Chennai Court October 2006 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.
R. Subramanian Vs. K. Devarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: IV(2007)BC36
ORDERR. Regupathi, J.1. The petitioner is an accused for in offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. It is alleged in the complaint at paragraph 6 that a statutory notice dated 7.11.1995 was issued and the accused refused to receive the same and requested the complainant to represent and encash the amount. Subsequently, the complainant alleged to have deposited the same cheque on 20.1.1996 and again it was dishonoured. A second notice was issued on 3.2.1996 and as the petitioner/accused refused to receive the same, it was returned on 13.2.1996.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that once a statutory notice is issued on the dishonour of the cheque, the cause of action arises and, subsequently, the complainant may have to approach the Court for the relief. But in the instant case, after the expiry of the stipulated period of the first notice, the complaint has not been initiated, but a second notice has been issued.4. Learned Counsel for the pe...
C. Regraj Vs. Bank of Rajasthan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: (2007)1CompLJ204(Mad)
ORDERP. Jyothlmani, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the possession notice issued by the respondent bank against the petitioner dated 30.8.2006 by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Enforcements and Security Enforcement Act, 2002.2. The case of the petitioner is that on earlier occasion, this court in VVP MP No. 13904/2006 dated 10.5.2006 has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs. However, it appears that the petitioner has deposited only Rs. 20 lakhs and he has filed an application for the purpose of extension of time for payment of the balance amount of Rs. 30 lakhs. By subsequent order dated 31.5.2006, this court has directed the petitioner to pay the said balance amount of Rs. 30 lakhs within four weeks time. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that before the expiry of four weeks time given by this court, an order under Section 13(4) of the said Act came to be passed, taking possess...
Lakshmi Vs. M.V. Balamurali and Balasubramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC518
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated Revision Petition filed against the order dated 21.10.2002, passed in R.C.A. No. 17/2001 on the file of the appellate authority/Principal Sub-Judge, Salem, confirming the order dated 27.6.2001 passed in R.C.O.P. No. 40/1994, on the file of the Rent Controller/I Addl. District Munsif, Salem.2. The tenant is the revision petitioner.3. The 1st respondent as the landlord filed RCOP No. 40/1994 against one R. Padmavathiammal, the original tenant and two others for evicting them from the petition premises on the grounds of wilful default, subletting, owner's occupation and demolition and reconstruction. According to the landlord/1st respondent herein, he is a goldsmith by profession and he purchased the petition schedle property on 17.8.1992 and informed the same to the said R. Padmavathiammal who was inducted as a tenant by the landlord's vendor. As the original tenant R. Padmavathiammal was chronic and w...
The General Manager (Tech.) and Project Director, National Highways Au ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC634
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. Mr. Kirupakaran, learned Counsel wives service for the first respondent. Mr. Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader waives service for respondents 2, 3 and 5. The second respondent is a formal party to the proceedings.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.3. The writ appeals have been filed challenging the interlocutory order passed in the writ petitions. By consent of the parties, the writ petitions themselves are taken up for hearing along with the writ appeals. 4. The petitioners in these two writ petitions are the co-owners of the property comprised in S. No. 104/2 at Kollambakkam village, Maduranthakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District, admeasuring 3.36 Acres. The said property has been purchased by the petitioners under two separate sale deeds dated 12-6-2003, each for 1.68 Acres. Out of 3.36 Acres, an area of 0.80 hectares of land has been acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act') for the purpose of fo...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Apcom Computers (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: [2007]292ITR630(Mad)
...
Sri Lakshmi Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. Central Excise, Service Tax App ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2006
Reported in: 2007(207)ELT335(Mad)
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. W.P. No. 12943 of 2005 :- The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Appeal No. E/225 of 2002 and quash the Final Order No. 283/2005, dated 01.03.2005, passed by the first respondent and further direct the first respondent to take up the appeal No. 225 of 2002 for hearing on merits.W.P. No. 12944 of 2005 :- The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Appeal No. E/597/2004 and condonation delay application No. E/COD/252/2004 and quash the final order No. 973/04 and the Miscellaneous order No. 641/04, dated 03.11.2004, passed by the first respondent and further direct the first respondent to take up the appeal No. E/597/2004 for hearing on merits.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. By consent of the learned Counsels, the ...
Ontrack Systems Ltd. Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of I.T.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2006
Reported in: (2007)108ITD279(Chennai)
1. This appeal of the Assessee is directed against the order of the C.I.T. (Appeals)-V, Chennai dated 12.12.2003. The relevant assessment year involved in this appeal is 2000-01.2. The only issue in this appeal of the Assessee is whether creation of website would fall within the ambit of Section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and can it be considered as design within definition of this section.3. The briefly stated facts are that the Assessee is engaged in the business of computer maintenance and services. The Assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-O of the Act on foreign exchange earned at US$ 10,000/- equivalent to a sum of Rs. 4,32,500/-. For designing the websites, the amounts received and the nature of work done by the Assessee are as under:Person from whom Amount received Date of receipt Nature of servicereceived US$ renderedAstral Systems 5,000 4.6.99 Development ofInc California 11.8.99 website city4u comItouchu 5,000 31.1.2000 Designing andCorporation 21.02.2000 progra...
The Government of Pondicherry Rep. by Secretary to Government and the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Mad140
ORDER:WHEREAS under Section 349 of Pondicherry Municipalities Act, 1973, read with Pondicherry Municipalities (Places of Public Resort and Entertainments), Rules 1980 applications are being received for grant of licenses for performing Indian classical, western dances and floor shows.2. WHERAS, in term of Section 349(3)(a) of Pondicherry Municipalities Act, 1973, G.O. No. 383, dt.30.12.1976 of Local Administration Department was issued.3. WHEREAS, the Government of Pondicherry is satisfied that it is not in public interest to grant any further licenses for the purposes mentioned above. Therefore, the Municipal Authorities are directed not to issue any fresh license for the above mentioned purposes in any permanent buildings, as defined under Rule 2(c) of Pondicherry Municipalities (Places of Public Resort and Entertainments) Rules, 1980.By OrderK. Nagalingam,Under Secretary to Govt (LA) B. S.Muthukumaraswamy/Proprietor of M/s. Fillo Hotels filed a petition, dated 21.11.2005, praying fo...
Manjula Vs. Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited, Represented by Its Auth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC303
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The Order of reference made by T.V. Masilamani, J. reads as under:CRL.O.P. No. 21432 of 2002This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1130 of 2002 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 2. The averments in the petition are stated briefly as follows:The petitioner is the resident of Alur in Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. She started business in consumer items and placed orders for supply of several consumer items with the respondent-company having its office at Mumbai. The respondent supplied goods on various dates from 21.7.2001 to 30.8.2001. The petitioner signed blank cheques and left with the respondent and as per the usual trade practice, the respondent filled up the amount for the values supplied in the cheque and received payment through bank. On account of the ill-health of the petitioner, she entrusted the business to her brothers and since they mismanaged the same, the business was closed down in or about...
Exnora International Rep. by Its General Secretary Vs. the Government ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ353
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Exnora International, Madras-17, filed this Public Interest Litigation in the year 1996, seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to demolish the structures put up in the Buckingham Canal and to forbear them from in any manner implementing the Metropolitan Rapid Transit System (in short MRTS) project in an environmentally unsustainable manner.2. According to the petitioner, this writ petition is filed in public interest to prevent the implementation of the MRTS project in the city of Madras in an environmentally unsustainable manner, which will have far-reaching adverse impact on the lives of millions of residents of this City. The petitioner is a registered Trust formed on the objective of improvement of civil amenities and the environment. One of the primary concerns of the petitioner Trust is public health and safety. 3. The city of Madras has four water ways running through it. They are Cooum, Adyar river, Otteri Nallah and Buckingham C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »