manager of the Marthandam Depot. He was informed that he would not b...
Uma Maheswari, Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ369
S. Palanivelu, J.1. Claimants, who are wife, son and mother of the deceased, have filed this appeal, not satisfied with the award, made in M.C.O.P.No.279 of 1999, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Mettur, in awarding a compensation of Rs.2,15,000/-, as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, for the death of one Sivan.3. On 18.01.1996, at about 14.45 hours, when the deceased was going by his Rajdoot motorcycle bearing registration No.TAN-5423 at Chinnathanda, near Iyyampudur, Sellappa Gounder Garden, a bus, belonging to the respondent Corporation, dashed against him, causing serious injuries, and he was removed to Mettur Government Hospital, where he died.4. The Tribunal factually found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and, therefore, compensation has to be paid by the respondent.5. No appeal is filed by the respondent against the said finding of the Tribunal and, hence, the award has become final.6. Learned Coun...
Malai Murasu Owned and Managed by Chennai Publications Rep. by Its Dir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ10
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. A challenge is made to the judgment of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, made in RCA No. 103 of 2006, whereby the order of eviction made in RCOP No. 1467 of 1995 on the ground of willful default and subletting was affirmed.2. The court heard the learned Counsel on either side. The respondents 1 and 2/the landlords made a petition for eviction on the ground that the first respondent therein was the tenant in respect of the petition mentioned premises from 1979 paying a monthly rental of Rs. 1150/- excluding electricity and other charges, for non residential purpose; that the first respondent has sublet the premises under the occupation to the second respondent; that the second respondent was running a printing press and also have their administrative office at the petition premises; that the first respondent have parted with the possession to the second respondent and the said subletting has been take...
Dr. K. Santhosh Kumar Vs. the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTLJ488(Mad); (2008)1MLJ240
P.R. Shivakumar, J.1. This writ appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful writ petitioner putting in issue the correctness of the order dated 26.06.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant in W.P. No. 3369 of 2006.2. The appellant herein/writ petitioner had filed the said writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 5 from appointing any one other than the petitioner (who is holding Letter of Indent dated 19.09.2005), as the Retail Outlet dealer of Indian Oil Corporation, Madurai City - I which is reserved for scheduled castes under notification dated 21.12.2003 and pass such further or other suitable order or orders, as the Court may deem fit.3. For conveniently dealing with the issue/issues involved in this writ appeal, the facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal can be stated thus:(i) Respondent No. 1 is the Indian Oil Corporation and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the officials of the ...
S. Leelavathy Vs. K.M. Subramaniam (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC72
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. This appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Erode, in O.S. No. 285 of 1990 dated 17.02.1995, in decreeing the suit for recovery of possession, past and future damages for use and occupation of the property at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month. Defendant is the appellant. The claim made by the plaintiff was at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month and as the decree was passed only for Rs. 800/- per month, there is a Cross Objection filed by the plaintiff.2. The subject matter of the suit was described in the plaint as 'B' schedule and by reading the plaint, one may understand that it is a property described in Ex.A-1 lease deed dated 18.04.1979. That was the lease deed in between the parties in respect of 90 cents of vacant land out of total extent one acre and add. The respondent/ plaintiff is admittedly the owner. The appellant/defendant is the lessee under Ex.A1. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 400/- per m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »