Chennai Court August 2008 Judgments

The Senior Divisional Manager, M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chen ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. 1. The appellant is the 1st opposite party and the 1st respondent is the complainant. The 2nd respondent is the 2nd opposite party. 2. The complaint is filed under the following circumstances: The complainant got himself insured with the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party under Group Mediclaim Policy for the period from 1.10.1993 to 30.9.1994. Thereafter, the complainant has renewed the said policy every year alongwith other members of his family from the year 1994 onwards. On 23.9.01, the complainant has suffered severe breathlessness and was admitted in Goa Medical College Hospital immediately for treatment. After initial treatment, he was discharged from the said hospital and he continued his treatment in Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai, with effect from 26.9.01, during which date he was admitted. He was under the treatment of Dr.Z.F. Udwadia, Consultant Chest Physician, who has diagnosed him to be suffering from Obstructive Sleep Apnea (herein after ...

Apollo Hospitals Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director, Chennai and Anot ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The petitioner is the opposite party and the respondent herein is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. This Revision Petition is filed as against the order passed by the District Forum in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner wherein the relief is claimed to dismiss the complaint as barred by limitation. 3. The complaint is filed by the respondent herein by contending that he has met with an accident on 6.6.1993 and admitted in the hospital at Vellore and later on continued treatment w.e.f 28.8.94 in the hospital of the opposite party / petitioner herein. According to the complainant, an operation was performed by the 2nd opposite party on 16.9.94 and he was discharged 24.9.94 and subsequently he underwent total elbow joint replacement on 07.10.1995. Subsequently he underwent routine checkup and approached the 2nd opposite party once again for certain compliance and finally on 3.2.98 he had the removal of elbow implants and excis...

Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income- ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Mad)335; [2008]305ITR339(Mad); [2009]178TAXMAN409(Mad)

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Though the miscellaneous petition is listed for disposal, by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, writ appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. The appellant-M/s. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') preferred Writ Petition in W.P. No. 27780 of 2007, Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT : [2008]302ITR275(Mad) challenging the notice dated March 27, 2007, issued by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle VI(4), Chennai-34, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), whereby, the second respondent decided to assess/reassess the income/recompute the loss/depreciation allowance for the assessment year 2000-01, on the ground that the income of the company which was assessed as being chargeable to tax, escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').3. Having upheld the said notice dated Ma...

Settu Asari and ors. Vs. Saravanan and Balasubramanian

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ142

M. Venugopal, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants/respondents/plaintiffs as against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.04.2003 passed in A.S. No. 57 of 1996 by the first appellate authority viz., II Additional Sub Judge, Trichirapalli in setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 25.06.1996 passed in O.S. No. 1200 of 1987 by the II Additional District Munsif Court, Trichirapalli and remanding the matter for fresh trial to the lower Court.2. The appellants/respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit O.S. No. 1200 of 1987 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Trichirapalli praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants their, men, agents and servants etc. From in any way interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and after contest, on examination of oral and documentary evidence, the appellants/respondents/plaintiffs were granted the decree for the relief of permanent injunction ...

S and S Industries and Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]145CompCas689(Mad)

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. By consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the writ appeal is taken up for hearing.2. The appellant-S and S Industries and Enterprises Ltd., preferred the writ petition in question, for a declaration that no proceedings for recovery of money or non-re-payment of trade or other dues and no order for payment or for enforcement of any security or guarantee against the appellant-company and its directors and officers, shall lie without prior consent of the BIFR, New Delhi.3. The aforesaid prayer was made mainly on the ground that the appellant-company is a sick company, its revival is pending before the BIFR and no proceedings would lie against the appellant-company and its directors and officers, in view of the bar under the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-company (writ petitioner) accepted that Section 22 of the said Act, may apply to the pr...

Sethuraman G. Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ374Mad

ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.2. The petitioner has stated that he had joined the service of the second respondent, on February 20, 1988, as a 'Hand Receipt Employee.' Initially he was asked to do the work of a sweeper/attender. He was also discharging the duty of a chowkidar and he was also doing the work of taking duplicate copies, ammonia prints, xerox, etc in the new International Passenger Terminal and in the construction of remote parking bays and heavy shed in the cargo complex. Thus, the petitioner had gained sufficient work experience and as such he has been carrying on his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors. However, the second respondent has been keeping the petitioner only as a temporary employee, in spite of his continuous employment, since February 20, 1988, without any break. The second respondent has been extracting all the works from the petitioner wh...

G. Haresh Chand Vs. Gee Gee Granites Ltd. and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]149CompCas353(Mad); [2009]95SCL285(Mad)

A.K. Ganguly, C.J. 1. This original side appeal has been filed against a judgment and order dated July 14, 2008, passed by the learned company judge in the Company Petition No. 256 of 2007, filed by the present appellant. The company petition (hereinafter referred to as the 'said petition') was filed under Section 237(a)(ii) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') seeking a declaration that the affairs of M/s. Gee Gee Granites Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'said company'), the first respondent herein, are liable to be investigated, and as such a direction is prayed for on the Central Government to appoint number of inspectors to investigate the affairs of the said company and to ensure that proper and necessary action was taken on such investigation.2. In the said petition, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and his other family members, who were shareholders of the said company, had entered into an agreement with the second and thir...

Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ854

K. Kannan, J.1. Heard Mr. C.K. Chandrasekaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Ramasamy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents.Nature of action:2. This case depicts yet another sordid episode of an ugly spat between a section of lawyers and a handful of police personnel, with the resultant physical and mental assaults complained of as having been visited on the lawyers. A recurrent theme misses out no part of all too known story of assault followed by boycott of courts. Allegations and counter allegations galore have been exchanged and the writ petition seeks to unravel the truth. This writ petition has been filed by the Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu espousing the cause of four advocates viz., M/s Ignatius, Pounkumar, Marx, Velusamy who were alleged to have been physically and mentally tortured in police custody by misuse of power by police viz., Respondents 4 to 15.Summary Of facts-Petitioner's version:3. The facts as narrated in the ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Naini

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]316ITR232(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Revenue filed the appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, dated August 17, 2007, in I.T.A. No. 2451/ Mds/2006.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The assessee, who was an employee of the Reserve Bank of India, has filed returns of income for the assessment year 2004-05. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year, the appellant retired from the service under the voluntary retirement scheme offered by the employer-Bank. On retirement, the appellant received several dues including ex gratia worked out by the employer. Out of the ex gratia thus received, the appellant claimed exemption of Rs. 5,00,000 as per the provisions of Section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act. The balance ex gratia was admitted as income. However, while working out the tax payable on such income, the Assessing Officer examined the matter and concluded that the retirement scheme of the bank did ...

Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Vs. C.C. John, Propriet ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum Chennai (South) dt.27.7.2005 in OP.No.378/2002. The respondent is the complainant; opposite party is the appellant herein. 2. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent on earlier occasion and even today. Hence we have decided to dispose off the matter on merits. 3. The respondent/ complainant has filed the complaint before the District Forum, alleging deficiency of service with regard to the purchase of computer and printer. According to the complainant, immediately after purchase of computer, he has faced with lot of problems and he has intimated the said fact to the opposite party. The opposite party have deputed service engineer and on two occasions the mother board of the computer was replaced and even the printer was also attended by the service engineer. Inspite of the rectification, the computer system was not functioning properly and when a request was made to replace th...