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.
Jayalakshmi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary, Public ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: (2007)4MLJ849
P. Jyothimani, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 01.076.2006 made in M.P.No.1 of 2006 in W.P.No.24160 of 2006, dismissing the above said petition, the petitioner has preferred the above writ appeal.2. The Writ Petition No. 24160 of 2006, is filed for Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 8 to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner for the death of her brother and also to direct the second respondent, viz., the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against respondents 3 to 8.3. The case of the petitioner, as seen in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is that she along with her husband and her brother Pandian were living in Vyasarpadi and the said Pandian, who was aged about 18 years, was working as a helper in the vegetable shop belonging to one Ms. Renuka at New Merginpuram at Vyasarpadi. According to the petitioner, her brother Pandian was having the traits o...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Abdul Rahman Sait
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: [2008]306ITR142(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 4.8.2006 made in ITA No. 1306/Mds/2004 passed with reference to the assessment year 1995-96 in favour of the assessee, raising the following substantial questions of law:In the light of the first explanation to Section 147 if the assessee did not truly act by bringing to the notice of the assessing officer the declaration of the value of the property which he has made in the wealth tax return, would not be discovery of the same amount to information afresh and in such circumstances, the assessing officer, whether or not is empowered to reopen the assessment within a period of four years from the end of the assessment year, the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment2.1. The brief facts led to the filing of the above appeal are as under.The assessment for the assessment year 1994-95 was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 30.1.1998. Thereafter, it was observed that the long term ca...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tmt. Chinnapillai and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ711; (2007)6MLJ1216
R. Sudhakar, J.1. One Periyasamy, who was working as a permanent employee in the second respondent Tea Estate died on 1.7.1999. On 1.7.1999, at 10.45 a.m., when Periyasamy was working in the Estate by plucking tea leaves, he developed chest pain and the Supervisor called for an ambulance and Periyasamy was taken to Mudis Garden Group Hospital. When they reached the hospital, the Doctor examined the said Periyasamy and declared that he had died. The wife of the deceased Periyasamy filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour on the above narrated facts stating that her husband was aged about 48 years at the time of death on 1.7.1999, and he had died in the course of employment and due to stress of employment and entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.2. The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company, the appellant herein. The Insurance Company, the second opposite party before the Deputy Commissioner ...
Thirukumara Trading Agency Vs. Sleek Textiles Industries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: [2008]146CompCas4(Mad); [2009]91SCL308(Mad)
S. Rajeswaran, J.1. The petition filed under Sections 433(e), (f) and 434(1)(b) read with Section 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying for a direction to wind up the respondent, to appoint the official liquidator, High Court, Madras, to take charge of the assets of the respondent-company and for costs.2. The petitioner-company is a partnership firm and they have filed a petition to wind up the respondent-company and to appoint the official liquidator to take charge of the assets of the company as the respondent-company failed to pay the admitted sum of Rs. 1,02,460 towards past payment payable by the company for purchasing products from the petitioners.3. The petitioners are carrying on business of selling dyes, chemicals and textiles auxiliaries. In the course of business the petitioners supplied on various dates starting from July 28, 2001 to September 28, 2001, for Rs. 1,64,430 to the respondent under 9 invoices for the purchase orders placed by the respondent. The responde...
Nisha Devi Khetan Vs. the District Collector and the Commercial Tax Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: (2008)12VST112(Mad)
M. Jaichandren, J.1. These second appeals have been filed against the judgments and decrees, dated 27.11.1995, made in A.S.Nos. 161, 162 and 163 of 1994, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Erode, Periyar District, reversing the judgments and decrees, dated 29.09.1994, made in O.S.Nos. 581, 583 and 585 of 1993, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Erode, Periyar District.2. Inasmuch as the issues involved in all these appeals are one and the same, a common order is being passed. The plaintiff in the suits in O.S.Nos. 581, 583 and 585 of 1993 is the appellant in the present second appeals. The suits have been filed by the plaintiff praying to declare the notices, dated 23.03.1993, as illegal and arbitrary, and for a mandatory injunction to direct the second defendant to release the lorries, with the consignment of 145 bags of poppy seeds, along with the relevant records that were seized. 3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the plaintiff, are as follows...
Sreyas Sripal and T.P. Anand Vs. Upasana Finance Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC161
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. Admit. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent, the appeals are taken up for hearing. 2. These appeals are directed against a common order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing Application Nos. 2284, 2285, 2286 and 2287 of 2006 in Execution Petitions Nos. 193 and 194 of 2006. The facts giving rise to these appeals may be briefly stated as follows:The appellants are the judgment debtors/original defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The respondent/decree holder filed a suit in C.S. No. 704 of 1998 and a decree was passed by this Court on 30.01.1999 in terms of a Memorandum of Compromise signed by all the parties. Under the compromise, defendant Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 were to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 95,37, 103/- with further interest @ 33% per annum at monthly rests from the date of compromise i.e., 04.01.1999 till the date of payment. Further, the defendants were permitted to pay the amounts decreed along with interest @33% at monthly...
income Tax Officer (Osd) Vs. Shri Swasan Chemicals (M) Pvt.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: (2008)300ITR171(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Chennai dated 26.3.2005 and pertain to assessment year 2002-03.2. The issue raised in the appeal is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the assessee is engaged in manufacture of specialized polymer alloys in powder form and is entitled to deduction Under Section 80IB of the Act.3. In this case the assessee company is an SSI Unit engaged in manufacturing of plastic powder and claims deduction Under Section 80IB. During the course of assessment Assessing Officer noted that assessee company purchases plastic granules and crushes them to plastic powder which is sold. This, according to the Assessing Officer did not qualify for deduction Under Section 80IB.4. The Assessing Officer reasoned that, there is a difference in "manufacturing" and "processing". The processing is one of the stages of manufacturing activity. 'Manu...
Director (Regional), Department of Light Houses and Lightships Vs. Ran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ755
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 14.11.2006 passed in O.A. No. 653 of 2006. After notice to the first respondent, he appeared in person and contested this writ petition.2. We heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the first respondent (Party-in-person).3. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that the first respondent who was employed as a Senior Radio Technician underwent sterilization operation in the year 1990. As per the Rules prevailing in the petitioner Organisation, the first respondent was entitled to payment of special allowance in the form of grant of special increment which was treated as personal pay. Such special allowance was granted under Paragraph 11 of FR 27 which provided that the rate of Personal Pay would be equal to the amount of the next increment due at the time of grant of the concession and the same would remain fixed during the e...
Subburam Vs. Rajendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC666; 2008CriLJ760
ORDERT. Sudanthiram, J.1. Petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings pending against him in C.C. No. 253 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Virudhunagar.2. The respondent herein has filed a private complaint against the petitioner for an alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was taken to police station and by way of threat, coercion and intimidation by police, the petitioner issued post dated cheques in favour of the respondent herein and other six persons. The petitioner was forced to issue the cheque not for his liability towards the respondent, but to satisfy the respondent who had given complaint against the brother of the petitioner for cheating. As the cheque was not issued to discharge any legally enforceable debt or liability, the complaint is not maintainable.4. The learned Counsel for the respondent was heard. It was submitted that as the petitioner s...
Mariammal and ors. Vs. Angaiyarkanni and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ859
S. Palanivelu, J.1. Claimants have filed this appeal against the disallowed portion of the award dated 7.11.2000, made in M.A.C.T. O.P. No. 1 of 1997, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras in awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,83,220, as against the claim of Rs. 5,00,000, for the death of one Ganesan.2. Claimants are wife, mother, father and son of the deceased.3. On 5.1.1996 at about 1300 hours, when the deceased Ganesan was walking along the N.S.C. Bose Road, a bus bearing registration No. TME 145, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said Ganesan, as a result of which he died on the spot. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the bus, which is insured with respondent No. 2.4. 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 respondent No. 2, who is the insurer of respondent No. 1.5. No appea...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »