Chennai Court January 2008 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.
Visalakshi Vs. the Official Liquidator, High Court and the Official Li ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: [2008]141CompCas661(Mad); (2008)7MLJ435
M. Venugopal, J.1. The O.S.A. No. 263 of 2002 is preferred by the appellant/applicant/respondent as against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.07.2001 in C.A. No. 510 of 1999 in C.P. No. 88 of 1989.2. The appellant/applicant/respondent has filed an Application C.A. No. 510 of 1999 in C.P. No. 88 of 1999 praying for a relief to set aside the decree for a sum of Rs. 13,640/- with future interest passed in C.A. No. 1494 of 1993 in C.P. No. 88 of 1989 dated 14.06.1997.3. The learned single Judge has passed an order in C.A. No. 510 of 1999 dated 16.07.2001 in dismissing the said application. The learned single Judge has come to the conclusion that, the Official Liquidator has also filed an affidavit of proof of service where, there is an acknowledgment card which shows that notice has been served. The learned Judge who heard the matter has recorded a finding that, 'the sole respondent has been served. In view of the factual finding recorded on 14.06.1997, that the sole r...
S.V. Subramaniam Vs. Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Private Li ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ169
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. As all these appeals have been preferred by the common appellant (S.V. Subramaniam) (who is the fourth defendant in the suit in C.S. No. 517 of 2007) against the common order dated 17.7.2007 passed in Application Nos. 4144, 4145 and 4349 of 2007 and O.A. No. 729 of 2007 in C.S. No. 517 of 2007, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The suit in C.S. No. 517 of 2007 was preferred by the plaintiff (the first respondent herein) for the following relief:(a) Declaration that order dated 10.8.2006 modified by order dated 30.8.2006 and 31.8.2006 in I.A. No. 336 of 2006 in T.A. No. 1 of 2004 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-2, Chennai, is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff's property described in Schedule A.(b) Declaration that Sale Certificate No. 53 of 2006, dated 31.8.2006 issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-2, Chennai, is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff's property described in Schedule A and(c) Permanent i...
Rangaraj and ors. Vs. P.R. Hemachandra Babu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ1031
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The appellants, (appellants 1 to 3 being represented by their Power of Attorney Agent), who are the defendants 1,3,4 and 9 to 13 in the suit, have preferred this appeal against the order dated 5.3.2007 passed in Application No. 3932 of 2006 in C.S. No. 586 of 2006 on the Original Side of this Court.By the said order, the learned single Judge, while dismissing Application No. 2828 of 2006 preferred by the plaintiff (the respondent herein) to stay the operation of all further proceedings, rejected the Application No. 3932 of 2006 preferred by the defendants 1,3,4 and 9 to 13 to (the appellants herein) dismiss the entirety of the proceedings in C.S. No. 586 of 2006 as being barred by 'res-judicata' under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), read with Section 12 CPC, as also on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation.2. The contesting respondent who was the plaintiff, preferred the suit C.S. No. 586 of 2006 on the Original Side of thi...
Rajalakshmi Genguswamy Matriculation School Vs. Regional Transport Aut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Mad178
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner has sought a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to accept the surrender of permit of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TNF-3885 and for further orders.2. Brief facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows:Rajalakshmi Genguswamy Matriculation School, represented by its Correspondent is the petitioner. It has established schools of all levels throughout the State from Primary to College levels. The School owns a vehicle bearing Registration No. TNF-3885 with valid permit bearing No. P.S.V.P.: 81 /PDY/ 01, for transportation of students studying in the said school and the permit is valid from 24-8-3001 to 23-8-2006. The petitioner has submitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu issued an amendment to the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (Act 13/2003), increasing the rate of tax by 15 times more than the original tax in respect of the vehicle owned by the Educational Institutions, with effect from 1-8-2003. The Association of the Tamil Nadu...
M. Rajendra Naidu Vs. Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: [2008]144CompCas243(Mad); [2009]93SCL11(Mad)
S. Rajeswaran, J.1. C.A. No. 1899 of 2007 has been filed to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the third respondent, her men, agents and nominees from in any manner dealing with the property more-fully described in the judge's summons.2. C.A. No. 1900 of 2007 has been filed to set aside the sale of the property conveyed under the sale deed dated December 27, 2006, registered as Document No. 91 of 2007 on the files of Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Renigunta, morefully described in the schedule annexed to the judge's summons.3. C.A. No. 2284 of 2007 has been filed to implead the petitioner as respondent in C.A. No. 1899 of 2007 in C.P. No. 140 of 2005.4. C.A. No. 2285 of 2007 has been filed to implead the petitioner as respondents in C.A. No. 1900 of 2007 in C.P. No. 140 of 2005.5. C.A. No. 2286 of 2007 has been filed to grant an ad interim injunction restraining respondents Nos. 2 to 5 herein their men, servants, agents, nominee, assignees or any one claiming through or und...
R.P. Chinnamani Nadar Vs. L. Thomas Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ390
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In these two appeals, the plaintiff/appellant has challenged common order dated 5th Nov., 2004, by which applications for temporary injunction and for furnishing security were rejected by learned Judge.2. Plaintiff/appellant has preferred the suit in question, C.S. No. 479/03 directing the defendant/respondent to pay plaintiff a sum of Rs. 30,81,500/- together with further interest on Rs. 20 lakhs at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation apart from cost of the suit. In the said suit, O.A. No. 619/03 was preferred by plaintiff/appellant for interim injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from alienating the property measuring 61 cents situate in No. 15, Vadakarai Village, Saidapet Taluk and another application No. 2911/03 was also filed by plaintiff/appellant for furnishing security to the tune of Rs. 35 lakhs failing which to attach property measuring 61 cents in No. 15, Vadakarai Village, Saidapet Taluk. Both the...
Tamil Nadu Vatta Kooturavu Veetu Vasathi SangangalIn Anaithu Paniyalar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ385; 2008(2)LLN236
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. In all these appeals, the issue relates to the validity of the impugned orders passed by the first respondent, dated 12.3.1999 and 8.4.1999 in and by which the first respondent directed the respective third respondents to cancel the 18(1) settlement based on which higher scales of pay was fixed and paid to the members of the appellants and also to recover such payments already made.2. Before the learned single Judge, the appellants relied upon the earlier Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1992 1 LLJ 747 (Thiruchirapalli Hiruthayapuram Co-op. Bank Employees Union Etc. v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Thiruchirapalli etc.) The learned single Judge, however, held that the issue was really covered by the order dated, 1.10.2007 passed in W.P. No. 6189 of 2005 etc. The learned single Judge chose to rely upon the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in JT 2007 (2) SC S66 (Ghaziabad Zilla Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Additional ...
Tvl. Suganthi Educational Trust Vs. the Regional Transport Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ807
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner has sought for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent dated 22.07.2002 made in R. No. D3/27639/2002 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to collect tax under item 8(a) of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles in so far as the petitioner is concerned.2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:The petitioner trust has established an Engineering College under the name and style of G.K.M. College of Engineering and Technology, Thiruvenjeri Village, Mopperi Road, Chennai-78 and they have acquired a fleet of eight buses and applied for necessary permits for the vehicles for the use of the college students and staff. The term 'Education Institution Bus' is defined under Section 2(11) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the object of the said definition is, that the vehicles should be used solely for the purpose of transporting their students and staff in connection with its ...
Dr. S. Rajamony Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Mad)604; [2008]300ITR128(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeal is filed against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench dated September 15, 2006, in I.T.(SS) A. No. 180 (Mds)/2004 for the block assessment period from April 1, 1995, to March 28, 2002.2. The appellant is a Government doctor specialized in varma treatment. There was a search in the premises of the appellant on March 28, 2002. During the course of search, cash in a sum of Rs. 13,34,210, fixed deposits in various banks, jewellery and loose sheets containing information regarding construction expenses were found. A sum of Rs. 13,00,000 was seized. Notice under Section 158BC dated March 6, 2003, was served on the appellant on July 15, 2003. The appellant had filed a return in Form No. 2B on August 14, 2003, admitting an undisclosed income of Rs. 4,31,797. The assessment was completed under Section 158BC read with Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on March 30, 2004, on a total undisclosed income of Rs. 42,05,370 by ma...
Preeti Tex Vs. the Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)304ITR266(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04 is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Coimbatore dated 19th February, 2007.2. The facts relevant are that the assessee is a firm and it is in the business of export of fabrics, yarn, garments, rice, etc. On scrutiny, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment whereby the claim of the bad debt was rejected The Assessing Officer noted that a sum of Rs. 14,36,775/- was written off by the assessee as bad debts during the year under appeal before us The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, therefore, she came to the conclusion that there were no bad debts at all. The Assessing Officer went further and observed that these amounts could have been claimed by the assessee as trading loss for the year ending with 31 3.96 and not for the period relevant to the assessment year 2003-04 which is under appeal before us.3. On appeal to the ld. CIT(A), it is cont...