Chennai Court March 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.
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Superintending Engineer and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC386; (2006)3MLJ115
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 1033 of 1988 on the file of District Munsif, Cuddalore, is the appellant herein.2. The respondent, Sathya Gnana Sabhai is a public charitable religious institution under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, managed by the Executive Officer appointed by the said department. At the time of effecting service connection No. 5 for providing lights to the road leading to the said institution, the appellant Board applied Tariff II. Later, by Ex.A.1 dated 14.7.1988, they sought to apply Tariff VIII, which was challenged by the respondent by filing the above said suit seeking for the relief of declaration and consequential injunction.3. Before the trial Court, the appellant herein marked Ex.A.1, the impugned notice of the appellant dated 14.7.1988 and examined one Marimuthu, the Executive Officer, as P.W.1. The respondent herein marked Ex.B.1, the audit report dated 28.6.1988 and Ex.B.2, Tariff Notification dated 6.1.1988 and e...
M.M. Enterprises, Rep. by Wife and Legal Representative of Late Sri Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2006
Reported in: (2007)5VST392(Mad)
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. These writ petitions are listed today for admission and I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondent.2. The prayer in these writ petitions is for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned proceedings of the respondent herein in TNGST Assessment Nos.0360494/2000-01 dated 30.12.2005, 0360494/2001-02 dated 30.12.2005 and 0360494/2002-03 dated 30.12.2005 respectively and quash the same and further to direct the respondent to furnish the statement and records relied upon in the orders and provide opportunity for cross-examination of third parties.3. Though several grounds were canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only ground which is sufficient for consideration by this Court, among other grounds, is that the respondent should have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner for cross examining one Mahendra Kumar Jain whose statement has been relied upon by the Depart...
Kiran Machines Vs. the Income Tax Officer and the Tax Recovery Officer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)574
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. With the consent of the counsel on both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the assessment order dated 31.3.2003. 3. Though the impugned proceedings have been challenged on several grounds, the one ground which according to the writ petitioner is sufficient to dispose of the writ petition, is ground No. 'd', which reads as follows:d.The first respondent being well aware of the closure of the operations and also in possession of the residential address of the partners of the petitioner, ought to have served the notice and order on any one of the partners. However, the first respondent has adopted a curious approach in serving the mandatory notice of personal hearing on the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner and affixed the assessment order at the place of business which is not functional. The above is evidenced by the fact that the recovery notice now issued by the second respondent has...
T.V. Sakthivel Vs. the Regional Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ105
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.09.2005 and to consequently direct the third respondent to pay the amounts due to the petitioner under the 4 fixed deposits all dated 08.02.2000.2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent. The admitted facts of the case are set-out in Paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows:-The petitioner, on 08.03.2000, had invested Rs. 2,00,000/- for a period of five years vide 4 Fixed Deposit Nos. each for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the Deepam Deposit Scheme, with the third respondent Bank. The Fixed Deposits of Rs. 2,00,000/- vide 4 F.D. had matured on 08.06.2005. On maturity, the third respondent Bank has to repay Rs. 1,00,390/- per deposit of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner. In total, the respondent Bank has to repay Rs. 4,01,560/- to the petitioner towards repayment of 4 ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. D. Sakunthala,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1415; 2006(2)CTC114; [2006(109)FLR918]; (2006)2MLJ95
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-I, Chennai in W.C. No. 158 of 1996 dated 23.8.1997, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. The claimants 1 and 2 are the respondents herein and they are the parents of the deceased. The deceased Murugavel was working as a Car Driver under the third respondent for a salary of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. On 18.7.1995, the deceased went to the house of the third respondent and there, he was instructed to go to Saidapet through her Car bearing Registration No MDA 4063. Subsequently, it was learnt that the deceased Murugavel was not turned up again. Later, it was learnt that the deceased was kidnapped with the car on 19.7.95 to Trichy, where he was murdered and his body was thrown at Thalinji Main Road, Kulithalai Taluk, Trichy District. The culprits have taken away the car. The said car bearing Registration No. MDA 4063 was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company at the time of the incident. The age of ...
K.K. Janardhanam Vs. Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Limited, Repr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC16; 2008ACJ875; 2006(3)CTC91; (2006)2MLJ109
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. The injured appellant who was a Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police Department, aggrieved by the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 11.12.1996 made in MACTOP No. 2807/1992 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) has filed the above appeal in respect of grievous injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that took place on 12.08.1992 at about 9:30 p.m. when he was traveling in a motor cycle. The appellant herein prayed for a compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs. In respect of his claim, he himself was examined as P.W.3 and he also examined Dr. Chandran, P.W.1 and one Amaldass, P.W.2 respectively besides marking exhibits P1 to P11. R.W.1, driver of the respondent Corporation bus was examined and no documentary evidence was let in. The Tribunal, after analyzing the materials held that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the respondent Corporation bus in question and passed an award fo...
Dinesh Dalmia Vs. State by Spe, Cbi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2401
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No. 389 of 2006 in RC 4 (E)/2003-BS&FC;, CBI, New Delhi in C.C. No. 19189 of 2005.2. The petitioner has been accused of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 594.88 crores by selling 1,30,00,000/- unallotted-unlisted shares of DSQ Software Limited.3. The petitioner was arrested and produced before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on 14.2.2006. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, was pleased to grant police custody from 14.2.2006 to 24.2.2006. The said police custody was extended till 27.2.2006 on the basis of the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer. The accused was thereafter surrendered to judicial custody on 27.2.2006.4. The respondent-police filed a petition seeking permission to conduct the Polygraph, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping test on the accu...
K. Thirunavukkarasu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ615
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Prayer in the writ petition is to include petitioner's name in the panel of Deputy Registrars of Co-Operative Societies for the year 1998-99 issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.94, Co-Operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 19.5.2000 according to the feeder category seniority of the petitioner.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows,(a) Petitioner entered into the service of the Co-Operative Department on 16.9.1970 and subsequently promoted as Senior Inspector. On 21.4.1988 he was further promoted as Co-operative Sub Registrar and he has been serving as such for more than 12 years.(b) The case of the petitioner is that his name was due for inclusion in the panel of Deputy Registrar for the year 1998-99, which was issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 19.5.2000, but his name was not included, whereas number of his juniors were included in the above panel.(c) Petitioner stated ...
D.R. Benefit Fund Ltd. Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (inv.) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)453; [2008]297ITR346(Mad)
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. Writ Petn. No. 38997 of 2005 has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the prohibitory order issued by the first respondent in SS-II, dt. 23rd Nov., 2005 under Section 132(3) of the IT Act, 1961. While admitting the said writ petition, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. Kulasekaran, has passed an order dt. 21st Dec., 2005 in WPMP Nos. 41774 and 41775 of 2005 which reads as follows :Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to depute one of their officials, not below the rank of an Inspector to go to the petitioner-company on every working day at a fixed time and permit the customers to redeem the jewels, if they are genuine persons. In case, any suspicion that any customer is a Benami or a fictitious person, the deputed Inspector may not allow them to redeem. The redeemed amount from the genuine customers is ordered to be deposited in a separate interest-bearing account. If there is any inconve...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sujatha Jewellers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Mad)313; [2007]290ITR631(Mad)
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. Revenue is the appellant in this appeal, which stands admitted on the following question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the transaction of lease and sub-lease involved herein is not a transfer falling within the definition under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,26,876/- assessed as short term capital gains? 2. The following facts are not in dispute:The assessee has taken on lease an immovable property at No. 123, Usman Road, Madras, under a lease agreement dated 06.09.1985. Under that agreement, the assessee has to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the lessor as interest free advance; the lease is to be for a period of 22 years; rent for the first 15 years is fixed at Rs. 20,350/- per month and for the remaining seven years, the monthly rent payable is Rs. 84,428/-; there is a renewal clause; the assessee has sub-leased ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »