Chennai Court November 2005 Judgments
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. P.S. Apparels
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Chennai)29
1. These cross-appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. In the Revenue's appeal for the asst. yr. 1991-92 in ITA No.466/Mad/2002 the ground raised is to the effect that the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to treat interest received as income from business and to allow deduction under Sections 80HHC and 80-I of the IT Act, 1961.3. We have carefully considered the matter in the light of the material placed before us as well as arguments of the parties. The facts of the case as apparent from the record are the assessee has two units under which the business of export of ready made garments and moneylending are carried out. The assessee received interest of Rs. 22,21,683 from main unit and Rs. 10,05,006 from MEPZ, totalling to Rs. 32,26,069. This included the interest on refund of income-tax at Rs. 19,766. This amount also includes interest from bank to the extent of Rs. 17,48,477.The assessee treated the entire interest ...
Tag this Judgment!Wockhardt Limited Vs. Hetero Drugs Limited,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ542; 2006(32)PTC65(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Wockhardt Limited, a pharmaceutical company, appellant herein, is the holder of Process Patent, EMR and Drug Licence for the manufacture of pharmaceutical preparation, namely, Nadifloxacin 1% Cream.2. Hetero Drugs Limited, first respondent herein, infringing the Patent and EMR granted to the appellant, started manufacturing the same product and selling in the market. On coming to know of the same, appellant filed a suit in C.S. No. 456 of 2005 for permanent injunction, restraining Hetero Drugs Limited, Nicholas Piramal (India) Limited and Adyar Drug House, respondents 1 to 3, from infringing the (i) Patent No. 188847; (ii) EMR granted to it and (iii) restraining the respondents from manufacturing or in any way using the composition, which the appellant invented, for manufacture of Nadifloxacin 1% Cream.3. Pending the suit, similar orders of ad-interim injunction were sought for in O.A. Nos. 544 to 546 of 2005 and, by an order dated 31.05.2005, interim injuncti...
Tag this Judgment!V.L. Lakshmanakumar Vs. the District Manager, tasmac Limited and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ685Mad; (2006)2MLJ317; 2006(1)CTC660
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner was appointed on contractual basis in the post of Bar Supervisor in TASMAC. By the impugned order, his services were terminated. The impugned order is questioned on the ground that inasmuch as the same was passed on the ground of certain misconduct, it causes stigma.2. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit.3. I heard Mr. K. Sreenivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Thickyaija Pandian, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.4. So far as the appointment of the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute that it was purely on contractual basis as could be seen from the appointment order. In fact, one of the conditions in the appointment order relates to the summary dismissal for breach of the Rules and Regulations. By the said conditions imposed in the appointment order, the respondents are entitled to pass a summary order of termination and to that extent there cannot be any dispute.5. However, a perusal o...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Superintendent of Post Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC25; (2006)IILLJ972Mad; (2006)1MLJ266
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issue raised in all the Writ Petitions is common, they are being disposed of by the following common Order. Aggrieved by the individual orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, directing the respondents therein to include the applicants in the Dovetailed list and consider their case, Postal Department has filed the above Writ Petitions.2. For convenience, we shall refer the case of the parties as stated in Writ Petition No. 5026 of 2003. According to the petitioner-Superintendent of Post Offices, Salem West Division, Salem, the post of Branch Postmaster, Kattanachampatti Branch Office in account with the Rasipuram Sub Post Office fell vacant on 4-3-98. Till a regular incumbent is selected and posted, the first respondent-A. Suguna was appointed purely on temporary basis for a period from 4-3-98 to 3-5-98, and it was subsequently extended from 4-5-98 to 15-11-98 . The said appointment was made with a specific condition that she woul...
Tag this Judgment!The District Revenue Officer Vs. R. Palanisamy, Assistant, Erode Distr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ169
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 24-7-2003 made in O.A.No. 3211 of 1995, directing the Department to proceed against the applicant in accordance with the decision in Criminal Court, the District Revenue Officer, Erode has filed the above Writ Petition.2. A criminal case as well as disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the first respondent herein, namely, R. Palanisamy, an Assistant of Erode District Revenue Unit for irregularities of misappropriating Government money to the tune of Rs. 96,206.41. The criminal case instituted in the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Perundurai in C.C.No. 110/90 ended in acquittal of the individual from the criminal charges levelled against him on 13-7-99. The departmental disciplinary proceedings was initially stayed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by an interim order in O.A.No. 3211/95 dated 4-7-95 and the Tribunal finally heard the case and issued direction in its order date...
Tag this Judgment!Thalakananchery Burma Tamilar Colony Magalir Kalludaipore Ponvizha Gra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad134; 2006(2)CTC124; (2006)1MLJ261
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The Central Government brought about a Scheme called 'Swarna Jayanthi Grama Surojkar Yojana Scheme (in short 'SGSY Scheme') in the year 1999, to provide self employment opportunities for families below poverty line and whose annual income is less than Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner Society was formed and registered under the Societies Registration Act in the year 2001 with an object to obtain stone quarrying leases and carry on work in the same, in order to seek benefit under such Scheme. 2.1. According to the petitioner Society, as per Rule 8(10-A) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, (in short 'Rules') priority should be given to SGSY groups while allotting quarry lease. The District Collector, by notification dated 23.11.2002 called for applications from SGSY groups for letting out blue metal stone quarry No. 2 in S. No. 139 of an extent of about 2.20 hectares in Thalakananchery Village (in short 'impugned quarry') on lease, fixing the last...
Tag this Judgment!Parameswaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Governme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC476
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 04.07.2002 made in O.A. No. 2420 1994, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:(a) The petitioner was appointed as Rural Welfare Officer Grade II on 01.08.1963 at Sengamangalam in Salem District. Thereafter, he was transferred and posted at Sathankulam Panchayat Union, Tirunelveli District and to Radhapuram Block Development Office. On 11.06.1985, he was promoted as Assistant and posted at Valliyoor Panchayat Union. While so, on 12.03.1985 and on 05.09.1985, he received notices from the Commissioner, Radhapuram Panchayat Union, directing him to refund the advance amount of Rs. 13,000/-. Thereafter, on 29.09.1985, he was placed under suspension by the District Collector on the ground that an enquiry into grave charge was contemplated against him. On 16.10.1985, he submitted a representation denying the allegations lev...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishnan and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC627
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. C.A. No. 1029/01 is by A-2; C.A. No. 1052/01 is by A-5 and C.A. No. 1186/01 is by A-1, A-3 and A-4 in S.C. No. 115/01. In this judgment, for the sake of convenience, the appellants in the above appeals will be referred to as A-1 to A-5 in the same order as they were arrayed before the learned Sessions Judge.2. The first charge was framed against A-1 to A-5 under Section 120-B IPC on the allegation that five days prior to 16.12.00, they, at P.K. Veerattikuppam village conspired to murder the deceased and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, committed the murder of the deceased Balakrishnan at 9.30 p.m. on 16.12.2000. The learned Sessions Judge, finding all the appellants guilty, sentenced them to imprisonment for life.3. The second charge was framed against A-1, A-2 and A-4 under Section 147 IPC and the learned Sessions Judge on finding them guilty under the said charge, sentenced them to six months rigourous imprisonment.4. The third charge was framed against A-3 a...
Tag this Judgment!The Director General of Police and the Chairman, Uniformed Services Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ230
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu administrative Tribunal dated 27.1.2000 made in O.A. No. 7107 of 1999, the Director of General of Police and the Chairman, Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai and two others have filed W.P. No. 2874 of 2002. The same petitioners questioning the order of the Tribunal in C.A. No. 72 of 2001 in O. A. No. 7107 of 1999 dated 5.11.2001 have filed the W.P. No. 2875 of 2002.2. It is seen that the first respondent herein made an application for Recruitment for the post of Grade II Police Constable in March 199 8. He attended the prescribed tests conducted by Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board and came out successful. After completion of the above process, the first respondent herein was furnished Verification Roll Specimen Form with instruction to fill up all the 21 columns in the said specimen form. Insofar as column 16 in the specimen form, require the details of any conviction or involved in any Criminal...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sathyanathan Vs. the District Collector and the Assistant Director, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC328; (2006)2MLJ401
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The question that arises in this writ petition is,Whether it is obligatory on the part of the District Collector to grant lease in favour of the petitioner being the second highest bidder when the first highest bidder fails to perform his part of contract in terms of Rule 8(7) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959, without resorting to calling for fresh tenders?2. The petitioner, having considerable experience in the field of stone quarrying, participated in the tender-cum-auction process called for by the respondents, in respect of the stone quarry No. 2 in S. No. 139 in Thalakkanancheri village, Tambaram taluk. In the said auction, one Mrs. Prabavathy Durairaj was the highest bidder and the petitioner was the second highest bidder. Since the said Mrs. Prabavathy Durairaj has not paid the remaining 90% of the bid amount within the stipulated period, her bid was impliedly cancelled automatically as per the terms of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minera...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »