Chennai Court September 2005 Judgments

Dr. M. Ashiq Nihmathullah Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represente ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2005(5)CTC26

ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. In all these writ petitions, this Court is called upon to decide as to whether the award of one mark for every year of Rural service under the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services or Director of Public Health Controlled Institutions up to a maximum of 10 marks to in-service candidates for consideration of their admissions to Higher Speciality Courses in Medicine is justified. The relevant clauses in the Prospectus are as follows:50) The merit list for each discipline of the Higher Speciality Course will be prepared by computing the entrance examination marks and service marks which will be calculated to a maximum of 100 (Entrance Mark 90 + Service Mark 10). Rural services marks will be added to the total aggregate marks of the service candidates.51)a) The Individual Mark (Service/Non-service) is calculated by computing the marks secured by the candidate in the Entrance Examination and Service Marks of one mark for each year after completion of the P.G. ...

Wockhardt Ltd. Vs. Hetero Drugs Ltd. and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2006(32)PTC473(Mad)

D. Murugesan, J.O.A. NO. 544 of 20051. This original application praying that this Hon'ble, Court be pleased to grant an order of Ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents, their directors, partners, servants, agents, dealers, distributors, retailers or assigns and each of them from in any way infringing the Patent No. 188847 of the Applicant or in any way using a process which infringes the said Patent No. 188347 of the applicant in the manufacture of any pharmaceutical and medicinal product/process or in any other manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit. O.A.NO. 545 of 2005This Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of Ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents, their directors, partners, servants, agents, dealers, distributors, retailers or assigns and each of them from in any way infringing the EMR No. EMR/1/03 of the applicant or in any way using any composition which infringes the said EMR No. EMR/1/03 by manufactu...

Tamilnadu Chlorates Vs. the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals) and relates to the assessment year 1996-97.2. Shri S.P. Chidambaram, learned Counsel for the assessee neatly identified the issues as under : 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of power generation? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case assessee did comply with the conditions contained under Section 80HH and 80-I in relation to the employment of the requisite number of employees? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the provision of Section 80AB was property appreciated in regard to the consideration of income generated during the previous year from the wind mill for quantifying the deduction under Section 80HH and 80-I of the Act? 3. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. Assessee cl...

Tamil Nadu Chlorates Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Chennai)80

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) and relates to the asst. yr. 1996-97.2. Shri S.P. Chidambaram, learned Counsel for the assessee, neatly identified the issues as under : 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Sections 80HH and 80-I of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of power generation 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, assessee did comply with the conditions contained under Sections 80HH and 80-I in relation to the employment of the requisite number of employees 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provision of Section 80AB was properly appreciated in regard to the consideration of income generated during the previous year from the windmill for quantifying the deduction under Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act 3. We have herd the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. Assessee claimed deduction u...

The Chief Secretary, the Government of Pondicherry, Vs. Dr. S. Sridevi ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2005)4MLJ290

A. Kulasekaran, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single judge in W.P. No. 10292 of 2005 dated 29-04-2005.2. The first respondent herein has filed the above writ petition No. 10292 of 2005 on 22-03-2005 praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first appellant herein to fill up the vacant seat of M.D.S. Course in the second respondent/dental college for the academic year ending with 28-04-2005.3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that the first respondent herein appeared for MDS entrance examination conducted by PGDH in the year 2004 under general quota; the total number of seats during the relevant period was six, out of which Pondicherry domicile/ resident quota was three; All India quota was two and NRI/ NRI sponsored/foreign student quota was one; that one Archana, who joined MDS in the second appellate college discontinued her studies as she has got seat in Madras Dental College and the first respondent herein appro...

K.R. Sengottuvelu, Vs. Karuppa Naicker and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2006Mad11; 2005(5)CTC91; (2005)4MLJ348

ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The defendants 1, 4 and 6 in O.S. No. 42 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode are the revision petitioners in CRP PD No. 883 of 2004.2. The fourth defendant in O.S. No. 599 of 2003 on the file of the Sub-court, Namakkal is the petitioner in CRP PD No. 959 of 2004.3. The revision petitioner in CRP PD No. 959 of 2004 and the second petitioner in CRP PD No. 883 of 2004 have filed copy application in C.A. No. 8260 of 2003 praying the court below to issue certified copy of the certain documents, which was rejected, hence CRP PD No. 959 of 2004 has been filed.4. The petitioners in CRP PD No. 883 of 2004 have filed I.A. No. 1448 of 2003 in O.S. No. 42 of 1986 seeking for a direction to summon the suit documents, which was dismissed, hence CRP PD No. 883 of 2004 has been filed.5. Mr. Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that both the revision petitions have been filed seeking the very same relief of directi...

Rathinammal Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Prohibi ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ4771; 2005(5)CTC186

ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner, wife of the detenu, who has been detained under Act 14 of 1982 in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, seeks a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention dated 23.6.2005 on the file of the second respondent herein made in Cr.M.P.No.11/2005/C1, to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents herein to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. According to the prosecution, on 30.5.2005, while the Inspector of Police, PEW, Gobichettipalayam was conducting prohibition raid at the western side of Rayarpalayam bus stop within Varapalayam police station limit, the detenu Easwaran was found distilling arrack covered by thorny trees. On apprehension of the detenu, police seized the illicit arrack, fermented wash, Kannuchatti, mud moda, rubber tube, Alumini Vadaisatti, Mudsatti, a white plastic container under a mahazar. A case in crime No.371 of 2005 under Section 4(1)(b), 4(1)(g), 4(...

R.P. Sarathy for Minor M. Pranuthi Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Ta ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Reported in: (2005)97TTJ(Chennai)801

1. These appeals of the assessee are directed against different orders of the CIT(A), Chennai. The relevant assessment years involved in these appeals are 1995-96 to 1999-2000. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The only common issue involved in all these appeals is as to whether the minor's income in view of the provisions of Section 64(1 A) of the IT Act can be clubbed in the hands of grandparents or uncle or aunty in case the parents are not alive. The assessee was born on 14th Dec., 1990 and her parents, father and mother died in a car accident on 28th June, 1993 and 5th July, 1993. At that point of time, the assessee was 2-1/2 years old child. Her grandfather, Sri R.P. Sarathy sent her to school in Bangalore under his guardianship.She inherited movable and immovable properties of the deceased parents and also from her grandmother as per the Hindu Succession...

Sri Ram. a (Minor) Rep. by His Father and Natural Guardian Mr. P. Arum ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2005)4MLJ305

ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have made one more attempt for inclusion of 'the grandchildren of Freedom Fighters' in the prospectus for consideration, selection and admission to the professional courses like medicine and engineering for the academic year 2005-06.2. In exercise of powers under Article 162 of The Constitution of India, the State Government issues each year the Government Orders, which are normally known as 'Policy Government Orders' containing norms for admission of candidates to various professional courses. Such Government Orders include the number of seats to be filled in, the colleges in which such seats are filled, eligibility, educational qualification, age restriction, the source of admission, etc. The State, under Article 15(4), could make any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, which is known as 'communal re...

S. Radha Krishnan Vs. S.V. Petha Perumal

Court: Chennai

Reported in: II(2006)BC382

ORDERT.V. Masilamani, J.1. The petitioner/accused has filed this petition challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Madurai in taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant in S.T.C. No. 3069 of 2004 on his file.2. The respondent preferred the complaint through the power of attorney before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner herein and after examining the power of attorney under Section 200, Cr.P.C, learned Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case. The petitioner has challenged the said cognizance of the case on various grounds and emphasised inter alia among other grounds that the Judicial Magistrate erred in examining the power of attorney of the complainant for the purpose of taking cognizance of the matter on his file.3. While the matter came up for admission, Mr. A.G. Senthil Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has advanced his arguments.4. Ac...