Chennai Court February 2005 Judgments
S.C. Swaminathan and ors. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Cor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC223; 2005(2)CTC509
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed by the guarantor challenging the action of the respondent Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951.2. The fact that the property in question was given as mortgage to the Corporation as a collateral security in respect of the debt incurred by another person is not disputed. Similarly, it is not in dispute that the borrower has failed to repay the amount, nor it is in dispute that in fact, the property pledged by the borrower himself had been seized under Section 29 of the Act.3. The main question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that even though there is a liability of the petitioner, the Corporation should not have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Act, since a specific provision under Section 31 is available under the Act for proceeding against the property of the surety.4. Section 29 and S...
Tag this Judgment!In House Productions Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its General Manager Vs. Meediy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR52(Madras); 2005(2)CTC51; (2005)2MLJ256
P.K. Misra, J.1. These Two appeals are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge rejecting the two applications, namely, O.A. Nos. 962 and 963 of 2004, filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Prayer in O.A.No.962 of 2004 was for issuing an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents in any manner entering into any arrangement, agreement or from assigning marketing rights, copy right and all other related rights in respect of the program 'Vikramadityan' or any modification, translation or adaptation thereof and/or giving effect to any such agreement, arrangement or assignment if already entered into with any third party or between the parties, pending arbitration proceedings.3. Prayer in O.A.No.963 of 2004 was for issuing an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from producing or continuing to produce, telecasting or continuing to telecast the serial 'Vikramadityan' in...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2006(202)ELT758(Mad)
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This is a reference application under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, by which the following question is sought to be referred to us for our opinion:-'Whether the Tribunal was right in passing the order on an issue not agitated before it and thereby reopening a matter already settled and not agitated before them?'2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. We have carefully perused the judgment of the CEGAT dated 25.2.20 02. In that judgment the CEGAT has recorded a finding of fact in paragraph 6 that there was no suppression of facts by the assessee to invoke the larger period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Mr. K. Veeraraghavan, learned counsel for the department submitted that the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) have recorded findings that there was suppression.4. Under the hierarchy of quasi-judicial authorities, in the Central Excise Act, at the lowest is the Assistant Comm...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Sridharan and R. Suresh Kumar Vs. M.F. Simon and Fedrick Simon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad291; 2005(2)CTC92; (2005)2MLJ81
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The 7th and 8th defendants are the revision petitioners herein, who have filed this revision petition against the order of dismissal of the application filed by them under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in I.A. No. 12952 of 2002 in O.S. No. 1540 of 1997 by the learned IIIrd Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras.2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed the above said suit i.e., O.S. No. 1540 of 1997 for the below mentioned reliefs.a) for a declaration to declare that the first plaintiff is the co-founder of the Social Welfare Centre Johan Maasbach World Mission, along with the second defendant at No.10 (Old No.40), Arcot Road, Saligramam, Madras-93;b) for a declaration that the first plaintiff and his family members particularly the second plaintiff herein, are entitled to administer the Social Welfare Centre Johan Maasbach World Mission at No.10 (Old No.40), Arcot Road, Saligramam, Madras-93 and its properties, scheduled in the plaint;c) for a declaration that the reg...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mani Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC499
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the release of his tractor and trailer, which were seized by the respondents while sand was being transported by the vehicle. According to the petitioner, the sand was being carried only for agricultural use. In spite of informing the respondents that the sand was being carried only for agricultural purpose, the vehicle was seized. Even though the petitioner had forwarded a representation to the said effect on 10.1.2005, explaining the circumstances under which the sand was being transported from his own lands to another land belonging to him at the same village, the respondents have chosen to detain the vehicle illegally.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules (hereinafter called the 'Rules'), public are allowed to quarry sand for bona fide domestic or agricultural purposes without obtaining permission for quarrying, provided that the d...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Hyderabad, Industrial Finance Branch Vs. S.P. Savithri,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad275; [2006]130CompCas191(Mad)
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. As the issues involved in the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order.2. For the disposal of both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petitions, the following few facts are stated.The State Bank of Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to 'The Bank') filed O.A. No. 1967/1998 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal I, Chennai for recovery of a sum of Rs. 41,29,517.80 with interest and costs against defendants viz., (1) Srinivasa Leathers, a partnership firm, 2) Managing Partner S.P. Thangaraj, 3) R. Venkataraman, a partner and 4) S.P. Savithri guarantor for the loan by depositing title deeds in respect of D schedule(hereinafter referred to ' The Petitioner'). The claim against the petitioner was laid on the ground that she had mortgaged her house property detailed in Schedule D in O.A. as a guarantor for the loan. All the defendants in the suit including the Petitioner appeared before the Debt Recover...
Tag this Judgment!Bharathidasan University, Represented by Its Registrar-in-charge and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad377; 2005(2)CTC182
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Higher Education Department of State of Tamil Nadu, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli, aggrieved by the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.11.2004, made in W. P. No. 27030/2004, etc., batch, directing the Universities to consider the applications submitted by the petitioner-Institution for grant of affiliation for conducting teacher training course for the academic year 2004-2005 without insisting on the production of the No Objection Certificate from the State Government, have filed the above Writ Appeals. Since the issues raised in all the Writ Appeals are one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following order.2. For convenience, we shall refer the facts leading to the filing of Writ Appeal No. 4204/2004, filed by Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli. Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Educational and Charitable Trust, Perambalur, aggrieved by the proceedings of the Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli dated 23.9.2004 declining...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Somasundaram Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad213
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Petitioner, claiming himself as resident of Devakottai Town and a tax payer to the fourth respondent Municipality, has preferred the above public interest litigation praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus by calling for the records relating to the Resolution No. 90, dated 13-7-2004, passed by the Municipal Council of the fourth respondent Municipality and quash the same and consequently forbear the fourth respondent Municipality from in any manner putting up construction for the Municipal Middle School at Ward No. 14, East Street, Lakshmipuram, Devakottai Town, Sivaganga District.2. Mr. C. Selvaraj, learned Additional Government Pleader, took notice on behalf of the respondents, including the fourth respondent Municipality also.3. By Resolution No. 90, dated 13-7-2004 the 4th respondent Municipal Council, the fourth respondent Municipality proposed to construct a building to house the Municipal Middle School, which is presently located in a private...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.V.L. Builders (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)303
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal 'B' Bench, dt. 28th Oct., 2002 in ITA No. 959/Mad/1996 for the asst. yr. 1992-93 and the following questions have been raised:1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the admitted facts and the evidence collected by the AO, the Tribunal had not erred in arriving at an extremely low GP of 2 per cent when the prescribed standard profit rate in such building contracts is 8 per cent.2. Whether, having regard to the above, the Tribunal had no material to come to the conclusion that assessee's GP needed to be fixed at a rate lower than that fixed by the AO ?2. It is seen from the order of the Tribunal that the Tribunal has considered the matter in detail and arrived at the conclusion that the income at the rate 2 per cent on the gross receipts of the assessee should be taken as income taxable for the period under consideration. The Tribunal had also ta...
Tag this Judgment!First Leasing Company of India Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Chennai)649
1. This appeal of the assessee is emanating out of the order of the CIT(A)-II, Chennai, dt. 28th June, 2000, for the asst. yr. 1995-96. The assessee has raised eight grounds of appeal and four additional grounds of appeal. In all these grounds, the assessee has raised issues in the nature of disallowance of depreciation in respect of assets given on sale and lease back, disallowance of depreciation in respect of assets given on lease and disallowance of depreciation on assets mortgaged. In this way, the assessee has raised the issues three in nature and the issues are as under : 2. The learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the following case laws, commentaries and Acts : 1. The extracts of Law of Practice of Income-tax, Vol.-I, Ninth Edn. of Kanga, Palkhivala and Vyas. 2. The extracts of Indian Contract & Specific Relief Acts of Pollock & Mulla, Twelfth Edn., Vol. II.Jeypore Timber & Veneer Mills (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2982; 137 ITR 415 (Gau)CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »