Chennai Court February 2006 Judgments
Reena Silicate Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gail (India) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad266
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. The applicant has filed this Original Application in O.A. No. 341 of 2005 for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from disrupting the supply for the requisite natural gas to the petitioner's manufacturing unit situated at No. 123-C Uthamacholapuram, Narimanam P.O. Nagapatinam Taluk, Nagapattinam District pending completion of the arbitration proceedings.2. The Applicant firm is a manufacturer of Sodium Silicate having its manufacturing unit at Uthamacholapuram, Narimanan P.O. Nagapattinam District. For the above manufacturing activity, they require natural gas. For the supply of natural gas they entered into a contract with the respondent on 27-12-1997 with a duration of five years. It is his case that all of a sudden the respondents in the course of extending the first five years' contract unilaterally suggested certain conditions and accordingly they amended the contract dated 16-12-2002. It is his case that he was forced to sign the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ832Mad
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The writ petitioner is the appellant. They filed a petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval of the order of dismissal of the second respondent. According to the petitioner, the second respondent was unauthorisedly absent, from March 21, 2002 and hence, a chargememo was issued and explanation was called for. Though the chargememo was acknowledged, no explanation was given by the second respondent. A domestic enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer held that the charges were proved, since the past record of the second respondent was not satisfactory, a provisional conclusion was arrived at to remove him from service and therefore, a show-cause notice was issued on December 21, 2002. An explanation sent to this show-cause notice was not satisfactory and therefore, the second respondent was removed from service and a cheque for Rs. 7,365 was issued as one month's wages and sent along with the removal order. The petitioner ap...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Nusarathullah Vs. Natarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC388; (2006)1MLJ630
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed praying to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 29.12.2005, passed by the learned Second Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, in I.A. No. 632 of 2005 in O.S. No. 2209 of 1993.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 3. The suit in O.S. No. 2209 of 1993 was filed by the Respondents/ plaintiffs before the Court of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the 3rd Defendant in any manner altering the physical features of the suit property, mandatory injunction directing the 3rd Defendant to remove his belongings kept in Item No. 2 of the schedule of property, permanent Injunction restraining 3rd Defendant and his henchmen from in any manner trespassing into the suit property, directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit and for grant of such other reliefs deemed fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Subsequently...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax-iii Vs. Premier Tobacco Packers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)201; [2006]284ITR222(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard. The above appeal is directed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act 1961 against against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'A' Bench dated 22.5.2003 in I.T.A.No. 433, 1856/Mds/95. 2. The facts in brief are : The assessee company is engaged in the activity of processing tobacco for others. This is known as thrashing. The assessee filed its return of income on 28.12.1990 admitting an income of Rs. 32,57,510/- and claimed deduction under Section 80HH on the ground that the assessee's activity of thrashing and re-drying of tobacco leaves amounts to manufacture or production. The assessing officer, disallowed the above claim. On appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Commissioner of Income Tax, following the earlier orders of the Tribunal, allowed the appeal and answered the issue in favour of the assessee. Hence, the Revenue went on appeal and the Appellate Tribunal, confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) follow...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Club Resorts (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)587; [2006]287ITR552(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeals are filed under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 by the Revenue against the order passed in ITA Nos. 136 and 137/Mad/1999 by the Tribunal, Madras, 'B' Bench. On 22nd Oct., 2003, this Court admitted the appeals and formulated the following substantial questions of law for decision in these cases:1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenses claimed by the assessee could be allowed, even at the stage of development of the projects?2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing business expenditure for a period prior to actual commencement of the business?2. The facts leading to the above questions of law are as under:(i) The relevant assessment years are 1992-93 and 1994-95. The assessee-company was incorporated on 1st March, 1991. The assessee was carrying on the business of promoting time share units at places of tourist interest and...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Arya Vaidhya Pharmacy (Cbe) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Mad)443; [2006]284ITR335(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated November 12, 2002, made in I.T.A. Nos. 1956, 1958/(Mds)/1992, 2476(Mds)1993 and 19571 (Mds)/1992, raising the following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that excess sales tax collected and retained as a deposit due to a dispute cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the excess sales tax collected cannot be treated as a trading receipt of the asses-see, in view of the fact that subsequently, the Supreme Court had directed that it should be either refunded to the customers or paid over to a charitable trust?2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are as under:The assessee is a closely held company engaged in the manufacture and 3 sale of ayurvedic medicines. During the previous years relevant to the ...
Tag this Judgment!D. Periyagopal @ Gopal Vs. K. Viswanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2006
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ663
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The landlord is the Revision Petitioner, who was owning a building bearing Door No. 21/693 in Ranga Gounder Street, Coimbatore town, the first floor of which was occupied by him for residential purpose; the ground floor of which was occupied by the Respondent/tenant on rental agreement. The landlord was running a tailoring business in some other area. In order to shift his tailoring business to the petition mentioned property, he required the ground floor for his own occupation.2. Even though the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the Respondent/tenant, accepting the ground of owners occupation pleaded by the Revision Petitioner, by taking into account the subsequent event, that the landlord has shifted his residence from the first floor of the petition mentioned property to Ondiputhur, R.C.A. preferred by the Respondent/tenant was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, on the ground that the landlord may occupy the first floor of the pet...
Tag this Judgment!N. Sivasubramanian Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC49; (2006)1MLJ563
1. W.A. No. 2351 of 2005 is preferred against the order dismissing the interim direction petition filed by the appellant/petitioner herein seeking direction to the respondents to handover the charge of Arulmigu Sankaralinga Swamy Temple etc., Devasthanam, North Chokkar Street, Tenkasi to the appellant/petitioner.2. W.A. No. 2352 of 2005 is against the order in W.V.M.P. No. 1553 of 20 05, vacating the interim stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai, appointing the 5th respondent herein as Executive Officer of Arulmigu Sankaralinga Swamy Temple etc., Devasthanam, Tenkasi. 3. As the writ appeals arise from the interim orders passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, this Bench directed to list the writ petitions also along with the writ appeals for final disposal.4. The order in proceedings No. Na.Ka. No. 31654/2002/L5, dated 17.3.20 05 passed by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment De...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Dinesh Vs. the Union Territory of Pondicherry Through the Chief S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad166; (2006)2MLJ212
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner submits that he has filed an application before the third respondent for grant of Municipal Licence for the purpose of holding Indian Classical Dance at Hotel Al Rasheed, Citadel at Door No. 1, 100 Ft. Road, Ellapillai Chavady at Pondicherry. The said application was rejected by the third respondent as per Order dated 12.04.2004 on the ground that there was objection from the Additional District Magistrate and the said order was challenged in W.P. No. 32662 of 2004 and this Court, by order dated 15.04.2005, quashed the said order and remitted the matter to the third respondent with a direction to grant temporary licence, pending consideration of grant of permanent licence.2. The said order was challenged by the third respondent in Writ Appeal on the ground that when the Municipality is considering the grant of permanent licence, there is no requirement of a temporary licence. Accordingly, the Division Bench, as per judgment dated 10.08.2005 in W....
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Dinesh Vs. Pondicherry Municipality Represented by Its Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC585
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. By consent of the counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner, in support of the relief asked for, has submitted that he is a businessman involved in hotel business at Pondicherry and has taken on rent, the Al Rasheed Hotel premises including the building on a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/-.3. He has contended that in his hotel, he wanted to conduct 'Indian Classical Dance' performances for which licence was required under the Pondicherry Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and to that effect, he gave an application for licence on 08.01.2003 and the same was not considered by the respondent due to which he was forced to file Writ Petition No. 22935 of 2003 for a mandamus and this Court, by order dated 05.12.2003, directed the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner and pass orders thereon.4. It is further contended by the petitioner, that the respondent, by his proceedings date...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »