Chennai Court July 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.
Jeya Vs. Sundaram Iyyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ278
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The defendant, who was unsuccessful before the trial Court in resisting the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff to amend the plaint, is the revision petitioner.2. On 4.8.2002, the plaintiff/respondent has filed the suit in O.S. No. 110 of 2002, on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruchendur for declaration that the debt borrowed on mortgage, dated 7.2.1996, is discharged in view of the deposit of the amount of Rs. 10,000/= i.e. for redemption, which was opposed, contending that the documents relied on by the plaintiff, are inadmissible in evidence. When the case was posted for judgment, after the closure of evidence, the plaintiff has filed I.A. No. 33 of 2004, to amend the plaint, in order to include the prayer for recovery of possession, which was allowed on 6.2.2004. Thereafter, the learned Additional District Munsif, hearing both sides, adjourned the case to 22.3.2004 for judgment and just two days before the judgment is to be pronounced, anot...
P. Suyambulingadurai Vs. State Rep. by the Secretary to Govt. of Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC264; (2005)3MLJ693
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. P. Suyambulingadurai, the petitioner herein has filed this writ petition as a public interest litigation seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent, the Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Power Energy Resources and the second respondent, the Chief Engineer, N.C.E.S., Chennai, to take necessary action against the respondents 4 to 7, viz., Suzlon Wind Form, Enercon (Indian) Limited, N.E.P.C. Wind Mill and N.E.G. Micon Limited, to re-erect the unauthorisedly erected transmission poles to some other location without affecting the safety and convenience of the public.2. According to the petitioner, the Dhanakarkulam Panchayat, in which the petitioner functions as Panchayat Vice President, is comprised of 9 villages with 11 ponds, besides the Anuman River. The various firms, the respondents 4 to 7 have commenced installing wind mills on the shoreline of the Panchayat to generate electricity. They have erected transmission ...
Senthilnayagam Vs. M. Paul Jayaraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC244
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. By the order impugned in these writ appeals, the learned Judge has set aside the grant made in favour of the appellant herein to ply a mini bus by holding that there were certain serious violations in the matter of consideration of various applications for grant of mini bus permit for the route Thudiyalur to Madathur via Vadamadurai.2. In this context, this Court has repeatedly held that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), there is an alternative statutory remedy of appeal/ revision under Section 89/90 of the Act to approach the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to challenge the order of grant made by the Regional Transport Authority in favour of the parties. The writ petitioner/ first respondent's application for grant of mini bus permit also came to be rejected by the Regional Transport Authority by order dated 21.1 .2005, as against which, a writ petition, being W.P. No. 3956 of 2005 came to be fi...
The Pondicherry Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC360; (2006)ILLJ646Mad; (2005)3MLJ649
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 7.12.2001. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. The facts have been given in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we need not repeat the same.3. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent was a Welfare Officer in the appellant factory. Rule 6 of the Pondicherry Factories (Welfare Officers) Rules, 1965 states:-1. A Welfare Officer shall be given appropriate status corresponding to the status of a member of the factory executive staff.2. The conditions of services of a Welfare Officer shall be the same as those of other members of the staff of corresponding status in the factory, provided that in the case of discharge or dismissal, the Welfare Officer shall have a right to appeal to the Commissioner of Labour, whose decision thereon shall be final and binding upon the occupier of the factory.Th...
S. Parthasarathy and ors. Vs. N. Arumugam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ487
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.2. Petitioner in the writ petition is really aggrieved against an order passed by the competent authority under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997 (Act 44 of 1997). Under Section 3, after passing an interim order of attachment, the competent authority constituted under Section 4 of the Act has to move the appropriate forum, viz. the Special Court constituted under Section 6 of the said Act. Thereafter, the Special Court will be seized of the matter, who will be dealing with all other subsequent proceedings relating to the manner in which the attachment order passed under Section 3 of the Act is to be dealt with i.e. either to modify or vary the said order of attachment or even to revoke the same after analysing the facts and circumstances involved in the case. Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the said Act...
Titanium Equipment and Anode Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: [2005]278ITR565(Mad); [2005]150TAXMAN188(Mad)
Markandey Katju, C.J.These two appeals under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are being disposed of by a common judgment.In both these appeals one common question of law involved is whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing extra shift allowance and additional depreciation on the assets leased out by the assessee?The assessee is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, and the relevant assessment year is 1986-87. The assessee claimed extra shift depreciation allowance on the leased out assets. The authorities below rejected this claim on the ground that since the assessee had leased out the assets it could not be said that it used the assets itself.In Parkside Explosives & Industries Ltd. v. CIT : [2005]278ITR561(Mad) (Tax Case Reference No. 91 of 2000) a Division Bench of this High Court following the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. : [1998]234I...
Kay Arr Enterprises Vs. Joint Cit, Special Range Ii
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: (2005)97ITD291(Chennai)
These appeals are filed by different assessees. Since common issue is involved in these appeals and the assessees are of the same group, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. In these three appeals of the assessees, the relevant assessment year involved is 1996-97 pertaining to the financial year 1995-96.The only common issue in these appeals is that as to whether, in view of family arrangement as arrived at by the assessees to rearrange their shareholdings to avoid possible litigation among themselves will attract capital gain or not and whether it is a transfer or not.The briefly stated facts are that the assessees, along with their family members in the previous year ended 31-3-1996, had transferred shares owned by the assessees and family members in M/s. Lakshmi Mills Ltd. and Lakshmi Card Clothing Co. Ltd. to the family members of Shri G.K. Sundaram. The assessees in regard to these transfers had submitted as un...
Kay Arr Enterprises Vs. the Jt. Commissioner of I.T.,
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: (2005)279ITR163(Chennai)
1. These appeals are filed by different assessees. Since common issue is involved in these appeals and the assessees are of the same group, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. In these three appeals of the assessees, the relevant assessment year involved is 1996-96 pertaining to the financial year 1995-96.2. The only common issue in these appeals is that as to whether, in view of family arrangement as arrived at by the assessees to rearrange their share holdings to avoid possible litigation among themselves will attract capital gain or not and whether it is a transfer or not.3. The briefly stated facts are that the assessees, along with their family members in the previous year ended 31.3.1996 had transferred shares owned by the assessees and family members in M/s. Lakshmi Mills Ltd. and Lakshmi Card Clothing Co. Ltd. to the family members of Shri G.K. Sundaram. The assessees in regard to these transfers had submit...
Latha Vs. the Secretary to the Government Prohibition and Excise Depar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC17
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Muthu, who challenges the impugned order of detention dated 28.02.2005, detaining him as ' Goonda' under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short 'Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982').2. Heard learned counsel for both the sides.3. Even at the out set, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is enormous delay in the disposal of representation of the detenu dated 24.03.2005, which vitiates the detention order passed against him. With reference to the said claim, the learned Government Advocate has placed before us certain details, which show that the representation of the detenu dated 24.03.2005 was received by the Government on 29.03.2005; remarks were called for on 30.03.2005 and remarks were received on 04.04.2005. Thereafter, file was submitted on 05.0...
Administrator, Mcc Finance Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Gandhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: [2005]127CompCas85(Mad); (2005)6CompLJ432(Mad); [2005]63SCL326(Mad)
D. Murugesan, J.1. The application has been filed for an order declaring the transaction between the applicant-company and the respondent by name Sri Ramesh Gandhi is null and void in terms of Sections 125, 531 and 531A of the Companies Act and for a direction to the respondent to return the entire 61,740 equity shares of M/s. Divi's Laboratories Ltd. along with the related documents, dividends received and any other benefits received in respect of the said shares and to restrain the respondent from selling the said shares, if they have not been already sold.2. The following are the averments in the application :The applicant-company viz., MCC Finance Ltd. was a non-banking financial company. The company was part of the M.A. Chidambaram group of companies-SPIC group which claimed a turnover of Rs. 3,500 crores. As the applicant-company offered higher interest than the banks, it was able to collect a number of deposits. It had to repay more than Rs. 160 crores collected by way of deposi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »