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.
Narayanan Vs. Chandrasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC693
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioner in both the revisions is the tenant under the respondent/landlord in respect of the petition premises. Both the revisions have been filed challenging the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on the ground of demolition and reconstruction in confirming such order of the learned Rent Controller.2. The mother of the respondent, viz., Pattammal has filed both the Rent Control Original Petitions for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and demolition and reconstruction. In addition in respect of the tenant Narayanan, it is stated that the premises is used other than for which it was leased. Both the Rent Control Original Petitions have been filed by the landlady claiming that the premises in both the petitions belonged to her son, the respondent Chandrasekaran, who is a college lecturer, in that, she was collecting rent on behalf of the respondent as authorised by him, whi...
Nuziveedu Seeds Limited Vs. the Official Liquidator, High Court as the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: [2006]134CompCas396(Mad); [2007]75SCL280(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Since the above two Appeals and connected Miscellaneous Petitions arose from order dated 24-11-2004 in Company Application No. 1448 of 2000 in Company Petition No. 2 of 1989 of the learned Company Judge, the same are being disposed of by the following common Judgement. 2. The matter relates to disposal of movable and immovable properties of M/s. Standard Motor Products of India Limited. By Order dated 4-10-1996 in Company Petition No. 2 of 1989, Messrs. Standard Motor Products of India Limited was ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court has become the Liquidator of the said company, with a direction to take charge of all the assets and effects of the company. Pursuant to the above direction, the official liquidator filed necessary applications including permission to call global tenders for sale of the land, building, plant and machinery and other movables of the Standard Motor Products of India Limited which is in liquidation...
Narayanan Chettiar Industries Vs. the Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Mad)148; [2005]277ITR426(Mad)
Markandey Katju, C.J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act which was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-'Whether the Tribunal was right in treating the amount of Rs. 23,66,695/- (the amount which was written off by the sister concern of the assessee) as the income in the hands of the assessee and on that count liable to be taxed under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act?'2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, including orders of the Income-tax authorities. All the authorities have decided on the above point against the assessee.3. The question is as to whether the amount in question can be added as income in the hands of the assessee under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act.4. It is well settled that the revenue can add a sum to the assessee's income under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act only if it can prove that the allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment in the previous year in res...
Jt. Sub Registrar-i Vs. Prasanth Chandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad354; 2005(4)CTC417; (2005)3MLJ628
F. M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The Joint Sub Registrar-I, District Registrar Office, Coimbatore is the appellant. The challenge is to the order of the learned single Judge dated 21-9-2004 in W.P. No. 15449 of 2004.2. By the impugned order, the respondent's writ petition challenging the notice dated 19-3-2004 came to be allowed with a further direction to the appellant herein for registration of the document presented by the respondent within a period of 15 days and for the release of the same.3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition, are required to be stated.There was a partition between the respondent, his father and his brother on the one side and the paternal uncle and his sons on the other side, by a deed dated 22-8-2003. Under the said document, the respondent was allotted 'A' Schedule property while 'B' Schedule property was allotted to the paternal uncle and his children. That part of the deed by which, 'A' Schedule property came to be allotted to the resp...
Tvl. Opera Arts Industries Rep. by Its Proprietor R.M. Salam Vs. the R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: [2005]142STC113(Mad)
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai dated 18.03.2002 in T.C (R) No. 151137 of 1999. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.3. The petitioner is a dealer in Elastic Rail Clips, which he manufactures and sells to the Railways. The elastic rail clip is a clip which holds together the sleeper and the rails in the track. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax, and Central Sales Tax, and is an assessee on the file of the second respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer, Mannady (West) Assessment Circle, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the C.T.O.).4. For the assessment year 1995-96, the petitioner showed a total taxable turnover of Rs.22,94,775/- under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the TNGST Act'). The petitioner reported the above turnover as taxable at 4% claimi...
Santhosh Hospitals Private Limited, Rep. by Its Administrative Officer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad348; (2005)3MLJ406
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J. 1. This writ petition has been filed praying for the a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order of the first respondent/State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu dated 28.07.20042. Heard Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Advocate General for the State; Mr. G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel for the State Human Rights Commission and Mr. K.Govi Ganesan for the third respondent in the writ petition.3. The petitioner claims to be a reputed hospital in Chennai. After the enactment of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Transplantation Act'), the petitioner applied for registration under Section 10 of the Transplantation Act to the appropriate authority viz., the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Tamil Nadu for conducting transplantation of human organS. By order dated 01.09.1996, the registration certificate was issued to the petitioner in Regi...
Sri Ramakrishna Mills (Cbe) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: (2006)7SOT356(Chennai)
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the revisionary order of the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, wherein the Commissioner has invoked the provisions of section 263 for the reason that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80-I of the Act in excess of Rs. 61,79,383 without setting off the notional carry forward loss in the eligible undertaking of the assessee in the earlier year which had been adjusted against the profit of the undertaking of the assessee in the earlier previous year and directed the assessing officer to set off the notional carried forward loss of the eligible unit against the current year's profit as the earlier order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.At the outset, the assessee urged that invoking of provisions of section 263 is bad in law as the twin conditions, i.e., erroneous and prejudicial to the intere...
Digivision Electronics Ltd. Vs. Indian Bank, Rep. by Its Deputy Genera ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC502; [2005]126CompCas630(Mad); 2005(3)CTC513; (2005)3MLJ394; [2005]63SCL714(Mad)
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J. 1. All the above writ petitions relate to the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act).2. Various questions of law have been raised in these petitions. By this common judgment we are disposing off all these writ petitions dealing with the points raised in these various petitions. Hence, this judgment will apply to all the above mentioned cases and other cases listed before us, relating to the Securitisation Act.3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have noted their contentions.4. Before dealing with these contentions we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India : AIR2004SC2371 , in which the Supreme Court dealt with the challenge to the validity of various provisions of the Securitisation Act.5. In Mardia Chemicals Limited Case (supra) it was submitted before the Supreme Court that the S...
R. Swaminathan Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: (2006)ILLJ467Mad; (2005)3MLJ573
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. 'Good administration of justice does not only depend upon the judges, but also upon the lawyers and the entire staff of the Judiciary'. The petitioner R. Swaminathan. Ex-Amin in the District Court, Karaikal has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the Chief Judge, Pondicherry, 2nd respondent herein, in No. 3883/JD/A/2000 dated 01-11-2000 imposing punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner which shall be a disqualification for future employment under the Government and for consequential benefits.2. The brief facts are as follows:The petitioner was appointed as Orderly-cum-Peon in Judicial Department, Government of Pondicherry with effect from 17-03-1980 and was promoted as Copyist/Attender with effect from 11-2-1993, by Office Order No. 281/JD/A/93-232, dated 27-1-1993 of the Judicial Department, Pondicherry. The Disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him consequent o...
Chinnakkal Vs. Marakkal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ577
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, made in I.A.No. 866 of 1998 in O.S.No. 575 of 1996 dated 28-10-1998, dismissing the petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. declining permission to amend the plaint.2. O.S.No. 575 of 1996:- This suit was originally filed in the year 1994 in Sub-Court, Erode. Later, the suit was transferred to the Court of District Munsif, Perundurai and renumbered as O.S.No.575 of 1996. The case of the Plaintiff is that in the suit property in R.S.No.3 of Chinnamallanpalayam Village, the Plaintiff is entitled to 1/8th share out of the suit properties and the well situated thereon. The Defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to 3/8th share. The Defendants 3 and 4 are together entitled to 4/8th share. The Defendants failed to comply with the demand of the Plaintiff to effect partition. The Defendants are entitled to irrigate their share in R.S.No.3 alone and they are not entitled to tak...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »