Chennai Court June 2005 Judgments
Modern Radio Service, Rep. by Its Partner, G. Venkatesan Chettiar Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC722; [2005(106)FLR1129]
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. As early as 30.4.1997, a learned Judge of this Court ordered notice of motion. It continues to be in the same state of affairs. Admit.2. The respondent herein passed an order dated 7.7.1989 under Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' determining the contribution payable by the appellant for the period from July 1981 to May 1988 at Rs.34,473 with interest. The appellant went before the Employees' State Insurance Court, hereinafter referred to as the 'Insurance Court', Chennai, in E.I.O.P. No. 63/1989 to quash the order and for a declaration that the appellant's establishment and the three independent companies namely, Modern Radio Service - Fridge, Modern Radio Service -Fan and Vijayalakshmi and Company are not one establishment and therefore should not be covered as such under the E.S.I. Act. The E.S.I. Court by order dated 31.7.1996 in E.I.O.P. No. 63/1989 directed the Registry to return to the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rasi Silks
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Chennai)978
"1. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim of write-off of debit balances of retired partners as capital loss assessable under the head 'Capital gains' and allowing to set off with capital gains arising out of sale of other assets. 2. The CIT(A) failed to note that there is no transfer of capital asset and no consideration was received for such transfer. 3. The CIT(A) overlooked the fact that partners retired on 31st March, 1991 and 31st March, 1993, but the transfer of assets and capital loss were taken for the accounting period relevant to the asst. yr. 1995-96. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have applied the ratio of decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. G. Seshagiri Rao (1995) 213 ITR 305 (AP) and sustained the disallowance of the assessee's claim of capital loss." 2. During the assessment year, assessee had filed a return declaring a loss of Rs. 21,65,283. Assessee has sold certain assets on which capital gain arose, but assessee deducted a sum of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Manonmaniammal, Vs. Dr. Duraikannu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ4
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Sub Court, Chidambaram, passed in I.A.No.129/2003 in O.S.No. 138/1997, dismissing the application filed under Section Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, declining to implead the Chief Medical Officer, Villupuram and District Collector, Villupuram as Defendants to the suits. The Plaintiffs are the Revision Petitioners.2. O.S.No.138/1997.The deceased 1st Plaintiff - Shanmugam Sundaram was bitten by a stray dog on 30.1.1996. From 31.3.1996 to 6.4.1996, he had taken treatment in Government Hospital Villupuram and he was given seven anti-rabi injections continuously. On 8.4.1996, he came to his father-in-law's house at Parangipettai and he developed hiccups and other complications. He was admitted as in-patient in Government Hospital, Parangipettai on 10.4.1996. On 10.4.1996, the Defendant gave injections near the spinal cord of the back side and hip portion of the 1st Plaintiff. Thereafter, the 1st Plaintiff developed complic...
Tag this Judgment!Minor. Deivanai and Minor. Palanimurugan (Rep. by their Mother and Nex ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ436
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This revision arises out of the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mettur dated 15.10.2001, passed in C.M.A.No.11/2001, modifying the order dated 27.4.2001 passed in I.A.No.34/2001 in O.S.No.12/2001, by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Omalur. The Plaintiffs are the Revision Petitioners.2. The Plaintiffs are daughter and son of D-1-Palanivelu. Selvi - mother of the Plaintiffs married D-1 ten years prior to the suit. The Plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition of the suit properties into four equal shares and allot two shares to the Plaintiffs. The case of the Plaintiff is that about ten years after the marriage, the first Defendant was ill-treating Selvi, demanding for more dowry and jewels. With no other option, the Plaintiffs along with their mother, took shelter in the house of their mother. Even thereafter, the first Defendant or his father viz., the second Defendant never cared about the welfare of the Plaintiffs and their mother. The ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kaliammal Vs. the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC529
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the above appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.2. In the appeal, the order dated 31.3.2005 passed by the second respondent is in challenge. In the impugned order, the statutory appeal filed under Section 47-A(5) of the Indian Stamps Act, stands rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that along with the appeal before the second respondent, an application supported by an affidavit to condone the delay of 50 days was also filed. However, according to him, the second respondent never exercises such a power to condone the delay on the premises that he has no power.3. The learned Additional Government Pleader defending the respondents would submit that the delay is not 50 days, but it is more than six months. He would submit that the proceedings of the first respondent is dated 20.9.2004 and the appeal before the second re...
Tag this Judgment!A. Manickam Vs. Raju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC843; 2006ACJ1544; 2005(3)CTC727; [2005(106)FLR1132]; (2005)IIILLJ820Mad
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The claimant is the appellant. He was employed as a driver of the lorry bearing registration No. TAS 630. He sustained injuries when he was thrown over. He made a claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem against the first respondent herein. Subsequently, he impleaded the second respondent Insurance Company and on seeing the counter filed by the opposite parties, he also impleaded the third respondent in whose name the insurance policy stood at the time of the accident. The Commissioner dismissed the claim on the ground that the accident did not arise out of employment and did not answer the other issues that were raised by him, since this issue was answered in negative.2. The following substantial questions of law were raised by the appellant :(i) Whether the appellant/claimant is a workman as per the Workmen's Compensation Act and(ii) Whether the accident happened on 17.3.1992 arose out of and in the c...
Tag this Judgment!N. Priyadarshini Vs. the Secretary to Government, Education Department ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad315; 2005(3)CTC449; (2005)3MLJ97
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition and the connected writ petitions involve a common question of law, i.e., the validity of G.O.Ms.No. 184 Higher Education (J2) Department, dated 09.06.2005 abolishing the Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Common Entrance Examination 2005 and discontinuation of the improvement exam for admission to professional colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu for the academic year 2005-2006. Since common questions of law and fact are involved, we have heard all the cases together, and are disposing them off by this common judgment.2. In W.P. No. 18801 of 2005, N. Priyadarshini v. The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai - 9 and Anr. (which we are treating as the leading case), it has been alleged in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the writ petitioner undertook the plus 2 (class 12) examination from the State Board in March 2003 at Rasipuram, Namakkal District and secured qualifying mar...
Tag this Judgment!L. Krishnan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary, Depa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad311; 2005(4)CTC1
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. This is a Public Interest Litigation, where the petitioner seeks for a direction against respondents 1 to 5 to remove the encroachments made by the respondents 6 to 12 in Odai Poromboke in Iyan Punji Survey No. 100/1 at No. 247, Tatchur Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District measuring 5 acres and 70 cents.2. In fact, on an earlier occasion, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 9562 of 1998 wherein the First Bench of this Court passed an order dated 13.7.1998 disposing of the writ petition, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the very same respondents 1 to 5 for the removal of encroachment. In the said order, the Collector and the Tahsildar, namely, respondents 3 and 4 were directed to decide the representation by passing a speaking order within one month and also intimate the same to the petitioner.3. This time, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent brought to our not...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Thangavel Spinning Mills Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Chennai)515
1. This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 9.6.2000. The germane assessment year is 1997-98. The remonstration in the appeal is that the CIT (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute the profit under Section 115JA of the Act after allowing deduction for depreciation of Rs. 1,05,76,176/- which was not claimed in the profit and loss account as per annual report.2. To briefly stratify the case, while computing the book profits under Section 115JA the assessee had deducted depreciation amounting to 1,05,76,176/- from the book profits as depicted in the audited accounts. The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee had not claimed depreciation in the profit and loss account, the claim of depreciation of the assessee can only be rejected. On assesses appeal, the CIT (A) accepted the assessee's plea and made the order impugned against in this present appeal.3. The learned counsel of the assessee has averred that Section 115JA provide...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh JaIn S/O. Prem Chand Vs. Balachandar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC131; 2005CriLJ3881; 2005(3)CTC531
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. This revision is preferred challenging the legality and propriety of the order of dismissal under Section 203 of Criminal Procedure Code passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mayiladuthurai on the complaint filed by the revision petitioner against the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. In the complaint, the revision petitioner has alleged that the respondent, in partial discharge of the debt obtained from him, issued a cheque in his favour for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- on 16.10.2002 and the said cheque bearing No.491923 was drawn on City Union Bank, Cuddalore and when it was presented for collection through the petitioner' s Bank on 10.3.2003, it was returned with a Memo dated 13.3.2003 stating 'Funds Insufficient' and the petitioner received intimation to that effect from his Banker on 25.3.2003 and he issued a notice to the respondent on 27.3.2003 demanding the amount covered by the cheque and the respondent sent a reply co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »