Chennai Court February 2006 Judgments
All India Tax Payers Welfare Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Mad)360; 2006[4]STR14
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners Association as a pro Bono Publico issuance of writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any way demanding service tax from the telephone subscribers under the second respondent.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits as follows:-The petitioners association represents tax payers and consumers which renders service to safeguard the interests of all tax payers and consumers in general that every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rates specified in Section 68(1) of the Finance Act in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed under the said section; that a person or firm, who renders taxable service has to pay service tax but in practice the second respondent has simply shifted the burden of liability of paying the a tax to customers or the consumers of service, which is a gross violation of the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and i...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajendran Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime and Traffic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR189]; (2006)1MLJ671
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent dated 5.2.2001, confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 30.5.2001, by which the petitioner was medically invalidated from service.2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the affidavit are as follows,(a) The petitioner was appointed as Constable Grade-II on 15.7.1975 and initially posted at Armed Reserve Madurai South and in the year 1 985 he was transferred to Local Police. He was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable in the year 1988 and from the year 1992 he was serving at B1-Vilakkuthoon Police Station, Madurai. Whileso, on 21.9.1994, when the petitioner was returning in his two-wheeler after completing his duty, a lorry came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner sustained multiple injuries. Petitioner was admitted in a private hospital and underwent treatment as inpatient for nearly two months. D...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jamal Photo Industries (i) Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Mad)427; [2006]285ITR209(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 27.6.2005 made in ITA No. 348/Mds/2001 allowing deduction under Section 80I of the Income Tax Act holding that the photo processing machine installed by the assessee was used for the process of manufacturing and production of article or thing, entitling the assessee for deduction.2. The brief facts of the case are stated as under.The assessee derives income from photo studio by exposing the negatives and printing of positives/photos. The assessing officer rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80I of the Act. However, on appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) set aside the order of the assessing officer. Hence, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which confirmed the order of the Commissioner holding that exposing of film rolls amounts to manufacturing and therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80I of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenu...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Jayaprakash Vs. Most Rev. Dr. B.P. Sugandher, the Moderator, Churc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC729; (2006)3MLJ42
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. This contempt petition has been filed before this Court invoking the Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 70/71 to punish the respondents for violating the order passed in I.A. No. 20803 of 2005 in O.S. No. 7108 of 2005 on the file of the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.2. In the above suit the XVIII Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court passed the following interim order dated 03.11.2005.Heard and perused documents. It is stated on the side of petitioners side that R3 is functioning under the authority and control of R2 has send a letter dated 10.8.2005 with certain instructions to be followed by the R3. In spite of that R3 purposes to convene dioceses counsel meeting from 7th to 9th of November 2005 as per his letter dated 16.9.2005 without observing and carrying out the instructions given by R2. Further more as per regulation IV of constitution of Dioceses council the said meeting can be convened by the Secretary and on the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Nagappan Vs. State Rep. by Circle Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2006
Reported in: [2007(3)JCR162(Mad)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, J.1. The appellant Nagappan, for having caused the death of his wife Muruvammal, has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 506(ii) IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo RI for three months. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.2. The short facts leading to the conviction are as follows:(a) Nagappan, the accused is the husband of the deceased Muruvammal. They got married ten years prior to the occurrence. Out of their wedlock, two children were born. Both of them were residing in the village called Kolathur.(b) The accused used to do coolie work in Chennai. He also used to go to the village and visit his family. In the course of time, the accused suspected fidelity of his wife. Frequently, there used to be quarrel between the accused and the deceased in that regard.(c) The fateful occurrence took place on 16.2.1999 at about 12.00 noon. According to the prosecution, the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Alias Ravichandran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC505
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 13 of 1997 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Udagamandalam. The appellant has preferred the above appeal against the conviction under sections 376 and 450 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week under Section 376 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week under Section 450 I.P.C. as per the judgment dated 9.1.1998.2. As per the case of prosecution, on 13.4.1995 at 3.00 p.m., the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') entered into the house of P.W.1 Vasanthi at Door No. 927, Vasugi Nagar, Aruvangadu with intend to commit rape and in the kitchen of the house, he committed rape on P.W.1.3. In order to prove such charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution ex...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)37; [2006]287ITR271(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal dt. 18th June, 2002 in ITA No. 1381/Mad/1995 for the asst. yr. 1990-91.2.1 The Revenue is the appellant. The assessee filed his return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 18,260. Thereafter he also filed a revised return. Subsequently, the assessment was taken up for scrutiny and the AO, while completing the. assessment for the asst. yr. 1990-91 under Section 143(3) of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 26th March, 1993, made the following additions :Rs.1. Business : Income from tea shop/cold drinks 1,08,0002. Exemption claimed under Section 53 35,0003. Other sources :(i) Investment in purchase of property at 220, MintStreet, Madras 70,000(ii) Investment of purchase of jewellery 1,30,5602.2 Against the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who allowed the appeal only in respect of the capital gains and upheld the order of the AO with regard to the in...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sivasubramanian Vs. S. Balamurugan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC54; (2006)1MLJ580
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The revision petitioner has sought for setting aside the Order dated 9.10.2003 made in I.A.No.729 of 2003 in O.S.No.247 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property either by cutting the fence or by shifting the same and pending the suit, the petitioner/defendant filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.61 of 2003 seeking for appointment of a Surveyor attached to the Taluk Office, Tharangambadi as Commissioner in order to measure the suit property and fix the boundary and the trial Court allowed the Interlocutory Application and appointed the Surveyor as Commissioner and he inspected the suit property and measured the same in the presence of both parties and also their Advocates and sub...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganatha Padayachi Vs. Seethalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ148
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. The defendant is the appellant before this Court. As against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, this Second Appeal has been filed.2. The suit O.S. No. 472/1989, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti, filed is for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 331/1951 against his father and one Dhanavel and obtained a judgment and decree against his father and another, namely, Dhanavel on 8.9.1951, in the said suit. On 10.4.1953, the plaintiff obtained possession by filing E.P. In July 1989, it is stated that the defendants attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. Therefore, the present suit was filed for the above reliefs.3. The said submissions were resisted by the defendants by filing a written statement. It is stated that on 9....
Tag this Judgment!N. Mani Vs. the Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC632
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. In these writ petitions, petitioner challenges the show cause notices dated 25.10.2000 and 25.9.2000 respectively.2. Petitioner was appointed as Bill Collector in the year 1963 in the respondent Municipality and was promoted as Junior Assistant in the year 1971, then as Assistant in 1984 and further promoted as Revenue Inspector on 13.4.1989. He retired on 31.10.2000. The impugned show cause notices have been issued calling for from the petitioner to show cause as to why the loss suffered by the Municipality on account of the failure to discharge his official duty to collect the arrears towards property tax and lease amount should not be recovered from him. The said show cause notices are challenged on the ground of jurisdictional issue relying upon the earlier orders of the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3503 of 1996 dated 28.11.1996 and O.A. No. 47 61 of 1992 dated 19.12.1997. In the said orders the Tribunal considered a similar issue and h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »