Chennai Court February 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.
Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd. Represented by Its Director, Sri G. Balraj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC312; 2006(203)ELT218(Mad); (2006)2MLJ430
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. By consent of both parties, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.12.2005 communicated to the appellant by proceedings dated 9.12.2005 made in final order No. 1539 of 2005 raising the following substantial questions of law:i) Whether the order of respondents ordering interim suspension of Custom House agency license as punishment is ultra vires Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agency License Regulations, 2004?ii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in confirming interim suspension of license in the absence of any immediacy for suspension as mandated in Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agency License Regulations, 2004?iii) Whether the respondents are right in interposing two basic conditions of prima facie case and immediacy of action as mandated under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agency License Regulations, 2004 for ordering interim suspension of Customs House Agency ...
D. Ravichandran Vs. the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Idigarai Branch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: [2006]132CompCas803(Mad); (2006)2MLJ134; [2006]72SCL10(Mad)
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. Challenge is to the order dated 8-11-2005 passed by the respondent bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act (in short SARFAESI Act), bringing the secured assets of the petitioner for sale under SARFAESI Act.2. The facts, in brief, are: Petitioner is a partnership firm, carrying on business in farming activities. For establishing a poultry farm, petitioner approached the respondent bank for credit facility. Respondent bank sanctioned the petitioner Rs. 45,00,000/- as per the loan sanction order dated 12-4-1996. Petitioner mortgaged with the respondent bank certain lands as collateral security for the said loan. Petitioner committed default in repayment of the loan amount. Since the negotiations between the parties regarding the settlement of the outstanding loan amount did not fructify, the respondent bank initiated action under the provisions of Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act and iss...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Carborandum Universal Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Mad)498
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 2266 and 2267/Mad/1996 dt. 19th Nov., 2004, raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition towards the element of the customs duty on the closing stock.2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition towards the element of the customs duty on the closing stock.3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid on the borrowed capital prior to the commencement of the production was allowable as revenue expenditure.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involved in the appeals is 1994-95. The assessee filed a return of income on 28th Nov., 1994, showing the total income at Rs. 3,50,25,940. The case was processed on 7th April, 1995 determin...
The Secretary to Government, Tamil Development, Culture and Religious ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ330
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The present respondent No. 1 had filed O.A. No. 4755 of 1997 before the Administrative Tribunal seeking for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner (H.R.& C.E.) with effect from the date his junior was promoted as Assistant Commissioner.2. The allegation of the applicant was to the effect that even though he was senior to such person, at the time of considering the question of promotion, the case of the applicant was ignored and he was denied promotion and only subsequently, he was promoted in the year 1996. The prayer before the Tribunal was to the following effect:It is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records in G.O.Ms. No. 217, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, dated 18.6.1996 passed by the 1st respondent herein and direct the respondents herein to refix the seniority of the applicant and keep his name over and above his juniors and thus render justice....
Cit Vs. Sundaram Finance Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2006
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Mad)388
P.D. Dinakaran, J.The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 17 and 18/Mad/1997, dated 2-12-2003.2. The revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involved in the appeals are 1993-94 and 1994-95. The assessee filed a return of chargeable interest on 30-11-1994. While computing the chargeable interest, the assessee had not offered interest of Rs. 5,11,325 received from M/s MacMillan India Ltd., for deposits made with them towards advance for the lands leased to the assessee. In addition, the assessee had derived interest on trade advances totalling a sum of Rs. 45,30,750, which was on account of advances made for procurement of vehicles and the assessee claimed exemption of interest-tax on Government securities, as interest on such securities should be excluded from the total chargeable interest under the Interest-Tax Act. The assessing officer, on the basis of the word 'interest on loans and advances' used in the statute, proceeded to asses...
Indian Overseas Bank, Rep. by Its Deputy General Manager, Inquiry Cell ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC689; (2006)IILLJ979Mad; (2006)1MLJ511; 2008(1)SLJ529(NULL)
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties, and by consent of the parties Writ Appeals as well as Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing.2. These writ petitions are filed challenging the action of the respondent-bank in proceeding with the domestic enquiry with regard to the charge-sheet dated 21.02.2005, while criminal case on the same set of allegation is pending against the writ petitioners.3. The following facts lead to the filing of these writ petitions: The writ petitioners are the office-bearers of the Indian overseas Bank Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Employees Welfare Association. The association is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It is the case of the petitioners that one Mr. A. Krishnan, who was also an office-bearer of their association, floated another association and named it as All India Overseas Bank Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Employees Welfare Association. The registration under similar name ...
N. Vasanthi Vs. the District Collector and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ472
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the notification issued by first respondent herein, the Collector, Dindigul Anna District ( Dindigul Mannar Thirumalai District)-Extraordinary, dated 31.1.1996 in Na.Ka.No.H.2/105497/95, dated 9.1.1996, with respect to the petitioner' s land comprised in S.F.No.572/3 (0.81.0 Hectare), Kodalvavi Village, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul Anna District and the consequential notice dated 9.8.1996 issued in Na.Ka.No.2132/95/A in Form-III under Rule 5( i) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Rules, 1979 and quash the same.2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:(a) The land, which is the subject matter of the acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act No.XXXI of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'), originally belonged to the petitioner's father Shri.P.Madana Gurusamy...
R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal, Editor, Printer and Publ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad142; 2006(2)CTC353; (2006)2MLJ456
1. The present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is purported to be filed against the order dated 10.7.2003 passed by the learned single Judge in O.A.No.599 of 2003 arising out of C.S.No.477 of 2003 . Such C.S.No.477 of 2003 was filed by the present respondents for damages on the ground that the present appellants have published defamatory articles.2. O.A.No.599 of 2003 was filed seeking for an order of injunction restraining the defendants (present appellants) from publishing in future publications, articles, caricatures, news items, cartoons, etc., defamatory or derogatory in nature in the Tamil Bi-weekly Nakkheeran or in any special editions thereof or any publication of the defendants without prior verification with the plaintiffs.3. Such application was taken up on 10.7.2003 and the learned single Judge passed an ex parte order of injunction. The relevant portion of the order is to the following effect :-5. The blanket injunction that is sought for by the applicants can...
M. Sajjanraj Nahar Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Mad)53; [2006]283ITR230(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Pursuant to the directions of this court dated 3.8.1999 in T.C.P. Nos. 101 to 108 of 1999, the Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred to us the following questions of law:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in sustaining the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has any material to hold that the assessee in filing the revised return of income has not acted bonafide? and(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in holding that the levy of penalty is justifiable merely for the reason that no reasons were furnished by the assessee for filing an upward revision of income in the revised return of income?2. The brief facts of the case are narrated as follows:2.1. The case of all the assessees under reference is, admittedly, identical and therefore, the cas...
S.P. Muthu Vs. Kirupakaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC257; 2006(2)CTC585
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. As the petitioner and the respondent in both the criminal revision cases are one and the same and the point for determination arising in both the cases is quite similar, the Court has decided to take up both the matters for common disposal.2. The petitioner, who is an accused for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as the 'Act'), received a verdict of conviction and preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 7 and 8 of 2005 against C.C. Nos. 10526 and 6886 of 1999 respectively on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.3. While the said appeals were pending before the Fast Track Court/II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, the petitioner in the aforesaid cases filed petitions in Crl.M.P. Nos. 4918 and 4963 of 2005 seeking permission of the Court to send the promissory notes marked in those two cases for expert examination and report of a hand writing expert.4. The Appellate Court having observed that ther...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »