Chennai Court November 2006 Judgments

K. Bose Vs. the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) and the Sub Registra ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2007(2)CTC301

D. Murugesan, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), before determining the market value of the property covered under a sale deed, should give an opportunity to the person presenting the instrument for registration and conduct an enquiry?2. The appellant had purchased Nanja land measuring about 1.49 acres comprised in R.S. No. 31/5B at Avaniyapuram in Madurai District. The sale deed was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar (Madurai-IV), Madurai on 27.11.2002 in Document No. 5412/2002. As the second respondent, the registering authority, had reason to believe that the market value of the property of which is the subject matter of the sale has not been truly set forth in the instrument, referred the said instrument to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. On receipt of the said reference, the first respondent, the Special Depu...

N. Sumitra Vs. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Special O ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)1MLJ832

ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Challenging the Order of attachment under Section 167 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act [dated 20.10.2006], the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.2. Brief facts are as follows :- Petitioner's husband Balachandran while working as Salesman at the second Respondent Cooperative Stores has caused deficiency to the assets of the second Respondent Cooperative Stores to the tune of Rs. 2,54,896.96. Balachandran died on 22.07.2000 by committing suicide. To recover the deficit amount, the second Respondent has issued Notice to the Petitioner [24.07.2000] to make good the stock deficit amount to the second Respondent. By the said Notice dated 24.07.2000, details of stock deficit was also furnished. Since no amount was paid, the second Respondent had preferred arbitration claim before the 1st Respondent in accordance with Section 167 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 [in short, the Act]. The first Respondent has issued the Notice dated 25.09...

A. Viswanathan Vs. G. Lakshmi @ Seetha

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)1MLJ698

V. Dhanapalan, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 23.04.1997 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Madras in FCOP No. 215 of 1997.2. The appellant and the respondent are husband and wife respectively. The appellant had filed a petition for dissolution of marriage between them by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family Court, after comprehensively dealing with the matter, dismissed the petition holding that the respondent has not treated the petitioner with cruelty and rejected the appellant's prayer to dissolve the marriage which took place on 23.08.1992. The appellant, aggrieved by the judgment of the Family Court, has preferred the present appeal on various grounds.3. The appellant's case in brief is as under:a. The appellant married the first respondent on 23.08.1992 according to Hindu rites and customs. Subsequently, the marriage was regi...

Rane Brake Linings Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Reported in: (2007)107TTJ(Chennai)475

(1) that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the claim for depreciation in respect of assets transferred to the Clutch Unit. (2) that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the royalty payment of Rs. 2,29,500 and royalty on trademark of Rs. 20,000. (3) that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the claim of deduction under Section 80HH by excluding a sum of Rs. 4,86,000. (4) that the CIT(A) erred in including excise duty, sales-tax and scrap sales as part of the total turnover for computing the relief under Section 80HHC. (5) that the CIT(A) erred in excluding 90 per cent of interest, rent, interest on APSEB deposit and other income aggregating to Rs. 94,49,312 for the purpose of computing relief under Section 80HHC.2. After hearing both the parties, we find that the assessee was owner of the Clutch Unit at Hosur in Tamil Nadu which was transferred through an agreement dt. 20th Jan., 1997 to its subsidiary company and all assets and liabilities were also transferred to the subsidiary company against w...

Arunkumar Spinning Mill Ltd., Represented by Its Managing Director, Mr ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)2MLJ413

ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners against the impugned orders, wherein the Market Committee levied market fee for the goods in question. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State referred to Section 60 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, wherein provision for Revision has been made. It was pointed out that the Government may call for and examine the record of any market committee in respect of any proceeding to satisfy themselves as to the regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision and if in any case, it appears to the Government that any such decision should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, then, the Government may pass orders accordingly and under Sub-section (2) to Section 60, the Government may stay the execution of any such decision pending the exercise of their powers under Sub-section (1) of Section...

The Branch Manager the Little Kanjeevaram Co-op Urban Bank Ltd, Railwa ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH J. {Open Court} The Opposite parties in COP No.1/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu, are the appellants herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: - He had a savings bank account in The Little Kanjeevaram Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. He issued a cheque dated 7/9/2001 for Rs.7,000/- to one of his traders after verifying the balance in his passbook which showed the balance as Rs.7,701/-. However, when the cheque was presented, the same was returned with a memo stating insufficient funds. There was a notice issued by the trader. He had also come to the complainants shop on 8/8/2001 and abused the complainant in the presence of the public due to the dishonour of the cheque. Thus, the complainants reputation was spoiled. His business was affected. 2. The defence set up was that the clerk in the bank made a wrong entry; that there was no balance of Rs.7,701/- in the complainants account ; the complainant never had enough fun...

O.S. Ramaswamy Vs. Personal Assistant (G) to the Collector of Madras S ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2007Mad105; 2006(5)CTC541; (2007)1MLJ301

P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 14.11.2000 made in W.P. No. 22130 of 1993, in and by which the learned Judge, after finding no merit in the claim of the petitioner, dismissed the writ petition.2. Heard Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. P. Subramanian, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.3. According to the petitioner, his father O.S. Subramanya Iyer, left behind a Will dated 10.05.1979, under which he bequeathed the property bearing Door No. 4, IV Main Road, Nehru Nagar, Adyar, Chennai in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, he died on 17.03.1987 and the Will dated 10.05.1979 being his last Will and testament, the petitioner took out O.P. No. 260 of 1989 for Probate of the said Will. By order dated 22.11.1989, Letters of Administration with the Will annexed of the property and credits of O.R. Subramanya Iyer were granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner. T...

M. Radhakrishnan Vs. the Secretary, the Bar Council of India and the S ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2007Mad108; 2006(5)CTC705

P. Sathasivam, J.1. Thiru. M. Radhakrishnan, who is a practising Advocate, has filed the above Public Interest Litigation, for the issuance of a writ of declaration to declare Rule 8(A) of the Enrolment Rules of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu as void. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the above petition, it is stated that he joined the Bar on 8th January, 1986, and practised at Ahmedabad from January 1986 to June 1988. Since July, 1988, he has been appearing before the Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and this Court. According to him, he approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) in the larger interest of administration of justice. The first respondent-Bar Council of India, on 25.09.1993, framed Rule-9 in Chapter III of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, stipulating that a person, who has completed the age of 45 years on the date on which he submits his application for his enrolment as an advocate to the State Bar Council, shall not be enrolle...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Savvy Systems (India) Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2007]291ITR105(Mad)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A.No. 1377/Mds/2004 dated December 22, 2004.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involved is 2000-01. The assessee is in the business of export of computer software. The Assessing Officer accepted the return filed by the assessee and while computing the deduction under Section 10B, the Assessing Officer proceeded as if the domestic turnover would form part of export turnover and the domestic profit forms part of the export profit on the ground that the domestic turnover is less than 25 per cent, of the sales. Finding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest, of the Revenue, the Commissioner revised the order under Section 263, pursuant to which, an order under Section 154 of the Act came to be passed reducing the benefit of deduction under Section 10B of the Act. Aggrieved by the revision order of the Commissioner, the a...

N. Jagannathan and Sons Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)7VST57(Mad)

K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The main question that is involved for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether interstate sales of watery coconuts are liable to sales tax under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act).2. Learned Counsel on either side submit that the above said question has to be considered in the light of the provisions set out hereunder:i. Section 6 of the Central Act:Liability to tax on interstate sales: (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, every dealer shall, with effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, not being earlier than thirty days from the date of such notification, be liable to pay tax under this Act on all sales of goods other than electrical energy effected by him in the course of interstate trade or commerce during any year on and from the date so notified: PROVIDED that a dealer shall not be liable to pay tax under this Act on any sale ...