Chennai Court April 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.
Fountainhead Communications Ltd., Represented by Its Managing Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Mad)415; [2006]285ITR36(Mad)
K. Mohan Ram, J. 1. Ms. Pushya Seetharaman, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondents. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to set aside the order dated 31.03.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai - Bench :A.3. The facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner Company filed its returns for the assessment year 2003-2004 on 01.12.2003 declaring an income of Rs.30,00,780/- along with a tax audit report under Section 44AB as an annexure enlisting the cash transactions in excess of Rs.20,000/- to bring the notice of authorities. Pursuant thereto, the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Range II, on 30.08.2004, issued a notice to furnish the reasons for the two transactions in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/- failing which a penalty would be levied at the rate of 100% of the amount transacted...
G. Manavalan Vs. the Secretary to Government, Home Department,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ306
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed by the Head Constables temporarily promoted as Sub-inspectors of Police, challenging the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting their respective Original Applications.2. Facts leading to filing of W.P.No. 16294 to 16297, 21333, 16299. 16300 of 2004 are as follows:These batch of writ petitions have been filed by unsuccessful applicants who were enlisted as Police Constables Grade-II and in the course of time, they were promoted as Head Constables and they became eligible to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. It appears that in the year 1992. they had appeared before the Range Promotion Board and participated in the test as envisaged under the Special Rules relating to Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (hereinafater referred to as 'the Rules'). However, their names were not included in the 'C list for various reasons. In the year 1998, the present batch of applicants were temporarily promoted as Sub-Inspectors of Police an...
A. Mary W/O. P. Joseph Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ300
P.K. Misra, J.1. All these writ petitions raise common questions of fact and law and therefore disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners in different writ petitions are either participants in the movement relating to merger of Tamil areas within the State of Tamil Nadu, who had undergone imprisonment in connection with such movement, or widows of such participants. The agitations relating to merger of Kanyakumari District and Sengottai Taluk had been launched during the year 1954. Similarly, the agitation for the merger of Tiruttani and Pallipattu had been launched in the year 1953. With a view to compensate the sufferings undergone by such agitators as well as to recognise their contributions towards merger of such areas and for development of Tamil language, the State Government had enacted Tamil Nadu Payment of Pension to Tamil Scholars and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Under the Rule making power envisaged under such Act, the...
The Principal, Kendriya Vidyala Sangathan Vs. D. Sarala and the Regist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MysLJ372
ORDERR. Sudhakar. J.1. Even though the matters are listed for hearing miscellaneous petitions, on consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both sides, the writ petitions themselves are heard on merits.2. The present batch of writ petitions have been filed by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (in short, 'KVS').3. The petitioner-KVS is an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act and financed by the Government of India through Ministry of Human Resource Development. The staff of Kendriya Vidyalaya are governed by the Rules framed by the Board of Governors in terms of the policies laid down by the Government of India, in 1986, sanction was accorded for construction of staff quarters for teaching staff of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Meenambakkam in Tamil Nadu within the premises of the Vidyalaya. The construction of the building was completed in September 1992 at a cost of No. 33.65 lakhs. In all, 21 quarters were constructed and classified as Type-I (A), Type-II (B), Type-III...
Nangammal and ors. Vs. N. Desiyappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad265
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the Courts below are the appellants in the second appeal. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition, claiming 7/10th share to the property. The plaintiffs case is that one Nanjunda Gounder was the owner of the property who died intestate on 7-11-1953, his wife the second defendant also subsequently died. The first defendant is his only son and the plaintiffs are daughters. Among the plaintiffs, the third and fourth plaintiffs are unmarried while the second defendant mother died on 8-8-1983. The trial Court while holding that the property is an ancestral property, has granted 4/10th share to the plaintiffs. The first Appellate Court has confirmed the said decree and judgment. Against the concurrent findings by both the Courts, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal. While admitting the second appeal, this Court has raised the following substantial question of law:Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 7/10th share as claime...
Castrol India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(202)ELT428(Mad)
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer in this writ petition is for the issuance of writ of certio-rarified Mandamus to call for the records culminating in the impugned communication dated 20-3-2006 bearing No. C. No. IV/16/9/04 Prov. Asst. (PF) issued by the third respondent to the fourth respondent herein and to forbear the first and the third respondents from initiating any coercive action against the petitioner so as to recover the alleged dues either by invocation of the Bank Guarantees bearing Nos.-5021174681, 5021174682, 5021174683 all dated 27-4-2002 and 240GT02031504528 dated 30-5-2003 or otherwise and consequently, restrain the fourth respondent from paying any amounts under the aforementioned Bank Guarantees to the first and the third respondents and /or any other person claiming through or under them.3. Heard both sides.4. The short facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follo...
M. Gangabai Ammal Vs. M. Saraswathamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ711
S. Rajeswaran, J.1. These Civil Revision Petition Nos. 444 and 445 of 2005 have been filed against the judgment and decrees made in R.C.A.No.357/2002 and 1376/2003 on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, dated 10.12.2004, confirming the order and decree made in RCOP Nos. 372/1998 and 1695/2002 on the file of the XV and XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, dated 14.2.2002 and 7.8.2003 respectively. 2. The petitioner herein is tenant under respondent herein in respect of two shop portions of premises at No. 2, Gangai Amman Koil Street, Saligramam, Chennai.26 on a monthly rent of Rs.450/- for each shop portion. The respondent/landlady evolved a scheme to demolish the entire building including the petition shop portions and to reconstruct into high income yielding one by putting up flats, thereby she could augment the income derived from the said property. She has obtained necessary sanction from the corporation for demolition and reconstruction and she has also obtai...
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Represented by Its Managing Dir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC395; 2006(3)CTC430; (2006)3MLJ265
ORDERV. Dhahapalan, J.1. All the above appeals arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (or any other enactment) have been posted before a Single Judge in terms of the Madras High Court Appellate Side Rules as amended on 09.01.2006, published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette Extraordinary as Amendment to the Appellate Side Rules, 1965, in ROC No. 1-A/2006/F1.2. One important question which has arisen in all these appeals is in case the claim of compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is Rs. 15 lakhs and above even though the award of the Tribunal is less than Rs. 15 lakhs, whether the appeals can be placed before a Single Judge or a Division Bench of this Court.3. These appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 wherein it is provided as under:173. Appeals(1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court;Provided...
C. Jeyarajan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Home ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ251; 2007(2)SLJ332(NULL)
P.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order of dismissal from service imposed under the impugned order G.O. (D) Home No. 1072 CTSI-A dated 23.12.1999, passed by the first respondent.2. The petitioner who initially joined under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as a clerk, subsequently joined Judicial service on 25.7.1980 as a Judicial Magistrate. On 10.12.1996, the petitioner was suspended from services in contemplation of departmental proceedings. On 17.12.1996, the first set of charge-sheet consisting of 8 charges was issued. However, since the petitioner was attaining the normal age of superannuation, i.e., 58, on 31.12.1996, he was not allowed to retire and the departmental proceedings continued. Subsequently, on 5.12.1997, a second set of charge-sheet consisting of 5 charges was issued, primarily based on the explanation furnished by the petitioner on 28.10.1996. Out of 8 charges included in the first set of charge-sheet, the enquiry officer ...
Manoharan Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4671
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Manoharan, the appellant, was convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.2. The facts leading to the conviction are as follows:(a) Manoharan, the accused married the deceased Kasthuri 11 years back. Out of their wedlock, three children were born. The accused is working as Assistant in the Office of Sub Registrar at Chinna Salem. Both the accused and deceased along with their children were living at Ulundurpet. There were frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused.(b) On 11.07.2000 morning, as usual, the accused left his house and went to Chinna Salem to attend his office work. On the same day at about 1.30 PM., the deceased left Ulundurpet and got into the bus for Villupuram, where the parents reside, to purchase sarees for her brother's marriage. At that point ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »