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.
E.A. Thirugnanam Vs. V.P. Rajagopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC809
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 474 of 1988 on the file of the Sub-Court, Erode, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 08.11.1991 passed therein has filed the above appeal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.3. The Trial Court has granted a decree directing the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 31,000/- and execute the Sale Deed and hand over the possession to him. The brief facts of the case are set out here under:The plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant as the owner of the house site, which is the suit property, entered into a written agreement dated 15.07.1988 with the plaintiff, agreeing to sell the suit property to him for a sale consideration of Rs. 51,000/- and on the same date, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as advance. The balance amount of Rs. 31,000/- is payable within 15th of Aypasi month of the current Tamil year by the plaintiff and he must get a registe...
Sureshkumar Bhuwalka and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: [2007]137CompCas406(Mad)
M. Jeyapaul, J.1. This petition is filed seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 75 of 2002, taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kancheepuram, as far as these petitioners are concerned.2. The petitioners have been charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 39 and 44(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Act, 1910.3. The core allegation in the complaint is that the first accused company called as M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd., its directors Sushilkumar Bhuwalka/A4 and Sharad Dalmia/A8 in whose name the service connection stands are responsible for the theft of electricity and causing loss thereby to the tune of Rs. 1,20,92,004.4. A-1, A-4 and A-12 are not petitioners herein. As far as SureshKumar Bhuwalka is concerned he has been arrayed as second accused, as he is the managing director of the first accused company, M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd.5. Memo has been filed by learned Counsel for the petitioners not pressing the prayer of the se...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Union Co. (Motors) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Mad)171; [2006]283ITR445(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. 236/Mds/92 dated June 16, 2005.2. The brief facts of the case are stated as follows :The assessee owned 20,365 sq.ft. of land in Bangalore with an equivalent built up area and the same was treated as business asset and claimed depreciation. The assessee sold the property and claimed the gains arising therefrom as a long-term capital gains. But the Assessing Officer treated the same as a short-term capital gain under Sections 50 of the Income-tax Act on the ground that the consolidated value was given to the land and building and no break up was possible and accordingly, the difference between the written down value and the sale consideration was treated as short-term capital gains. Hence, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who allowed the appeal finding that the purchaser of the property sought permission to demolish ...
Management, Eiko Computers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.K. Jeyachandran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR1033]; (2006)IILLJ579Mad; (2006)1MLJ468
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai dated August 19, 1996 in C.P. No. 816 of 1994.2. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent was appointed as a senior marketing executive on probation for 6 months on a basic pay of Rs. 1200 and was later promoted as area co-ordinator (Marketing) from April 7, 1991 and later as assistant manager-marketing from April 1, 1992 on a basic pay of Rs. 1650/-. On September 20, 1993, the first respondent tendered his resignation stating as follows:As I got a better offer, I hereby submit my resignation from the post of assistant manager marketing. I am ready to serve the notice period of thirty days and kindly relieve me on October 19, 1993 and settle my dues at the earliest.However, the first respondent did not attend office after September 20, 1993. Therefore, on the next day i.e., on September 21, 1993, the resignation of the first respondent was accepted...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. T. Girijammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: [2006]284ITR482(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in W.T.A. No. 66(Mds)/2004 dated July 14, 2005.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involved is 1992-93. The assessee received compensation from the Housing Board, Tirupathur, TATC for the lands acquired and interest was accruing on such compensation. The State Government filed an appeal challenging the said compensation and the same is pending. The sub-court awarded interest on the additional compensation from the date of possession taken by the Government. The assessee filed a return of wealth admitting a net wealth of Rs. 12,95,500. The Wealth-tax Officer arrived at a net wealth of Rs. 46,51,330 and Rs. 53,022 was charged as wealth-tax. Hence, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the same was allowed. Therefore, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the same was dismiss...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›