Chennai Court February 2005 Judgments

The President, Ammanambakkam Panchayat, Thirukazhukundram Union Vs. D. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2005Mad189

D. Murugesan, J. 1. The first respondent (writ petitioner) is the Vice President of Ammanambakkam Panchayat, Kancheepuram District. In terms of Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, he is entitled to sign the cheque along with the President of the Panchayat. By a resolution dated 10.4.2003, the Panchayat resolved to permit a ward member to sign the cheque on behalf of the Vice President along with the President. The said resolution was passed on the ground that the first respondent refused to sign the cheques presented by the appellant. On the allegation that the first respondent refused to sign the cheques only because the amount was exorbitant and that the withdrawal was a scandal and he cannot be deprived of his right to sign the cheque, he filed the writ petition for a mandamus forbearing the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tirukazhukundram Branch from disbursing any amount standing in the name of the Ammanambakkam Panchayat in A/c Nos. VP-10,11,40,41 & 44 wit...

T.M. Rajaganapathi Traders Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2005]142STC130(Mad)

ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. Challenge in these Writ Petitions is to the order of the respondent dated 28.12.2004 which order has been passed after an order of remand made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Salem, specifically directing the respondent to provide an opportunity to cross examine the seller at Bangalore with regard to the alleged purchase of Refined Sunflower Oil for Rs.37,39,000/- during the year 1993-94 and Rs.9,73,800/- during the year 1994-95. In fact, earlier, when the respondent expressed his inability to summon the concerned seller at Bangalore, the petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai, in O.P. Nos.1403 and 1404 of 2003 in which an order came to be passed on 09.02.2004, holding that the respondent should invoke the powers vested in him under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act to summon the seller, namely, one Tvl. KLN Agro Tech (P) Ltd., Bangalore, and grant an opportunity to the petitioner to cross...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Harita Finance Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2006]283ITR370(Mad)

N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following substantial question of law for our consideration under Sections 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the hire purchase finance charges and service charges do not constitute chargeable interest under Sections 2(7) of the Interest-tax Act for the purpose of interest-tax assessment ?2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1994-95. The point involved in the question is whether the agreement entered into between the parties was a hire purchase agreement or not. We find that the Appellate Tribunal has examined the question in great detail and recorded a finding of fact that the agreement between the parties was a hire purchase agreement. The Appellate Tribunal in paragraph 10 of its order has found that it is not the case of the...

T. Jayakumar Vs. A. Gopu, the Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the ... Overruled

Court: Chennai

S.K. Krishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records, pertaining to the order passed in O.A.No.346 of 2000, dated 23.4.2001, on the file of the third respondent Tribunal and quash the same.2. The petitioner was appointed by the second respondent as EDBPM of Kadambadi Village and he has been working as EDBPM with effect from 12.2.2000.3. It is seen that the first respondent was also applied for the above said post. Since the application of the first respondent has been received by the second respondent after the expiry of stipulated time, his application was rejected. Even though, the first respondent sent his application in time, since the same was not considered by the second respondent, he approached the Tribunal by filing an application in O.A.No.346 of 2000 to set aside the order of the second respondent, dated 9.2.2000 selecting the petitioner for the post of EDBPM of Kadambadi Village and for a direct...