Chennai Court February 2006 Judgments
Subbalakshmi Sankaranarayanan and S. Chandrasekars Vs. V. Elumalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ20
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The second and third Defendants in a suit for specific performance filed by the Respondent in O.S. No. 159 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu are the Revision Petitioners. They are the wife and son of the first Defendant in the suit against whom the relief of specific performance was sought for.2. The impugned order is the dismissal of the application of the Revision Petitioners to struck of their defence of construing them as unnecessary parties in the said suit.3. On a perusal of the plaint it is found that the prayer is as follows:-11(a) to direct the first defendant to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee or nominees in respect of the suit property on receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,75,000/- as per agreement dt. 30.11.2003, failing which ....4. But in the body of the plaint in para 4 it was pleaded as if the second and third defendants acted on behalf of the first defendant, ...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Ravindran Vs. the Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Boar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ59
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to process the petitioner's application dated 02.02.2006 to supply energy to Shop Nos. 1 & 2 in premises No. C-41, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040, in which the petitioner is a lawful tenant, within a time stipulated by this Honourable Court.2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Mr. G.Vasudevan learned counsel for the Electricity Board took notice on behalf of the respondent and took time to get instructions. Accordingly time was granted and the matter is listed today. Learned counsel for Tamil Nadu Electricity Board submitted that since there is objection from the landlord of the petitioner, the department has not granted electricity service connection to the petitioner's premises.4. The case of the petitioner is that he was inducted into possession as a ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., Rep., by Its Direc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: [2007]135CompCas292(Mad); 2006(2)CTC642
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The criminal original petition is filed seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings in Crime No.576 of 2005 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Team-IV, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.2. The petitioners have been booked for the offences under Sections 379, 468, 471, 420 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, based on the reference made by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-600 008, on the complaint presented by the second respondent herein under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. The averment in the complaint preferred by the second respondent is as follows:-The first accused is M/s. Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., the second accused is A.R.Santhanakrishnan, Director of the first accused-company, the third accused is Mrs.Radhika Santhanakrishnan, yet another Director of the first accused-company and the fourth accused is Chandrasekaran, working as Commercial Manager of M/s.Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Andhra Pradesh State Trading Corporation Vs. Auro Logistic Limited and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad205; II(2007)BC683
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Seeking revocation of the leave granted by this Court on 17-6-2005 in application No. 2380 of 2005 in C.S. No. 544 of 2005, this application has been brought forth by the applicant/defendant.2. It is a suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,26,236/- along with declaration in respect of a shipment and for consequential permanent injunction. The plaint proceeds on the footing that the causes of action for the suit arise within the jurisdiction of this Court where the Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the plain-tiff and the defendant on 29-9-2003; that the plaintiff and the defendant acted in terms of the memorandum of understanding; that 81 tones of iron ores were procured by the plaintiff from the 2nd defendant; that the plaintiff has entered into contract with Fremery for export of iron ore fines in pursuance of the agreement; that a letter of credit was opened by Fremery with Standard Bank, London; that iron...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance Generators Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Accounts Officer Vs. the Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ670
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. The above writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of writs of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in its proceedings in TNGST Nos. 1480991/2001-02 and 1480991/2002-03 respectively dated 30/12/2005 and to quash the same.2. In these two writ petitions, the pre-revision show cause notices issued by the respondent have been challenged. The impugned notice in W.P. No. 5293 of 2006 reads as follows:-The dealers are engaged in the supply, installation, testing and commissioning of Diesel Generators to BSNL for its various telephone exchanges. In this kind of transaction the Generators are supplied as standard unit and the wires and other ancilliaries are not part of the generating sets. They are therefore, to be treated as sale only and not works contract as installation, testing and commissioning are only incidental. In the case law reported in : 2005(181)ELT156(SC) , the Supreme Court of India had held that the m...
Tag this Judgment!P.Visalakshi Vs. the Junior Engineer O and M, Tamil Nadu Electricity B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ33
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. Mr. N.Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate took notice on behalf of the respondent on 13.02.2006 and sought time for getting instructions from the respondent. After getting instructions, learned counsel for the Electricity Board and the learned counsel for the petitioner agreed that the main writ petition itself may be disposed of.2. The short facts of the case are as follows:According to the petitioner, she is the owner of the land situated in Nanjai Survey No. 64/3 measuring 16 cents and 64/4 measuring 17 cents in Agraharam Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District. She has obtained a loan amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the year 2004 from the State Bank of India, Sempalli for the purpose of starting a poultry farm under the PMRY scheme. Thereafter, she has put up all necessary sheds and building to commence the poultry farm. The petitioner applied to the respondent for electricity service connection by enclosing all necessary documents with the necessary fee...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ambal Mills Ltd., Rep. by Its Director Mr. C.D. Menon Vs. the Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: [2006]131CompCas573(Mad)
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. Ms. Saraswathi Sivarama Iyer (Taxes) takes notice on behalf of the respondent.2. By consent of both, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.3. Writ Petition is to call for the records on the files of the respondent herein in his Form No. I Distraint Order TNGST No. 2460012/1993-94 to 1996 - 97 dated 12/1/2006 and to quash the same.4. The facts of the case are as follows:-The petitioner is a registered dealer on the files of the respondent herein. The petitioner was manufacturing Staple Fibre Yarn. They were complying with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Due to certain problems in their financial status, the petitioner Company became sick and they have filed an application before the Board for Industrial and Financial Re-Construction (BIFR) under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. They have been declared as Sick Unit in Case No. 242/...
Tag this Judgment!Vanaja N. Vs. Board of Directors of Tamil Nadu Small Industries Develo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: (2007)1LLJ172Mad; 2006(4)CTC52
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. The writ petition is directed against dismissal of the Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the second, respondent dated June 1, 2005 as per the resolution passed by the first respondent in the 209th meeting held on November 3, 2005 as shown in the communication of the second respondent dated November 15, 2005 in Proceedings No. 4468/A-3/2004.2. It is stated that the second respondent has passed an order reducing the rank of the petitioner from the post of Superintendent to the post of Assistant after holding her guilty of the charges framed against her. Against which the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the first respondent. By communication dated November 15, 2005 it was informed to the petitioner that the Board of Directors, SIDCO has resolved after detailed examination to reject the Appeal made by the petitioner and to confirm the orders passed by the Managing Director, against which the present Writ Petition is filed.3. It is brought ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: [2007]293ITR86(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the 1 order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated June 27, 2005, in I. T. A. No. 725/Mds/1999 for the assessment year 1994-95.2. The brief facts are as follows :3. The relevant assessment year is 1994-95. The assessee is a company 3 engaged in hotel business. The assessee excluded expenditure tax, luxury tax and sales tax in the business receipts for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80HHD and also claimed refund of expenditure tax. According to the assessee the reason for non-inclusion of the above amounts was that these collections were not routed through the profit and loss account. The assessing officer held that (i) since the liability to pay these taxes arose on account of the assessee carrying on the business, the receipts form part of the total turnover ; and (ii) with regard to the refund of expenditure tax, since the assessee had been following the mercantile system of accounting, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Cameo Engineering Services (P) Ltd., Rep. by Its Director Vs. the Depu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: (2007)8VST162(Mad)
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. Writ Petition is to call for the records of the first respondent in R.P. No. 11/2004 quash the order dated 30/11/2005 and direct the second respondent to revise the order in TNGST 1380776/97-98 dated 30/11/1998 as far as the levy of Additional Sales Tax is concerned in accordance with Section 2(1)(aa) of the TNAST Act 1970.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:-The second respondent passed an assessment order dated 30/11/1998 for the assessment year 1997-98, during the relevant period additional sales tax could be levied if the turnover crosses Rs. 100 crores, but the petitioner's turnover was less than 100 crores. By mistake, additional sales tax at 2.5% was collected. Hence the petitioner submitted a petition under Section 55 of the TNGST Act for rectification of the error. But the petition was rejected by the second respondent by his order dated 18/11/2003 and directed the pet...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »