Chennai Court April 2006 Judgments
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliable Hire Purchase Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2006
Reported in: (2006)102TTJ(Chennai)959
1. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against different orders of the CIT(A) for the above assessment years. The first common ground in these appeals is regarding deletion of addition made towards interest on deposits on credit card holders.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of credit card business under the logo "Ready Money" since 1982. The member who joins the scheme is required to deposit funds with the assessee-company. The member may make purchases of consumer durables by using the credit card. The shop owners get their payment directly from trie assessee-company. For using the credit card, the assessee-company collects from the credit card holders finance charges at 16 per cent per annum. At the same time, the assessee is paying interest on deposits to the credit card holders. Meanwhile, the assessee, in order to expand the credit card business, formed wholly owned subsidiary company called M/s Shoppers Investment & Financ...
Tag this Judgment!Premalatha Pappu Raja, N.A.P. Aswath Raja and N.A.P. Jayashree Vs. Shr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ61
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 21.12.2005 in Application No. 3847 of 2001 in C.S. No. 231 of 1998, permitting the Advocate Commissioner for sale of item No. 2 (Plant and machineries) in the schedule, respondents 4 to 6 therein filed the above Original Side Appeal.2. M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Limited and M/s Shriram Investments Limited have filed C.S. No. 231 of 1998 against N.A.P. Alagiri Raja and Co., and five others praying for an order directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,31,52,250/- with interest at 21% per annum with monthly rests on Rs. 19,00,000/- along with costs and in default, to sell the schedule mentioned property and settle the proceeds towards the payment of the amount of the said principal, interest and costs.3. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs also filed Application No. 3847 of 2001 for an order of sale of the properties mentioned in the Schedule to the Judge's Summons and for deposit of the amount to the cred...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Mohammed Vs. N. Ethirajan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CTC405
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 24.11.2005 passed in R.C.A. No. 223/2005 on the file of the learned VIII Small Causes Court (Appellate Authority), Chennai, confirming the order dated 3.8.2004 in R.C.O.P. No. 1688/2003 on the file of XII Small Causes Court (Rent Controller), Chennai.2. The landlords/respondents filed a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the petition premises on the ground of wilful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The Rent Controller allowed the petition and directed the petitioner/tenant to be evicted after recording a finding that the tenant did commit wilful default in the payment of rent. The tenant preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by Rent Control Appellate Authority thereby confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Against the order of the Appellate Authority, the ab...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmana Naidu (Deceased) and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC601; 2007ACJ1349; 2006(4)CTC225; (2006)3MLJ764
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. In all the above three writ petitions, the legal heirs of the deceased Bale @ Subramaniam (W.P. No. 1602 of 1999), Jayaraman (W.P. No. 1603 of 1999) and Rajamanickam (W.P. No. 1604 of 1999) are the petitioners respectively and they have prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs each as compensation for the loss and suffering caused by the officials of the second respondent by the torture, murder and burning of the said three deceased persons. 2. In all the three cases, the facts are one and the same. The averments in the respective affidavits filed in the above writ petitions are almost identical. The necessary facts for the disposal of the writ petitions are set out below:i) The petitioners in the above writ petitions are residents of Thandanur Village, Attur Taluk, Salem district; forest areas surround the village. It is the case of the petitioners that forest officials often insisted Bale @ Subramaniam...
Tag this Judgment!M. Bhuvaneswari Vs. the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ787
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Petitioners in these writ petitions seek a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider them for appointment as Staff Nurse in the Government General Hospitals and Primary Health Centers, based on the seniority of registration in the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council along with the persons who have studied diploma in Nursing and Midwifery in the Government Institutions, without any discrimination between the person who studied in the Government Institutions and Government recognized private institutions.2. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, it would be suffice if the facts of the case in W.P. No. 39236 of 2005 alone are narrated.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petitions as stated in the affidavit in support of W.P. No. 39236 of 2005 are as follows.(a) Petitioner passed Higher Secondary course conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Government of Tamil Nadu and also studied ...
Tag this Judgment!Bala Arichandra Tex, Represented by Its Partners, Vs. Bharat Arichandr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ839
M. Karpagavinayagam,J.1. M/s. Bala Arichandra Tex, appellants herein, are the defendants in O.S.No.2 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. M/s. Bharat Arichandra Tex, respondent herein, is the plaintiff in the said suit, which was filed for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from using the name 'Arichandra'. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, this first appeal by the defendants.2. For convenience, we refer the parties, as arrayed in the suit.3. Case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows:(i) Plaintiff is the sole proprietary concern, carrying on business in textile goods and readymade garments under the trade name 'M/s.Bharat Arichandra Tex'. She has been doing business under the above name for more than four years. She has gained reputation and goodwill in her business among the general public, only by using the trade name 'Arichandra'. The name 'Arichandra' is also written in a unique style and manner in Tamil. She acqui...
Tag this Judgment!J. John Wincent Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ108
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the fourth respondent in O.A.No. 136 of 2005, dated 7.10.2005 and that of the first respondent in proceedings C.No. II/3/13/2002-CF, dated 4.1.2005, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's name for promotion to the post of Inspector of Central Excise and Customs.2.1. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are as under:The petitioner joined the services of the respondents as a Lower Division Clerk on 4.5.1990. Thereafter, he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk in the year 1995. Consequent to the re-designation of the post in the year 2002, he is holding the post of Tax Assistant. The petitioner, by virtue of his experience, made a representation to the respondents to consider him for promotion to the post of Inspector of Central Excise and Customs. However, the respondents did not consider the representation of...
Tag this Judgment!A. Madheswaran Vs. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Secretary to Gov ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CTC753; (2007)ILLJ28Mad; (2006)2MLJ848
P. Sathasivam, J.The art that is in the machine-made article appeals only to the eye the art in Khadi appeals first to the heart and then to the eye.- GANDHIJI (Courtesy - Swagat, April, 06)Let us see as to whether the ideology of the Father of our Nation is being followed in letter and spirit. 2. Since the grievance expressed is one and the same in all these Writ Petitions, they are being disposed of by this Common Judgment. W.A. No. 308 of 2005 is filed against dismissal of the stay petition.3. A. According to the Petitioners, they are the regular employees of the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board'). It is their claim that they all worked continuously in the services of the Board for nearly 10 years and some of them have crossed 10 years of service also. It is not in dispute that their services were regularised and all of them are employees of the Board. They approached this Court by way of present Writ Petitions, challenging the action ...
Tag this Judgment!Pavadai Padayachi Vs. Arumugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ726
T.V. Masilamani, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 623 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Panruti is the appellant herein. He filed the suit for specific performance against the respondent/defendant on the basis of an agreement for sale. The respondent resisted the suit on various grounds and therefore the learned District Munsif on the basis of the pleadings of both the parties and the evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments by both sides, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellant preferred the first appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore in A.S. No. 183 of 1994. Learned Subordinate Judge had in turn after analysing the recorded evidence in the light of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissed the appeal confirming the findings rendered by the trial court. Hence the Second Appeal. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal may be stated briefly as under:-The appellant filed t...
Tag this Judgment!G. Nagarajan Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ739
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.3.2006 made in O.A. No. 791 of 2005 on the file of the third respondent dismissing the said O.A. and refusing to stay the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 1.9.2005, till the conclusion of the criminal case pending against the petitioner in C.C. No. 3 of 2005 on the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, IPC read with Section 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act').2.1. In brief, the petitioner was working as Superintendent, Customs, Tirupur, on deputation by the Central Excise Department. A trap was decided to be laid on the petitioner on 5.7.2004 based on a complaint lodged by one Selvaraj. The conversation between the said Selvaraj and the petitioner reveals that the petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/- from Selvaraj for ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »