Chennai Court December 2005 Judgments
M. Manimekalai and S. Maruthachalam Represented by their Power Agent K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ290
Acts/Rules/Orders: Land Acquisition Act - Sections 16, 16B, 17A and 48B; Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act; Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997; Constitution of India - Article 226Cases Referred: Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Syed Akbar, 2004 (5) C.T.C. 506; Prithvi Trust Private Ltd. v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2005(3) C.T.C.145Disposition: Petition dismissedOrderR. Balasubramanian, J.1. Under the impugned order, the Government has rejected the petitioner's claim for reconveyance under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the State of Tamil Nadu. Mr. R.N. Amarnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would attack the order on the following grounds: 'The property acquired and transferred to the Housing Board remains unutilised for a long number of years and therefore it must be held that the public purpose for which the lands were acquired no longer subsists. If that is so, the land owners have a right to have the lands reconveyed. When the lands, ...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Employees' Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: [2006]287ITR40(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The following substantial question of law are raised by the appellant-assessee under the Act :1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Interest-tax Act would be applicable to the petitioner herein ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the activities of borrowing money and lending money to the members of the petitioner is similar to the one that is carried on by bankers, which accepts deposits from the depositors and lends money to various borrowers ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the judgment of the Madras High Court reported in State Bank of India Staff Co-operative Society Ltd. and Ors. v. ITO and Ors. , is applicable to the facts of the case ?4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in not considering the appl...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Vijaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC728
ORDER1. The Insurance Company has filed these two appeals against the common award passed by the Claims Tribunal in respect of two claim applications numbered as M.C.O.P. Nos. 127 and 136 of 1994. Such claim applications have been filed by the legal heirs of the two deceased persons.2. The common allegation in both the applications is to the effect that death was caused on account of the accident caused by one M. Thangaraj, the owner-cum-driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-59 C 1188. The said lorry has been insured with the present appellant.3. In M.C.O.P. No. 127 of 1994, a sum of Rs. 4,02,000 has been awarded as compensation, whereas in M.C.O.P. No. 136 of 1994, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded as compensation.4. The owner-cum-driver of the lorry, who has been arrayed as respondent No. 1 in both the M.C.O.Ps. had remained ex parte.5. The Insurance Company had filed written statement denying the allegation, relating to negligence. It was also claimed by the Insurance...
Tag this Judgment!All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Represented by Party Election ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad125
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner is a political party. The relief prayed for in the writ petition is that, against none of the functionaries of the petitioner political party, legal action be taken on the role of each of such functionaries in having forwarded the claims made by individual applicants in Form-6 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. In other words, if it is found that there is any falsity in Form-6 of individual applicants submitted in bulk by any of the functionaries of the petitioner political party as authorised by the Election Commission, such functionaries shall not be proceeded against legally. Mr. N. Jothi learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took us through Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as 'RPA, 1950', and contended that a careful reading of that Section would exclude all others, except the person making a statement/declaration which is false, fro...
Tag this Judgment!State by Inspector of Police Railway Protection Force Represented by t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC556
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. This appeal is filed by the complainant/State, viz., Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Avadi, against the acquittal of the accused, as per the judgment dated 23.10.1997 and made in C.C. No. 1716 of 1987 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Poonamallee, in respect of the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.2. The facts that led to the filing of this appeal are as follows:The Criminal Case in C.C. No. 1716 of 1987 was filed against the respondents/accused under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the complaint it is stated that on 06.6.1987 at 4.30 a.m., while the Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Avadi, was patrolling with his party near Avadi Car shed, the first accused was found in unlawful possession of one grey colour Rexine cloth, M.O.2, with railway marks covered in a dungry cloth, M.O.1, and he was arrested since...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Rect (Mp) A. Madurai Veeran No. 7779447k Vs. Union of India (Uoi), ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2005
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ61
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. The present appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the Writ Petition No.742/2004 solely on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. The entire order of the learned Single Judge is extracted herein:The respondents against whom the relief is sought for are 1 to 4. None of them are within the jurisdiction of this Court. Clause 2 of the Article 226 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:The power conferred by Clause (1) to issue directions, orders of writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.In the light of the above said clause, this writ petition is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. No costs.2....
Tag this Judgment!K. Packirisamy Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement I), ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ186; [2006]147STC368(Mad)
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in D2 No. 25/05-06 dated 5.12.2005 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without any authority of law and further direct the respondents to refund the tax amount of Rs. 1,00,000/= collected from the petitioner illegally by way of cheque on 19.11.2005.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Enforcement Wing has passed the impugned order for which it is not vested with any jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if at all the Enforcement Wing suspects that any dealer is attempting to evade the payment of any tax, fee or other amount due from him under the Act, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, seize such accounts, registers, records or other documents of the dealer as it may consider necessary, and it shall give the dealer a receipt of the same; that it may retain all ...
Tag this Judgment!Thamiraparani Investments Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Director, V. Gopal Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ357
ORDERA.P. Shah, C.J.1. The plaintiff in C.S. No. 630 of 2005 has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 25.8.2005 made by the learned Single Judge in Application No. 3210 of 2005.2. Application No. 3210 of 2005 was filed by the defendant to revoke the leave already granted on 20.7.2005 in Application No. 2916 of 2005 to the plaintiff to institute the suit. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 25.8.2005, allowed the Application No. 3210 of 2005 and revoked the leave granted by order dated 20.7.2005 made in Application No. 2916 of 2005.3. Facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:The plaintiff has filed the present suit for a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men, agents, servants or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner entering into the Schedule 'A' property and disturbing the possession of the plaintiff and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant, its men, agents, servants, or any...
Tag this Judgment!K. Nithiyanantham Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Gov ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC1; [2007(1)JCR423(Mad)]; (2006)1MLJ1
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The question referred for consideration of this Full Bench is as follows:'Whether Section 89-A of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 introduced through the amendment Act 12 of 2001 conferring powers on the Special Officer to admit new members in the Co-operative Society is arbitrary, unreasonable, ultra vires and unconstitutional, as it is the usurpation of judicial power-'2. Raising the said question several writ petitions had been filed before the learned single Judge. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment in Kattappan's case : AIR2000SC2378 , held that the Special Officer has no power to admit the new members as it would affect the composition of the society and fundamental rights of the members and as such, the legislature would be incompetent to give statutory recognition to such a power being exercised by the Special Officer. However, the learned single Judge on th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R. Lakshmi Narayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Mad)125
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue by formulating the following substantial questions of law :(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the commission of Rs. 3,94,405 earned during the assessment year is not assessable to tax in this assessment year and(ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the commission that became due to the assessee takes the character of salary for the purpose of application of Sub-section15 and 17 of the Act to assess the commission during this asst. yr. 1996-97 ?2. The statement of facts proceeds as follows :The assessee is the chairman and managing director of M/s Hi Tech Arai Ltd. As per the board meeting dt. 30th June, 1995, the assessee was entitled to the commission for a fixed percentage of the profits. The AO found that the commission was earned during the asst. yr. 1996-97 and therefore, brought it to tax for the said assessment year. On appeal by th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »