Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

J.R. Arun Kumar and Others Vs. K. Boopalan

Court: Chennai

(Prayer in C.R.P.No.89/2010: This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.11.2009 made in I.A.No.6547 of 2009 in O.S.No.4312 of 2007 on the file of the Vth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. Prayer in C.R.P.No.90/2010: This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.11.2009 made in I.A.No.6548 of 2009 in O.S.No.4312 of 2007 on the file of the Vth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.) Common Order 1. Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, a common order is being passed to dispose off these two Civil Revision Petitions. 2. The defendants in O.S.No.4312 of 2007 are the revision petitioners in both the Civil Revision Petitions and the respondent in both the Civil Revision Petitions is the plaintiff in the suit. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as per their rankings in the suit. 4. O.S.No...

Amala Trust, Rep by Its Chairman, Cuddalore District Vs. the District ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of declaration, declaring the demand of Property Tax by the Respondents herein in respect of the buildings of the Petitioner herein in Mathur Village, Veerareddykuppam Majura, Vriddhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District, which are being used for running a Destitute Home for Boys and Girls and for the special school for providing food,shelter, clothing, medical and education facilities to the destitute children as arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Assessment and Collection of Tax) Rules, 1999.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the third respondent has no authority or power to demand the House Tax/Property Tax, in respect of the hostel and the school building of the petitioner trust,as they are exempted from payment of tax, by law. He had fu...

The Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order made in M.C.O.P. No.272 of 2007 dated 18.09.2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court) at Hosur.) R. Banumathi, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.15,92,600/- awarded for the death of Raja in a road traffic accident on 04.05.2007, the Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A.No.2505 of 2010. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, Claimants have preferred C.M.A.No.407 of 2012. Since both the appeals arise out of the same Award, both the appeals were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts are that deceased Raja and their family members and relatives had been to Kerala tour by Toyota Qualis car bearing registration No.TN-24 4365 (Private Taxi). On 04.05.2007 at 11.30 P.M. when the car was proceeding on Mettur-Bhavani Main road, opposite of Chinnapallam E.S.R.Garden, the driver...

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Cuddalore ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order made in M.C.O.P.No.254 of 2008 dated 16.7.2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.II), Tindivanam.) R. BANUMATHI,J 1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.23,56,396/- awarded for the death of Manikandan in a road traffic accident on 11.3.2007, the Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts are that on 11.3.2007 at about 12.30 P.M., deceased Manikandan was riding Bajaj M-80 bearing registration No.PY-02 B 3935 on Puduthurai Main Road along with his friend Ramesh. When he was nearing Kaliyana Sundaram House, Karaikal, the tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos.PY-02 5754 and PY-02 5755 respectively came in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the Bajaj M-80 motorcycle. Due to the impact, Manikandan and his friend Ramesh sustained multiple head injurie...

Sheik Mohammed Vs. Ramzan Bi and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(3)MWN(Civil)524; 2012(8)MLJ68

(Prayer: This Appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.90 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram, dated 27.04.2005 reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.29 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Kallakurichi, dated 08.10.2003.) 1. This appeal is focussed animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2005 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram in A.S.No.90 of 2004, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi, in O.S.No.29 of 1996 dated 08.10.2003. 2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. Bereft and niggard of unnecessary details, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus: The respondents 1 and 2 herein, namely Ramzan Bi and Baljkiz Bi, filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: "(a) To pass a decree for partition and separate po...

Aesthetix Audio Video India Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its Director, M. ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in S.P.No.68 of 2012 in AP.(CST)No.39 of 2012 dated 13.9.2012 and quash the same with the direction to furnish personal bond instead of bank guarantee/security as ordered by the second respondent.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the order of the second respondent, dated 13.9.2012, made in S.P.No.68 of 2012, in A.P.(CST)No.39 of 2012, is modified, permitting the petitioner to furnish a personal bond for the balance amount of tax of Rs.6,13,777/-, instead of furnishing a b...

N. Madhavan and Others Vs. the Deputy Collector, Govt. of Pondicherry, ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(7)MLJ908

(Prayer: W.P.No.5023 of 2010 has been filed to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to his proceedings dated 2.3.2010 and made in reference No.DRDM/KKL/10/B4/2009, withdrawing the No Objection Certificate granted for running retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation at Karaikal (Vanjore) and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction. W.P.No.5128 of 2010 has been filed to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to his proceedings dated 2.3.2010 and made in reference No.DRDM/KKL/10/B4/2009, withdrawing the No Objection Certificate granted for running retail outlet at 185/600, NH-45A, Vanjor, Karaikkal and quash the same. W.A.No.2745 of 2010 has been filed against the order dated 24.9.2010 in M.P.No.2 of 2010 in W.P.No.5023 of 2010. COMMON ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 2. W.P.No.5023 of 2010 has been filed challenging the order passed by the fi...

The Management, thenkodipakkam Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(5)LLN483

1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 28th June 2011 in Claim Petition No.278/2009 on the file of Labour Court, Cuddalore allowing the Claim Petition and directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,13,000/- as arrears of salary for the period from 1st January 1998 to 31st October 2009 to the First Respondent. The Facts: 2. The First Respondent was an Employee under the Petitioner. He was a Salesman. The First Respondent was dismissed for service on 29th January 1998 on account of his commission of certain irregularities. The order of dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court . Since the Management failed to contest the matter, an ex parte award was passed on 21st June 2001 in I.D. No. 46 of 2000, directing re-instatement with backwages. The Application filed by the Management to set aside the ex parte award was dismissed. The award therefore, has become final. The Petitioner failed to comply with the directions contained in the award. This made the First R...

Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. M/S. Kreon Financial Services ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: The name of the respondent has been changed by order of this Court dated 3.10.2012 in the memo filed by the counsel for the appellant. Tax Case (Appeal) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras B Bench dated 25.11.2005 in ITA. No. 690/ Mds/ 2001 for assessment year 1996-97.) K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J. 1. The Revenue is on appeal in respect of assessment year 1996-97. The following are the substantial questions of law raised at the time of admitting the appeal. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that expenses relating to issue of share capital would be eligible for deduction as a revenue expenditure? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, expenditure which might otherwise be allowable as regular business expenditure would be allowed as such when incurred in relation to issue of share capital?" 2. The assessee had claimed share issue expenses of Rs.15,02,119/- as revenue expenditure. The sai...

P.V. Chinnaraj Vs. V. Nagaraj

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (u) of C.P.C against the order of remand dated 19.11.2010 in A.S.No. 4 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Hosur in remitting the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2006 in O.S.No.38 of 2005 to the file of the Judicial Magistrate cum District Munsif Court at Denkanikottai.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises against the order of remand dated 19.11.2010. in A.S.No. 4 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Hosur in remitting the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2006 in O.S.No.38 of 2005 to the file of the Judicial Magistrate cum District Munsif Court at Denkanikottai. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff in suit filed in O.S.No.38/2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate cum District Munsif, Denkanikottai. He sought specific performance of contract of sale and for delivery of possession on the basis of an alleged sale agreement entered into with the defendant/respondent. The case of the plaintiff was that pur...