Chennai Court February 2006 Judgments

i.S.P. Soutions India (P) Ltd., a Registered Company Represented by It ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3711

ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The petition is filed seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.156 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam.2. The petitioners are the accused in the proceedings initiated by the respondent/complainant herein for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. The respondent/complainant has lodged a complaint alleging that the first petitioner/first accused-Company borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- for the development of the said Company and the third and fourth petitioners/third and fourth accused, being the Directors of the said Company, issued a cheque dated 10.12.2004 in favour of the respondent/complainant for a sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- to discharge the said loan. The second petitioner/second accused, who is the Managing Director and the third petitioner and fourth petitioners/third and fourth accused, who are the Directors of the said Company, are incharge of the conduct of the bu...

The Mohan Textiles, Rep. by Its Managing Partner R. Sundaram Vs. Tamil ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2006)3MysLJ207

S. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The plaintiff-Textile Unit has filed the suit for the relief of declaration and for continuous permanent injunction.2. The averments in the plaint are the plaintiff textile unit was sanctioned with Service Connection Nos: 515, 516 and 517 by the defendant-Electricity Board and separate Cards have been issued. For the service connection No: 516, the sanctioned load was 94 H.P + 9 K.W as on 14.7.1986. The third defendant on 19.11.1986 inspected the Mill in the presence of the Sales Manager of the plaintiff Mill. Being the Sales Manager, he did not know the correct Horse Power of the machineries and gave wrong information. Hence, the plaintiff sent a letter on 12.12.1986 about the H.P., of the machineries. Later, on 19.12.1986 the second defendant issued a notice mentioning that 9.8 H.P of load had been used unauthorisedly a the time of inspection and also requesting to remove the said excess load. For which the plaintiff sent a letter on 24.12.1986. Thus when there i...

Saraswathi Ammal Vs. Ponninatha Nainar

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2006)3MLJ272

S. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The above two Second Appeals arise out of the two suits in O.S.Nos:14 of 1986 and 562 of 1989 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Arni. Saraswathi Ammal, the defendant in O.S. No. 14 of 1986 and plaintiff in O.S. No. 562 of 1989 are the appellants herein. 2. O.S. No. 14 of 1986 has been filed by the Ponninatha Nainar for declaration and injunction of the suit properties in S. No. 26/3 for 41 cents and in S. No. 26/11 for 39 cents. O.S. No. 562 of 1989 has been filed by Saraswathi Ammal for declaration and injunction of the suit properties in S. No. 26/3 in respect of 9 cents and in S. No. 26/11 in respect of 19 1/2 cents.3. The genealogical tree of the case for easy analysation of the relationship between the parties is set out hereunder:- Manibadra Nainar ____________________|_______________________ | | | Rajamathi(1st wife) 2nd Wife Marudevi (3rd wife) Appandai Nainar (son) Ponninatha Baby Shanthi | (plaintiff) Saraswathi (defendant)4. The admi...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sengunthar Thirumana Mandapam

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Mad)473; [2006]283ITR355(Mad)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. As against the order of the Tribunal dated September 27, 2004, made in I.T.A. Nos. 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197 and 1203/ Mds/2003, the Revenue has preferred these appeals, raising the following substantial question of law :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-society was entitled to exemption under Sections 11 of the Income-tax Act merely on the ground that the registration under Sections 12AA has been granted with effect from April 1, 1990, without noticing that no charitable activities have been conducted and the income from the letting out of kalyana mandapam assessable under the head 'Business' has not been applied for any charitable purposes like education or any other object of general public utility2. The assessee is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The relevant assessment years are 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1999-2000, ...

Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Special Range-i Vs. Shri A. Tenzing

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Mad)169; [2006]282ITR611(Mad)

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'B' Bench, referred the matter under Section 27(2) of the Wealth Tax Act at the instance of the assessee, for opinion of this Court, raising the following question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assets of the Trust by name Tenzing Family Trust could not be included in the net wealth of the assessee-beneficiary and that the same should be considered in the hands of the Trust?2. The facts leading to the above question of law are as under:The assessment years are 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 for which the valuation dates are 31.03.1976, 31.03.1977 and 31.03.1978, respectively. The Trust known as 'Tenzing Family Trust' was formed by Sri K.A.A.Sankaralingam on 01.06.1974. Shri A.Tenzing is the sole beneficiary of the Trust. In case he remains unmarried till the end of 18 years from the date of execution of the deed, the corpus as...

M/S. Speed Birds Private Ltd., Rep. by Its Director, Vellore and Anoth ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH, J. The opposite parties in O.P.No.121 of 1997 on the file of the District Forum, Vellore, are the appellants herein. The case as set out in the complaint is as follows: The complainant was a Reader in the Department of Urology Unit-II of Christian Medical College and Hospital, (CMC) Vellore. He was invited to attend the World Congress of Endourology from 11.11.1996 to 14.11.1996 at Melbourne, Australia and the 6th Urological Conference from 22.11.1996 to 24.11.1996 at Malacca in Malaysia. He also wanted to visit for a week Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia on the invitation from Dr. Paddy Dewan, Paediatric Urologist of the hospital. He approached the first appellant/first opposite party during the third week of September, 1996 for booking Air tickets and for obtaining visa for Australia. He had handed over his passport, letters of invitation to attend both the conferences as demanded by the first opposite party. The first opposite party got visa for the complainant for ...

A.M. Jagjakh Vs. Rajathi Ziaudeen and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: I(2007)DMC365

ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 1/96 on the file of Family Court, Madurai, is the appellant herein and he has filed the said suit under Section 307 of the Muslim Law for dissolution of his marriage with the first respondent herein. The second respondent is the President of the Jamadh in whose presence the marriage was performed.2. As per the averments in the plaint, the appellant married the first respondent on 2.6.1983 and gave birth to a female and a male children on 12.6.1984 and 1.12.1986, respectively. The appellant has made several allegations against the first respondent in the plaint for seeking dissolution of marriage which could be categorised as follows:(a) Though a coconut those to an extent of six acres belonged to the first respondent, her father and brother by coercion obtained a deed of settlement in their favour.(b) The first respondent was already married, suppressing her earlier marriage, the marriage with the appellant was performed.(c) The family members of the f...

Minor Nishanth Ramesh Rep. by Mother/Natural Guardian, Mrs. Sandhya Ra ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2006)2MLJ382

ORDERA.P. Shah, C.J.1. These writ petitions raise a short but an important question as to the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Admission in Professional Courses Act 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 2006), hereinafter for Brevity's sake called the 'Act'. Since common questions of law and fact are involved, we have heard all the cases together and disposing them of by this judgment.2. In W.P. No. 3951 of 2006, Minor Nishanth Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (which we are treating as the lead case), the petitioner is a Plus two student of Vidya Mandhir School, affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education (C.B.S.E.), Chennai. The Tamil Nadu State Board, I.S.C. and C.B.S.C. are the three Boards which offer Plus two course in the State of Tamil Nadu.3. It has been alleged that ever since 1984, the admission to the professional colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu was governed by G.O. Ms. No. 657, dated 29.5.1984. The said Government Order prescribed admission to the profess...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jamal Photo Industries (i) (P) Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)256; [2006]287ITR620(Mad)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appeal is directed against the order dt. 23rd Aug., 200b made in ITA No. 2202/Mad/2003 allowing deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act (in short the 'Act') holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80-IA (sic-80-I) of the Act.2. The brief facts of the case are stated as under:The assessee is engaged in the business of developing photographs snapped in film rolls and printing them. The AO rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-I of the Act. However, on appeal, the CIT(A) set aside the order of the AO, which, on appeal before the Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue, was confirmed.3. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has preferred the above appeal, raising the following substantial question of law:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that processing of the film and printing photographs from the negatives amounts to a manufacturing activity and is an indu...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A. Hariraman

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Mad)101; [2006]282ITR607(Mad)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in dated 25.8.2005 made in ITA No. 1678/Mds/1999, raising the following substantial questions of law.1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty, even though the assessee was concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income under the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), on the ground the assessee's income computed by the assessing officer is a net loss?2. The facts which led to the rise of the above appeal by the revenue are as under.The assessee publishes and prints five tamil magazines, apart from doing job works, in the name of M/s. Parvathy Publication and M/s. Parvathy Art Printers. The assessee fi...