Chennai Court January 2005 Judgments
Pugazhendran President, Brammapuram Village Panchayat, Katpadi Panchay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad370; 2005(1)CTC545; (2005)1MLJ549
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal involves an important question of law, which has arisen in many cases, and hence we are giving this detailed judgment. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the records, as well as the impugned judgment. 3. The controversy in this case is regarding the interpretation of Section 188 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which states:- ' Subject to such general control as the village panchayat may exercise from time to time, all cheques for payment from Village Panchyat Fund or other funds constituted under Sub-section (2) shall be signed jointly by the president and vice-president and in the absence of the president or vice-president, as the case may be, by the vice-president or the president and another member authorized by the village panchayat at a meeting in this behalf' 4. As can be seen from a perusal of Section 188(3) of the Act, all cheques for payment from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Akilandeswari Mills Private Limited Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Mad)315; [2005]274ITR1(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in I.T.A. Nos. 1092/Mds/1991 and 2402/Mds/1991 dated 14.8.2001 in respect of two assessment years, 1988-89 and 1989-90 of the assessee. 2. The point that arises in both the appeals is common regarding the claim of the assessee for deduction of certain amounts of payments of gratuity to the workers whose services were taken over by the assessee for the period of service rendered by them to the transferor company in a take over bid. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') is Sree Akilandeswari Mills Private Limited and it is a wholly owned subsidiary company of Sree Rajendra Mills Limited. On 25.3.1983, an agreement was entered into between Sree Rajendra Mills Limited and the assessee, which is a subsidiary of Sree Rajendra Mills Limited, by which the textile unit at Salem called 'A' unit belonging to Sree Rajendra Mills was t...
Tag this Judgment!Nadar Mahajana Sangam, Through Its General Secretary (for and Behalf o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC55
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner Nadar Mahajana Sangam, Madurai claiming itself as the apex body of Nadar Mahamais (Associations) spread all over India, registered itself under he Societies Act, filed the present writ petition seeking or the relief of issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing he first respondent - Reserve Bank of India and the second respondent - the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited a private bank incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, from effecting transfer or allow private respondents No. 3 to 5 to deal with 95,418 shares in an manner by contending that the second respondent Bank had been created to foster and develop the resources of the community or class called 'Nadars' and the Bank is acting against the purpose for which it was created, that one Essar group with the object of taking over the management of the second respondent bank entered into a memorandum of undertaking with its shareholder to buy 67% of its shares in the names of s...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishnan and anr. Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC101
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J.1. The application in Crl.O.P.No. 5235 of 2004 is filed by the A-1 and Crl.O.P.No. 779 of 2005 is filed by A-2, seeking bail for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(a) of NDPS Act 1985 and Section 174, Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 238/2004, on the file of the respondent police.2. The learned counsel would contend that even though the petitioners are implicated for the alleged offences and the quantity of the contraband is a Commercial quantity, they pray for the grant of bail, by virtue of powers under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C r/w 36-A(4) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that even though an application was filed on 29.10.2004 for grant of bail after the lapse of statutory period of 180 days, the Special Court rejected the said application, which is contrary to law. According to him, when an application was filed on 29.10.2004 for grant of statutory bail, the respondent police has not chosen to file ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. K. Nedunchezhian Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Mad)301; [2005]274ITR37(Mad); (2005)2MLJ243
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of assessment passed by the respondent herein dated 29.12.2004 under Section 158BC(c) read with Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act. 2. Mr.C.Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that there was a search made in the petitioner's premises in December,2002 pursuant to warrant dated 12.12.2004, that in the said warrant there was no reference to any details as regards the search to be made, that subsequent to the said search, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 9.12.2004 to which the petitioner filed his detailed replies on 16.12.2004 and 23.12.2004 wherein the petitioner wanted the details of the materials and the production of witnesses based on which evidence, the respondent sought to make an assessment as against the petitioner. The learned senior counsel would therefore contend that without taking note of the petitioner's grievances, the impugned order of asses...
Tag this Judgment!Dcw Limited Rep. by Its Chairman and Managing Director, Dr. Shashi Cha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad264
Markandey Katju, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the interim order of the learned single Judge dated 08.11.2004. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the records. 3. The petitioner/appellant is a Public Limited Company having its registered office at Dhrangadara, Gujarat, and is carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling chemicals and production of salt for industrial and domestic purposes in the State of Gujarat and Tamil Nadu. 4. The State of Tamil Nadu had originally leased out a vast area of land to M/s. Wimco Limited measuring 28,765 acres of swamp and poromboke lands in Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapattinam District and Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk, Thanjavur District by G.O.Ms. No. 625, Revenue, dated 14.2.1963. The lease was for a period of 40 years commencing from 1963 and ending in 2003 for the purpose of manufacture of salt for use in the factory to be set up. M/s.Wimco Limited surrendered a major portion of the land of 16,500...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. K. Nedunchezhian Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: [2005]148TAXMAN617(Mad)
F. M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA J.The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of assessment passed by the respondent herein dated December 29, 2004, under section 158BC(c) read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Mr. C. Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that there was a search made in the petitioner's premises in December, 2004, pursuant to warrant dated 12-12-2004, that in the said warrant there was no reference to any details as regards the search to be made, that subsequent to the said search, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 9-12-2004 to which the petitioner filed his detailed replies on 16-12-2004, and 23-12-2004, wherein the petitioner wanted the details of the materials and the production of witnesses based on which evidence, the respondent sought to make an assessment as against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel would therefore contend that without taking note of the petitioner's grievances, the impugned order of a...
Tag this Judgment!Ti Diamond ChaIn Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Mad)272; [2005]274ITR59(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following three questions of law for our consideration under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'):1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the compensation paid on termination of the agreement with the marketing distributor would be a capital expenditure? 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in its finding that the compensation paid was towards the acquisition of profit making apparatus? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in deciding that the transfer of the staff and managerial personnel would constitute a profit making apparatus for the company? 2. Though the Appellate Tribunal has referred three questions, we are of the view, the first question alone would be sufficient and accordingly, the questions referred to above are reframed as under: ' Whether on the facts and...
Tag this Judgment!Hemanathan and Thangaraj Vs. N. Kupuswamy,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ682
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.2.2000 rendered in E.A. No. 558 of 1995 in E.P. No. 3567 of 1992 in O.S. No. 1643 of 1986 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge) Kumbakonam thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 24.4.1996 made in R.C.O.P. No. 25 of 1990 by the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. Tracing the history of the above Civil Revision Petition having come to be filed before this Court, what comes to be known is that the petitioners herein are the Decree Holders; that the respondents herein, the Judgment Debtors, have filed a petition under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. E.A. No. 558 of 1995 seeking for restraining the warrant for delivery of possession of the extent of one half of the suit property and to dismiss the above E.P. with exemplary costs on averments such as that O.S. No. 1643 of 1986 has been filed by the petitioners herein seeking fo...
Tag this Judgment!Mannu @ Boopathy Vs. the Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Exci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC47
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Detenu himself is the petitioner herein. Challenging the order of Detention, dated 25.9.2004, branding him as a 'Gooda', this Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed, on the ground that there is a defective translation.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents.3. In page 133 of the Booklet, the Arrest Report would contain Column 6, as to how disposed of, with date and hour of disposal. In the said column, it is mentioned as 'sent to remand'.4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while the said version is translated from English to Tamil in page 134 in column 6, it is not correctly translated, as the date 13.9.2004 mentioned in Tamil column does not find place in English column.5. Admittedly, the said defective translation would make the detention order vitiated. Hence, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention impugned herei...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »