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.
G. Sathiyakala Vs. Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: II(2007)DMC681
ORDERR. Regupathi, J.1. The petitioner is the de facto complainant in a case registered for offences punishable under Section 498 A, IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No. 162 of 2006 on the file of the 3rd respondent police.2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was married to her husband on 6.4.2003 and she was living in her matrimonial home at Chennai. At that time, ill-treatment and demand of dowry was made at Chennai. Subsequently, on 20.11.2005, the petitioner accompanied by her husband, came to her parental home wherein, the father of the petitioner offered to give only Rs. 10,000, but since the entire amount of Rs. 75,000 was not paid, the husband left her at parental home. Thereafter, a complaint was given before the second respondent police within whose jurisdiction, the parental home of the petitioner is situated. After registration of the case in Crime No. 162 of 2006, the investigation of the same has been transferred to the 3rd respon...
P. Selvaraj Vs. the Management of Shardlow India Limited,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1728
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. The Petitioner seeks for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the third Respondent made in P.G. Case No. 15 of 1999 dated 11.02.2000 and to direct the first Respondent Management to pay the balance of Gratuity of Rs. 4,558 along with interest.2. Two points that arise for consideration in the Writ Petition are:Whether under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the Petitioner is entitled to claim gratuity on the basis of revised rate of wages last drawn by him for the month of July 1998, during which he retired and;Whether the Management has unilaterally declared one year break-in-service ?3. Background facts in a nutshell - The first Respondent is a manufacturer of steel forgings and stampings. The Petitioner joined the services of the first Respondent and attained superannuation on 09.07.1998. Taking into account the salary for the month of June 1998 [Rs.3,958.78], the Petitioner was paid Rs. 70,802/- towards Gratuity. According to the P...
Ramamurthy Vs. M. Rani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ60
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 10.2.2005, passed in Memo in S.R. No. 2197/2005 in R.C.O.P. No. 669/2003, on the file of the XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.2. The tenant in RCOP No. 669/2003 is the revision petitioner.3. RCOP No. 669/2003 was filed by the respondent herein under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The landlady filed a memo before the rent controller, praying to mark the advocate commissioner's report dated 20.7.2003 as a court document by consent of both parties as the advocate commissioner by name Ms.Usha Menon left her office a year back and her address is not traceable in spite of the best efforts of the landlady. This was seriously objected to by the revision petitioner/tenant herein by filing his objections to the memo. The rent controller by order dated dated 10.2.2005 allowed the memo by permitting the landla...
Nepc Micon Limited, Vs. Sashi Prakash Khemka and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: [2007]137CompCas917(Mad); [2007]78SCL442(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the orders of the Company Law Board on the preliminary objection taken by the appellants herein as regards the maintainability of the petition filed by the respondents herein under Section 111A(3) of the Companies Act. Important question of law arises in these appeals as to the availability of the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board under the amended Section 111A(3) of the Act with effect from 15.1.1997 on the question of rectification of register of shares transfer on the violation of the provisions of the Companies Act taking place prior to the amendment to Section 111A(3) in 1997.2. The Depositories Act, 1996, brought about comprehensive changes in the matter relating to transfer of securities by introducing amendments to various related statutes like Companies Act, Indian Stamp Act, IT Act, Securities Contract (Regulatory) Act. Prior to the enactment of the Depositories Act, 1996, two remedies were avail...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tamilnadu Warehousing Corprn.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Mad)228; [2007]292ITR310(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in I.T.A. No. 1771/Mds/1994, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'B' Bench raising the following substantial questions of law. (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in quashing the order passed under Section 263 on the ground that the Commissioner of Income Tax had not stated in his order as to how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue?(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in looking at the form of the Commissioner's order of revision rather than the substance of the same?2. The brief facts leading to the above questions of law are as under:The assessee is a company in which the public are substantially interested. The relevant assessment year is 1989-90 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.1989. The assessee company der...
Pyramid Films International Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2006
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Mad)227; [2007]292ITR103(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal, filed under Section 260A of the IT Act, is by the assessee. On 1st Dec, 2003, this Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that Rs. 1.25 crores has accrued to the appellant during the relevant assessment year ?2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1.25 crores despite the fact that the appellant having received only Rs. 95 lakhs towards the contract price ?2. The facts leading to the above questions of law are as under:The assessee is a partnership firm and it is engaged in production of feature films. The relevant assessment year is 1996-97. The assessee filed its return on 25th Oct., 2000 admitting a loss of Rs. 27,37,593. During the assessment year, the assessee had produced and released a film called 'Love Birds'. The assessee ent...
Minor Thirukkumaran, Vs. Varadarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC280
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. These appeals arose out of the decree and Judgment in O.S. No. 161 of 1987 on the file of Sub Court, Virudhachalam.2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:Plaint 'A,B, and C' schedule properties belonged to the plaintiff. The plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff, his father/second defendant and his deceased brother. The said Mullainathan, who was the son of second defendant through his first wife Soundarammal. The first defendant is the second wife of the second defendant. The plaintiff is the son of the second wife through the first defendant. The second defendant, his son Mullainathan through his first wife Soundarammal and the plaintiff had partitioned the family properties under a registered partition deed dated 9.10.1971. 'A' schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff under the above said partition deed; 'B' schedule property was allotted to the second defendant till her life time under the abov...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Goyal's International Hotels and Resort ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2006
Reported in: [2007]292ITR221(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'C' Bench dated April 24, 2003, passed in I.T.A. No. 1901/Mds/98. On November 11, 2003, this Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following substantial question of law.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment cannot be reopened where the assessee had not returned the income which was subjected to tax deducting at source ?2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:3. The assessee is a company incorporated on October 1, 1990. The relevant assessment year is 1992-93 and the corresponding accounting year ended on March 31, 1992. The assessee has not commenced its business activities during the year. Hence no return of income was filed by the assessee. While perusing the return of income filed by the assessee for ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Super Spinning Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2006
Reported in: [2008]296ITR168(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 28.11.2002 made in I.T.A. No. 936(Mds)/97 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras. When the appeal came up for hearing, this Court has admitted the same on the following substantial questions of law:i. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the power subsidy received from the electricity board should be treated as capital receipt?ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the 'front and fee' in respect of loan borrowed for expansion of a unit is to be deducted as revenue expenditure?2. The brief facts arising out of the above tax case are as here under:The assessee filed a return of income on 31.12.1993 and revised return on 30.12.1994 both admitting 'Nil' income. The assessing officer issued notice under Section 143(2) of the I...
Ravunammal and anr. Vs. Sambandham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ974
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal preferred by the claimants is directed against the judgment dated 29.9.1997 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Nagapattinam made in M.C.O.P. No. 486 of 1996.2. The claimants who are the parents of the deceased Ramesh, aged 22, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 1,50,000. It was their case that on 16.3.1996, their son was travelling as a cleaner in the tractor and while so, near Karisaangudi Panchayat Board building, due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver, he fell down and was run over by the trailer attached to the tractor and hence, they are liable to be compensated by the insurers of the tractor and trailer. The father of the deceased and an eyewitness to the accident were the witnesses examined before the Tribunal. In addition, exhibits such as F.I.R., report of Motor Vehicles' Inspector, post-mortem certificate, charge-s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »