Chennai Court March 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M. Vallavaraj, d Company C.i.S.F. Unit, Madras Port Trust Vs. the Depu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR686]; (2005)2MLJ152
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petitioner came to be dismissed from service by order dated 20.02.1993 passed by the second respondent which was affirmed by the appellate authority/first respondent by order dated 20.12.1993. This order of dismissal is in challenge in the writ petition. Heard Mr. A. Thirumurthy, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. K. Rajendran, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent. 2. The only charge against the petitioner is that he had taken medical leave (with effect from 21.7.1992) for two days on false grounds; left the headquarters without permission to Kancheepuram and there he was arrested by a local police on an allegation of criminal offence on 22.07.1992 whereby he was remanded to judicial custody which tarnished the image of Central Industrial Security Force. There is no dispute that all the procedures established by law that follows issuance of the charge memo had been strictly complied with. Num...
Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kiran Processors
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Chennai)511
1. This appeal of the Revenue relates to asst. yr. 1996-97. We heard both the representatives of the assessee and the Revenue. The only issue arises for consideration is regarding deduction under Section 80HHC.2. The first appellate authority directed the AO to exclude the dyeing charges from the total turnover and exclude only the profit element of the dyeing charges from the profit of the business for the propose of computing deduction under Section 80HHC. It is not in dispute that the dyeing charges are received in the course of the manufacturing activity of the goods exported. Therefore, there is a nexus between the dyeing charges received by the assessee and the goods exported. In this case, the first appellate authority has directed the AO to exclude the dyeing charges from the total turnover and also exclude profit element from the profit of the business. Even though there was a nexus between the business of the assessee and the dyeing charges received, the assessee has not cha...
Vasu Farms (P) Ltd Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)95ITD125(Chennai)
This appeal of the assessee relates to the assessment year 1992-93. The only issue arises for consideration is regarding the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards feeding, medicines, etc. on birds before they attain maturity.Shri V.S. Reddy, the learned representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee-company is engaged in production and sale of eggs.The learned representative further submitted that the assessee purchases chicks for running a poultry farm. The assessee maintains the chicks till they attain maturity or till they attain the stage to lay eggs. The assessee has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 94,15,342 as feed on the chicks as well as the layer birds, However, the assessing authority found that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on rearing the chicks is a capital expenditure, therefore, the expenditure relating to feed and medicine relatable to chicks was disallowed while computing the total income. According, the assessing officer disallowed a sum...
Vasu Farms (P.) Ltd. Vs. the Dy. Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Chennai)1051
1. This appeal of the assessee relates to the Assessment Year 192-93.The only issue arises for consideration is regarding the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards feeding, medicines, etc. on birds before they attain maturity.2. Shri V.S. Reddy, the learned representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee company is engaged in production and sale of eggs. The learned representative further submitted that the assessee purchases chicks for running a poultry farm. The assessee maintains the chicks till they attain maturity or till they attain the stage to lay eggs. The assessee has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 94,15,342/- as feed on the chicks as well as the layer birds. However, the assessing authority found that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on rearing the chicks is a capital expenditure, therefore, the expenditure relating to feed and medicine relatable to chicks was disclosed while computing the total income. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowe...
Veerasamy Udayar Vs. the District Collector and the Special Tasildhar, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC350; (2005)3MLJ383
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 26 -4-2004 in W.P. No.4227 of 1997.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the impugned order. In paragraph 3 of the impugned order, it has been stated as follows:'From the facts narrated above, it is seen that the petitioner has approached this Court much after passing of the award and the lands were distributed to the needy persons.' Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the above statement of fact that the petitioner/appellant had approached this Court after the award was given and that the lands have been distributed to the needy persons is factually incorrect. We cannot permit the learned counsel for the appellant to raise this plea before us. It is well-settled by a catena of judgments of the Apex Court that statements of fact recorded in the judgment of a court are ordinarily conclusive and not open to be contradicted in appeal. Th...
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Government Municipal Administ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ1138Mad; (2005)2MLJ486
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The first respondent went before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 7409 of 1996 challenging the charge memo dated 13.10.1996 served on him. The Tribunal quashed that charge memo. The Government is therefore before this court in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel on either side.2. The order in challenge shows that on the same set of facts, the first respondent and another were proceeded with in S.C. NO. 92 of 1992 on the file of Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivaganga for offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The impugned order also shows that the said case ended in acquittal by judgment dated 16.9.1994. There is no dispute that the said judgment had become final. The Tribunal perusing the copy of the judgment and the contents of the charge memo found that the facts relied upon in the charge memo are the same facts, on which the first respondent was tried before the Special Court and...
M. George Vs. M. Albert and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC205; (2005)3MLJ327
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The second defendant in O.S. No. 249 of 1996 on the file of the Sub-court, Ootacamund is the revision petitioner herein. The first respondent herein has filed the above said O.S. No. 249 of 1996.2. In the said suit, the fourth defendant, who is the sister of the first respondent herein as well as the revision petitioner was set exparte on 19-11-1992. Thereafter, the fourth defendant died on 04-09-1996, hence the plaintiff/first respondent herein has filed I.A. No. 1039 of 2003 to implead the legal heirs of the deceased fourth defendant as defendants 9 to 11 in the suit. The trial court, after hearing both sides allowed the said application, hence this revision petition.3. Mr. Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial court failed to note that the suit as against the fourth defendant abates and as such the trial Court ought not to have permitted to implead the legal heirs of the deceased fourth defendant in the absenc...
S. Saideeshwara Rao, Sub-inspector of Police and P. Seshagiri Rao, Cir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC248
ORDERHeard.The above noted escort produced A2,A3 and A4 at 4.00 P.M. on 2.11.98. None of the accused complained illtreatment by police. The allegation is that A2 and A-3 obtained anticipatory bail from High Court of Tamil Nadu but they did not execute the bond as per such orders. Whereas the accused stated that they executed the bond before the concerned Magistrate. A2 and A3 did not produce any certified copy of order of High Court of Tamil Nadu or the concerned Magistrate to the effect that the accused executed bonds.Hence, basing on the allegation in the report, A2 to A4 remanded to Judicial Custody u/s 167 Cr.P.C. up to 16.11.98.'14. The above observation, in the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal, would indicate that the police themselves informed the Magistrate about the anticipatory bail granted to the accused by Madras High Court, but the accused were not able to produce any orders, regarding the intimation of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Georg...
D. Ganesh Vs. A. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC405; [2006]67SCL310(Mad)
N. Kannadasan, J.1. The above revision is filed challenging the order dated 10.9.2003 of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Madurai, wherein the petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 204 and 245, Cr.P.C. to dismiss the complaint by dropping the proceedings.2. The respondent has filed a complaint under Sections 190(1)(a) and 200 of Cr.P.C. and 621 of the Companies Act, before the learned Magistrate, which reads as follows:He was one of the promoter of the Madurai City Benefit Fund Limited (hereinafter called as a 'Company'), subscriber and also the shareholder. The revision petitioner, who was appointed as a Clerk initially, became the Branch Manager and also the Director of the said company. The appointment and other activities implicate the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 314(2) r/w 629(A) of the Companies Act, and under Section 409, I.P.C. The respondent is owning the shares of the company as per the evidence available on record, he is having transactio...
G. Kailasam and anr. Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad297; (2005)2MLJ218
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25-11 -2004, made in Writ Petition No. 30013 of 2003 in and by which the learned Judge confirmed the auction notice for bringing the property of the appellant by way of public auction to realise the money due to Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation.2. It is not in dispute that the third respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,95 lakhs from the first respondent herein, namely, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'TIIC'), promising to repay the said sum with interest as agreed. The appellant herein stood as a guarantor along with his wife K. Banumathy, 4th respondent herein (transposed as 2nd appellant as per order dated 25-1-2005 made in WAMP No. 114/2005) and Flat, namely, C-2, Balaji Apartments, Dhandeeswarar Nagar, VI Main Road, Velachery, Chennai-42 was mortgaged by way of equitable mortgage by depositing title deeds as security for the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »