Chennai Court December 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.
V. Rajasekaran S/O. C.M. Venkatachalamoorthy and T. Raghavan S/O. Late ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC769; (2007)1MLJ683
1. The present appellant had filed Application No. 2167 of 1999 along with a plaint seeking permission of the court to sue under Section 92 CPC. Such application having been rejected by the learned single Judge, the present appeal has been filed.2. The first applicant is the General Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Federation of Deafs and the General Secretary of the Madras Association of the Deaf. The second applicant is the Public Relation Officer of the Tamil Nadu State Federation of the Deaf and Chairman of the Madras Association of India of the Deaf. Both of them are deaf. Mr. M.G. Ramachandran had executed a Will dated 18.1.1987. Under the said Will certain properties were left to his widow during her lifetime and thereafter to certain other persons. In respect of rest of the properties it was stated in such Will that one Mr. N.C. Raghavachari, Senior Advocate, shall be the Executor and after him his nephew Rajendran (Defendant) should be the executor and thereafter the executor shoul...
S. Subramanian Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR543]
D. Murugesan, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 17.7.2006 made in W.P. No. 1406 of 2004. The parties are arrayed as shown in this writ appeal.2. The second respondent has approached this Court questioning the order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sivagangai dated 15.6.2004. Against that order, the appellant, had filed a revision petition and the same was allowed. According to the second respondent, he joined the services of the bank as Jewel Appraiser on 1.7.1980. Though he was appointed as Jewel Appraiser, he performed the functions of clerks as well. On 1.7.1991 a settlement was concluded in the third respondent-Bank under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Subsequently, there was another settlement dated 10.10.1994 was concluded in the Bank. Based on the above settlements, the second respondent was placed as Senior Assistant over and above the appellant for fixation of scale of pay eligible to that post. Therefore, based on the ab...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lakshmi Trust Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
Reported in: [2008]303ITR99(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29.5.2003 in ITA. No. 1188/Mds/2001, raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that penalty under Section 271D cannot be imposed for violation of Section 269SS if there is no intention to evade tax and the transactions are genuine2. Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that penalty under Section 271E cannot be imposed for violation of section 269T if there is no intention to evade tax and the transactions are genuine?2.1. The respondent assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1997-98. The assessing officer found that the assessee had taken a cash loan violating the provisions of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and repaid the am...
K. Thiyagarajan Represented by His Power Agent, Kannan Pillai Vs. Thar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC601
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This judgment shall govern these two appeals, namely S.A. Nos. 717 and 718 of 2006.2. These two appeals have arisen in this way. The respondent filed O.S. No. 179 of 1998 for recovery of possession and the same was decreed by the trial court. An appeal was preferred by the defendant/appellant in A.S. No. 128 of 2004 and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved the defendant has brought forth S.A. No. 717 of 2006. The appellant herein filed O.S. No. 129 of 1998 for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from in any way interfering with the possession, except by due process of law. The suit was dismissed. Aggrieved the plaintiff took it on appeal in A.S. No. 127 of 2004, which was also dismissed. Hence, S.A. No. 718 of 2006 at the instance of the plaintiff, who is the appellant herein. 3. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 129 of 1998 filed the suit with the following averments:The suit property is situated at Door Nos. 60 and 61 in R.S. No. 131/1 at Vaitheeswara...
Sri Premananda Trust Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
Reported in: [2008]303ITR335(Mad)
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. By consent of learned Counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above writ petition are set out below:In respect of the fourth respondent-assessee, the block assessment order for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1995-96 was passed on December 29, 1995. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by his order dated February 27, 1998, set aside the assessment orders and remanded the case with observations. The fourth respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 17641 of 1999 contending that the assessing authority should not pursue with the assessment without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein and the writ petition was disposed of on November 2, 1999, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing the final orders. Pursuant thereto, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petition...
Balaji Distilleries Ltd. Rep. by Its Executive Vice President (Distill ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2006
Reported in: 2007(115)ECC1; 2007LC1(Madras)
ORDERM.E.N. Patrudu, J.1. The prayer in W.P. Nos. 24 of 1995 and 2325 of 1997 is to declare G.O.Ms. No. 762/Home, Prohibition & Excise (III) Department, dated 29.06.1990, as unconstitutional and void.2. The prayer in W.P. No. 52 of 1995 is to quash the orders of the third respondent in R.C. No. 237/94/A1, dated 17.11.1994.3. The prayer in W.P. No. 2324 of 1997 is to quash the orders of the third respondent in R.C. No. 3/96 A, dated 27.12.1996, 4. The facts necessary for disposal of the writs are as follows:4.1. The petitioner Balaji Distilleries Limited has installed its re-distillation unit at their factory for purification of rectified spirit and impure spirit to produce extra neutral alcohol for use in its Indian Made Foreign Spirit (IMFS) products. 4.2. The rectified spirit is allotted by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise on monthly basis to the petitioner company and in the allotment order, the name of the distillery from which the petitioner has to buy the rectified spir...
A. Ganapathy Vs. S. Venkatesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC57; (2007)2MLJ403
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit having been dismissed with costs, the plaintiff has come forward with this Original Side Appeal.2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance to direct the respondent/defendant to execute a sale deed pursuant to the agreement dated 17.3.1996 on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 15 lakhs in respect of the suit schedule property, namely land and building situate at No. 68, Bazullah Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-17 and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from alienating the suit property.3. As per the plaint averments, the appellant/plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale of the above said property on 17.3.1996 and paid a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs towards part consideration, while the total consideration was fixed at Rs. 30 lakhs. It is claimed that the respondent gave a stamped receipt dated 17.3.1996 for a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs. It is stated that the appellant was...
The Federal Bank Ltd., Royapettah Branch Vs. Sundari Bhaskaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ431
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 27.06.2006 passed by IX Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai in E.A. No. 2381 of 2006 in E.P. No. 763 of 2005 in O.S. No. 1525 of 2000, raising the order of Attachment. The Decree Holder is the Revision Petitioner.2. The Petitioner Bank has obtained a money decree in O.S. No. 1525 of 2000. The Decretal amount is more than Rs. 8,00,000/-. For realising the amount, the Petitioner Bank has filed E.P. No. 763 of 2005 and attachment of salary of the Respondent was ordered. The Respondent is working as Lecturer in Queens Mary College. The Manager (Accounts) is the Garnishee.3. The Respondent has filed E.A. No. 2381 of 2006 to raise the order of Attachment of salary. According to the Respondent, she has already suffered an order of Attachment made by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai in D.R.C. No. 231 of 2000 wherein Attachment of salary has been effected continuously for a period of 2...
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Divn. V) Ltd. Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: I(2006)ACC376
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above Writ Appeal is directed against the Order of the learned single Judge dated 07.09.2001 made in W.P.No. 16562 of 2001, in and by which, the learned Judge issued a direction to the third respondent therein, namely, the Secretary, The Regional Transport Authority, Virudhunagar, to implement the order of the 1st respondent, namely, The Regional Transport Authority, Ramanathapuram, made in R. No. 30768/A1/1982 dated 29.01.1983, by convening the timing conference within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as respondents including contesting 4th respondent.3. In view of the order to be passed hereunder, we are of the view that it is unnecessary to refer all the factual details, as stated by the appellant as well as contesting 4th respondent. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent herein, namely, Regional Transport Authority Ramanathapuram, by his Proceedings ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Bhuvanendran,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: [2008]303ITR235(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. These appeals are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'D' Bench dated 17.03.2006 in I.T. (SS) A No. 116/Mds/2002 for the block period 01.04.1988 to 18.03.1999, I.T.A. No. 2270/Mds/2003 for the assessment year 1997-98 and I.T.A. No. 796/Mds/2004 for the assessment year 1997-98, raising the following common substantial questions of law:1. Whether the statement made during the course of search under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961 voluntarily by a person is admissible in evidence or not?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case an admission made voluntarily relating to undisclosed income, not immediately retracted within a reasonable time, and was retracted only after the service of summons during the course of recording statement would itself negate the admission?2. T.C.(A) No. 2663 of 2006:The facts arising out of this appeal are as under:i)...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »