Chennai Court November 2006 Judgments

Fidelity Textiles (P) Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

1. There being a difference of opinion between the two Members of divisional Bench "A", Chennai, the following question has been referred by the Hon'ble President of ITAT for my opinion as Third Member under Section 255(4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether waiver of loan constitutes income of the assessee or not? 2. The facts which are relevant and material to consider and decide the aforesaid question are as follows. The assessee is a joint venture company promoted in the year 1991 jointly by one Mr. D.A. Sutler, a British national and two Indians for manufacture and export of head tie fabrics. Initially, Mr. Butler as one part and the two Indians as the other part contributed Rs. 29,99,800/- each as their capital representing 50% of the equity capital of the company Subsequently their arose a need for additional funds for the purpose of purchase of capital assets in the form of foreign currency equivalent to Rs 2,95,06,706- which was me...

Neycer India Limited, Rep. by Its Manager (Finance), T. Mani Vs. the C ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]81SCL535(Mad); (2007)7VST574(Mad)

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records comprised in RCA 3/5843/2000 dated 21.9.2006 on the file of the first respondent, quash the same and to consequently forbear the first respondent from resorting to any recovery proceedings unless a fresh scheme is sanctioned and implemented under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 by the fourth respondent.2. I have heard Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shanmugasundaram, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the first respondent and Mr. F.B. Benjamin George, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 and perused the records.3. The prayer as sought for by the petitioner cannot be countenanced for two reasons. Firstly, the provisions for recovery is very much present in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (for short, 'TNGST Act'). Secondly, the embargo placed upo...

K.P. Chinnasamy Vs. T.B. Kennedy

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2006(5)CTC228

ORDERS. Tamilvanan, J.1. The Criminal Revision is directed against the Judgment and Order, dated 05.03.2004, made in C.A. No. 254/2002 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 3, Namakkal, reversing the Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 29.11.2002, passed in C.C. No. 1/2000 on the file of the District Nunsif-cum-judicial Magistrate, Paramathi.2. The revision petitioner herein is the complainant, who lodged the complaint against the respondent/accused, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the revision petitioner, the respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- from the petitioner on 01.02.1999 and executed a promissory note in favour of the petitioner. On 20.07.1999, towards the discharge of the said loan, the respondent issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- and got back the promissory note. When the same was presented for payment before the Salem Central Co-operative Bank, Vellore Branch on 23.07.1999, it...

Saketh India Ltd., Represented by Its Executive Director K.S. Rao Vs. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)1MLJ442

ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition seeking for the relief for issuance of writ of declaration or any other writ to declare that the lease amount and the security deposit totalling Rs. 44,55,000/-, retained by the first respondent paid for the quarry lands measuring 6.54.0 hectares comprised in survey No. 1/2 of Thokkiam village, Thirupathur Taluk, Vellore District (formerly North Arcot District) and the demand for dead rent and area assessment in respect of the said land is illegal and consequently direct the respondents to refund the said sum together with interest @ 24% per annum. 2. The facts giving raise to the filing of the writ petition is as follows:The second respondent, as per the then existing Rule 8A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, invited tenders in respect of several granite quarries situated in the Government poromboke lands. As the petitioner is having an existing industry, which is ...

Kaliammal, Vs. Sundharammal and Ramalingam

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2006(5)CTC822; (2007)1MLJ577

ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Civil Revision Petition (NPD) Nos. 1178, 1646/2002 are directed against the order of delivery of possession, made in E.P. No. 66/1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Paramathy. 2. Civil Revision Petition (NPD) Nos. 35 and 199/2003 are directed against the Order of dismissal made in I.A. No. 11/ 1995, declining to condone the delay of 32 days in filing the Petition to set aside the exparte Preliminary Decree.3. Since common points for determination arise in these Revision Petitions, all the Revision Petitions were taken up together and disposed of by this common Order. For convenience, the parties are referred to as in their original rank in the suit.4. The Suit and execution proceedings are fraught with several rounds of Interlocutory Applications in the lower Court. For proper appreciation of the points raised and for disposal of these Revision Petitions, it is necessary to refer to the various proceedings in the trial Court and Executing Court.5. The Res...

J. Lili Jabakani and ors. Vs. T.A. Chandrasekhar

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2006(5)CTC848

ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioners put in issue the order of the trial Court non-suiting the petitioners for the relief sought for in I.A. No. 18151 of 2004 which was filed with a prayer to reject the plaint in O.S. No. 2345/2003 on the file of XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.2. The respondent herein filed the suit for a declaration that the sale deeds executed by him are non-est and unenforceable and were obtained by the playing fraud by the petitioners and also for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from alienating the suit property till the disposal of the suit. 3. The respondent has entered into an agreement with the first defendant Shanmugam during January 2000 for development of the property, the sale price of which was fixed at Rs. 22,00,000/- and the first defendant paid an advance of Rs. 3,00,000/-. According to the respondent, he executed a power of attorney in favour of the said Shanmugam so as to enable him to promote the land by con...

M. Dinesh Kumar Vs. the Tamilnadu Dr. Ambedkar Government Law Universi ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2007(1)CTC457

ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings of the second respondent in C. No. 5642/Regr/84/2005, dated 3.2.2006, confirming the order of the third respondent in No. 334/COE/Disc.Proc.Orders/BL June 2005 exam/2005, dated 17.11.2005 and to quash the same.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was a student of Dr. Ambedkar Government Law University and was studying in the final year of B.L. (5 year) Degree Course at Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai, during the year 2005. During June/July 2005, the petitioner took the examinations conducted by the second respondent-University for third year Law of Evidence paper and the final year papers.3. The petitioner had further stated that on 9.11.2005, the third respondent had served a show cause notice on the petitioner directing him to appear in person before the Disciplinary Committee of the Dr. Ambedkar Law University, on or befo...

Duraisami Naidu and ors. Vs. C. Ramakrishnan and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)1MLJ424

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The defendants 1 to 9 in the suit are the revision petitioners. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and injunction. The defendants filed proof affidavit along with eight documents and these eight documents were marked as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.8. The documents are said to be the unregistered lease deeds in respect of the agricultural lands. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 13 Rule 3 of C.P.C. praying for rejection of the said documents, marked as Exs.B.1 to B.8. The trial court, relying upon Section 17(1)(d) of the Indian Registration Act and having come to the conclusion that in respect of the agricultural lands, if lease period is beyond one year and is in writing, it requires registration and in the present case, all the eight documents were unregistered, has allowed the application on the basis that the documents are inadmissible in evidence. It is against the said order of the learned trial Judge, the defendants 1 to 9 have filed thi...

Areva T and D India Limited, (Formerly Known as Alstom Ltd.) Vs. the A ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Mad)497

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessee against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'A' Bench dated 21.07.2006 passed in I.T.A. No. 2236/Mds/2005. On 21.08.2006, this Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in treating the letter dated 20.12.2004 by the assessing officer is equivalent to a notice prescribed under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the letter is nothing but furnishing the reasons for reopening the assessment?2. If the answer to the above question is in affirmative then on the facts and circumstances of the case was the Appellate Tribunal right in law in holding that the appellant filed its Return of Income by its letter dated 18.12.2004 itself, whereas the Appellant filed its return only on 17.1.2005 which was admitted by ...

Pandurangan Vs. the Sub Registrar,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2007Mad159; 2007(1)CTC641; (2006)4MLJ1440

ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner, who claims to have entered into an agreement on 9.7.2004 for the purchase of an immovable property in R.S. No. 118/1 in Pethuchettipatti Village, Karuvadikuppam Revenue Village, situate within the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar of Reddiarpalayam, Union Territory of Pondicherry, has come up with the present writ petition, challenging a communication of the Collector-cum-Additional Secretary (Revenue) Pondicherry, dated 14.11.2005, by which the Collector has instructed the District Registrar of Pondicherry to instruct the concerned Sub Registrar to withhold the registration of any sale transaction in respect of the land at R.S. Nos. 117 and 118 of the said Revenue Village.2. In view of the fact that the scope of the dispute raised in the writ petition lies in a narrow campus, I have taken up the main writ petition itself for final disposal, with the consent of both the parties.3. I have heard Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel ...