Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: chennai Page 100 of about 2,185 results (0.042 seconds)

Sep 13 2005 (HC)

K. Shankar S/O. M. Kannappa Naicker Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : II(2006)ACC406; 2006ACJ902; 2005(5)CTC433

p.k. misra, j 1. the question in controversy relates to the extent of liability of the insurance company. appeal has been preferred by the owner. there is a delay of about 900 days in filing the appeal. notice has been served on the respondent/insurance company as well as the claimant/respondent.2. at the time when the petition for condonation of delay was listed, we had made it clear to the counsels appearing for all the parties that they should advance arguments not only on the question of delay but also on merit of the appeal itself. accordingly, the learned counsels have been heard on the question of condonation of delay as well as on merit of the appeal. it is therefore necessary to first consider the question of condonation of delay and, if delay is condoned, the appeal itself would be disposed of on merits. however, if the delay is not condoned, it may not be necessary to deal with the questions raised in the appeal.3. in the petition for condonation of delay, the appellant has contended that since he had shifted his business to dharmapuri from kancheepuram in the year 1988, he had lost contact with his advocate and the letter sent to him by his advocate could not be received by him, and, therefore, he was not aware of the disposal of the appeal by the learned single judge of the high court. it has been further stated that when he had come to kancheepuram in connection with a marriage, he was informed by his relatives regarding filing of an execution case and, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2009 (HC)

Tube Investments of India Limited Represented by Its Vice President, T ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2009)226CTR(Mad)313; [2009]185TAXMAN438(Mad)

orderf.m. ibrahim kalifulla, j.1. the petitioners in w.p. no. 10750 of 2009, seek for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the first and the second respondent to forbear from relying upon the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the income tax act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the act') and to disallow the revenue expenditure of the petitioners incurred on the purchases of the printed stationery and packing materials for non-compliance of section 194c of the act.2. in w.p. no. 10751 of 2009, the very same petitioners seek for the issuance of a writ of declaration to declare section 40(a)(ia) of the act as beyond the legislative competence of the union of india under serial no. 82 of list-i of the seventh schedule of the constitution of india besides being void as infringing articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300a of the constitution and consequently unenforceable in law.3. in all these writ petitions, the common challenge is to section 40(a)(ia) of the act to declare as ultra vires of the constitution on the grounds stated therein. all the writ petitions are therefore disposes of by this common order.4. arguments were heard in common, learned senior counsels m/s. c. natarajan and v. ramachandran as well as other learned counsel viz., m/s. joseph prabhakar, n. devanathan, n. viswanathan and v.s. jayakumar appeared on behalf of the petitioners. mrs. pushya sitaraman, mr. k. subramanian and mr. j.naresh kumar learned standing counsel for the income tax department .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 2006 (HC)

P. Hema, Vs. M. Muthusamy, Administrator, Rps Benefit Fund Ltd. (In Li ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2007]139CompCas214(Mad); (2007)1MLJ450; [2008]81SCL525(Mad)

s.j. mukhopadhaya, j.1. all these original side appeals arise out of a common order dated 22.3.06 passed by the learned company judge in company application no.1101/05 in c.p. nos. 233 to 238 of 1999. by the said order, the learned company judge, while passing penal order against the respondents/appellants, also held that the application under sections 542 and 543 of the companies act, 1956 preferred by the 'administrator' is maintainable.2. the questions required to be determined in these appeals are:a)whether the 'administrator' appointed by the court to look into the affairs of the company in liquidation, during the pendency of the proceedings for liquidation, could move an application under sections 542 and 543 of the companies act, 1956 ?b) whether the learned company judge has jurisdiction under section 542 of the companies act, 1956 to punish the guilty person for the criminal offence mentioned thereunder 3. the company in liquidation, namely, rps benefit fund ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the company' is a 'nidhi' started on 9.11.1990 by the first appellant, p.g.saranyan and members of his family. the company had 16,000 depositors and collected a sum of rs.43 crores and later on collapsed. number of company petitions being c.p. nos. 233 to 238 of 1999 were preferred by the creditors with their claim for winding up of the company. it appears, as informed by mr.arvind p.datar, learned senior counsel appearing for the administrator, that large number of 'nidhis' .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 2007 (HC)

The Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs Vs. Marimuthu S/ ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2007(212)ELT29(Mad)

orderr. banumathi, j.1. challenge in this revision petition is the order of dismissal of application in i.a. no. 187 of 1999 in unnumbered appeal, declining to condone the delay of 131 days in filing the appeal. 2. facts in nutshell are as follows: the first respondent / plaintiff has filed a suit in o.s. no. 193 of 1996 on the file of subordinate court, nagappattinam, making certain claim against the petitioner / third defendant and other defendants. the petitioner / third defendant resisted the suit claim by filing the written statement interalia contending that the suit is not maintainable and the amount is not payable. after contest, the suit was decreed on 27.02.1998. appeal was preferred with a delay of 131 days. by the impugned order, the application filed under section 5 of the limitation act to condone the delay of 131 days in filing the appeal was dismissed. 3. heard the submissions of the learned additional central government standing counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. learned additional central government standing counsel for the petitioner contended that the case records were mixed up with other papers in the office of the petitioner and were not immediately traceable, which has occasioned the delay of 131 days. it was further submitted that the petitioner being a government official, the court ought to have adopted a judicial oriented approach in condoning the delay. 5. for exercise of discretion under section 5 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 2007 (HC)

S. Rajaram Vs. S. Seenivasan

Court : Chennai

Reported in : I(2008)BC656

orderp. murgesen, j.1. the revision is directed against the order dated 5.12.2005 passed by the learned judicial magistrate no. 1, kovilapatti in crl. m.p. no. 7350 of 2005.2. the petitioner/complainant's case is briefly as follows:the petitioner herein is the complainant. the respondent/accused borrowed a sum of rs. one lakh from the complainant and issued a post-dated cheque for the said sum. since he had not repaid the amount borrowed, the complainant sent the cheque for collection, the same was dishonoured. therefore, on 3.6.2004, the complainant sent a legal notice to the accused and the said notice was received by the accused on 4.6.2004. even after receipt of the legal notice, the accused had not repaid the amount within fifteen days. therefore, the complainant preferred the complaint under section 142 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act.3. the complainant ought to have filed the petition within the stipulated lime. but he preferred the petition with the delay of thirteen months. the reason adduced by the learned counsel for the complainant is that since negotiations were going on between the complainant and the accused, which was mediated by one gurusamy, who was the ex-president of the kammavur sangam and on believing the words of the accused that he would settle the cheque amount within six or seven months, the complainant could not file the petition in time.4. however, the learned judicial magistrate dismissed the case of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2007 (HC)

Krishnaveni and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Secreta ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2007)6MLJ935

ordera. kulasekaran, j.1. the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondents 1 to 4 in connection with the four laning of salem coimbatore section of nh-47 from k.m. 1.60 to k.m. 53.00 (package 1) on annuity basis titled proposed inter-change at kondalampatti and to quash the altered plan in job no. c-622 (drawing no. drg no. scplb/c-622/p1/rh/jn-02/rev) made therein and consequently to direct respondents 1 to 4 to adhere to the original scheme finalised and approved for the said work.2. mr. t.r. mani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted as follows:the petitioners 1 to 5 are co-owners of the lands to an extent of (i) 18454 sq. ft., in survey no. 96/2a, kandampatti/pallapatti village, salem west (ii) 11546 sq. ft., in survey no. 39/1a, annadhanapatti village, salem east and (iii) 5022 sq.ft., in survey no. 39/1a, annadhanapatti village, salem east, measuring in all 35,022 sq. ft., which are located abutting nh-47 of salem. the petitioners 1 to 5 have leased out the above said item nos. (i) and (ii) of the properties to the 5th respondent/corporation under a registered lease deed dated 10.03.2004 for the purpose erecting petrol filling stations for a period of 30 years. the 6th petitioner was a dealer/licensee of the 5th respondent corporation, who has taken on lease the item no. (iii) mentioned above under a registered lease deed dated 20.08.2004 to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 2006 (HC)

Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. Ah ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2006ACJ2703; 2006(4)CTC433; (2006)4MLJ362

ajit prakash shah, c.j.1. when c.m.a. no. 231 of 1994 came up for hearing, justice k.p.sivasubramaniam noticed that apparently conflicting views expressed by two division benches on the question canvassed by the appellant - cholan roadways corporation limited namely, whether compensation could be awarded separately on account of permanent disability and also on account of loss of earning capacity. there being conflict of opinions by two division benches of this court, the learned single judge deemed it fit to refer the matter to the full bench. 2. the facts giving rise to the present cma are that on 27.05.1991 the 1st respondent was travelling on a tvs-50 motor cycle from ayyampettai to thanjavur. the 1st respondent was the pillion rider and one m.r.abu bakker was driving the motor cycle. when they were nearing pasubathi temple the appellant - transport corporation's bus bearing registration no. tn-49-n-0099 coming from opposite direction hit the motor cycle. abu bakker died on the spot. the 1st respondent, who was the pillion rider suffered serious injuries. the 1st respondent was 35 years old and was working as supervisor in rahman shop at kumbakonam. he was earning rs. 1,500/- per month. he was the sole bread-winner of the family. the 1st respondent filed a claim petition before the tribunal claiming compensation of rs. 1,50,000/-. the tribunal awarded rs. 6,000 as loss of income, rs. 4,000/- towards extra nourishment and rs. 30,000/- as compensation towards pain and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 2010 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Joint Secretary (Revenue), Governmen ...

Court : Chennai

elipe dharmarao, j.1. the respondent herein has filed the writ petition no. 30841 of 2002, challenging the memorandum no. 9565/c2/rev/2000, dated 10.11.2000 issued by the first appellant herein and consequently to direct the second respondent herein to issue community certificate to her son p. sivakumar. since the said writ petition was allowed by a learned single judge of this court, the administration of the pondicherry government is before us by way of this writ appeal.2. the case of the writ petitioner is that she belong to adi dravida community, having born on 14.12.1960 at nedungadusalaipet, pondicherry and her parents also hail from the union territory of pondicherry; that she got married to her husband mr. paneerselvam, who also belongs to the same adi dravida community, who is a migrant to pondicherry. the writ petitioner further submitted that her husband is employed in government service for more than 20 years and she gave birth to a male child p. sivakumar on 2.6.1985 at nedungadu and they are residing in pondicherry; that she applied to the tahsildar, pondicherry/the 2nd appellant herein for issuance of community certificate to her son and same was not processed by the second appellant, in view of the memorandum dated 10.11.2000 issued by the first appellant, wherein it has been stated that the community certificates should be issued based only on the residential status of the applicant's father on the crucial date that is 5.3.1964 and not on the residential .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 2010 (HC)

G.Selvam. and ors. Vs. the Chairman, Teacher Recruitment Board, and or ...

Court : Chennai

1. the petitioners in these writ petitions seek appointment to the post of post graduate teachers by considering the post graduate degrees that they have in special branches of certain subjects as equivalent to the post graduate degrees in the general branches of those subjects.2. i have heard mr.v.lakshminarayanan and mr.m.suresh kumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. mr.k.h.ravikumar, learned government advocate takes notice for the respondents.3. the petitioner in w.p.no.12780 of 2010 has a b.sc., degree in physics, a m.sc., degree in bio-physics and a b.ed., degree. the petitioners in the other two writ petitions have a b.sc., degree in chemistry, a m.sc., degree in inorganic chemistry and a b.ed., degree.4. the petitioners were sponsored by the employment exchange and were invited by call letters dated 3.3.2010 by the teachers recruitment board for certificate verification and for consideration for recruitment to the post of p.g. assistants in the tamil nadu higher secondary educational service. while the petitioner in the first writ petition was invited for consideration for the post of p.g. assistant in physics, the petitioners in the other two writ petitions were invited for the post of p.g. assistants in chemistry. however, the petitioners were not selected, since the post graduate degrees obtained by the petitioners in special branches such as bio-physics and inorganic chemistry, were not considered as equivalent to post graduate degrees in the general .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 2010 (HC)

M/S.United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Boopathy Raj, and anr.

Court : Chennai

1. being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant in m.c.o.p.no.185 of 2003 on the file of the motor accident claims tribunal (fast track court no.5 - additional district judge) at tirupur for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 17.1.2003, the insurance company has preferred this appeal.2. the brief facts of the case are that on 17.01.2003 at about 19.45 hours, when the claimant/1st respondent was riding two wheeler bearing registration no.tn 39 t 3902, on coimbatore-palladam road near semmipalayam privu, the van bearing registration no.tn 02 d - 7401 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant and he was thrown out of the vehicle and as a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately taken to coimbatore richmond hospital where he had taken treatment. a criminal case was registered in crime no.43 of 2003 on the file of palladam police station.3. the further case of the claimant is that he was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and running a studio and earning rs.6,000/- per month. due to the accident, the claimant lost his entire earning power and cannot go to the work as he was used to go before the accident and suffered permanent disability and claimed compensation of rs.7,00,000/- contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent - driver of the van and the appellant insurance company and the 2nd respondent are jointly .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //