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.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V. Pradeep Kumar and V. Praveen Kum ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)579; [2007]290ITR90(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'A' Bench, referred the following question of law at the instance of Revenue, under the direction of this Court in TCP Nos. 77 & 78 of 1998 dated 29.07.1998, for opinion of this Court,:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal had valid materials to give a finding that the assessee had constructed a residential house before 21.06.1988 and thus eligible for exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act? 2. The facts leading to the above question of law are as under: The relevant assessment year is 1986-87. The assessees are individuals, assessed by the Income Tax Officer, City Ward III(4) on 22.06.19 85. They sold a house property at No. 40, Moore Street, Madras-1, which was jointly owned by them and each claimed exemption under Section 54F in respect of 50% share of capital gain of Rs. 8,25,957/- in the original returns which were filed on 12.09.1986 declaring their inten...
Dr. J. Krishnamoorthy Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ191
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. The present batch of writ petitions have been filed by the Rural Medical Officers working in the various dispensaries run by the Panchayat Unions in the of Tamil Nadu. Such Medical Officers are appointed from persons who have the following qualification:(i)'A' Special: BIM, Medical Practitioners who have undergone Special Training for 4-1/2 years in a Government Recognised Medical Institution -Registered after 1972.(ii)'A' Class: LIM. Medical Practitioners who have undergone Training for 4 years in Government Recognised Medical Institutions and passed in the examination conducted by Government approved Board of Examination. The registration has been abolished for LIM from 1946 and ICIM from 1960.(iii)'B2' Class: B-II Medical Practitioners are those who have undergone special training for four years in Government approved Medical institutions / Gurukulam and obtained Diploma / Certificate having 10 years of continuous practice and passed in the written and oral te...
Devi Pesticides Private Ltd. Rep. by Power of Attorney Holder Sankar M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ834; 2006(32)PTC434(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of both parties, appeal themselves are taken for final disposal.2. Aggrieved by the common order dated 26.04.2005 made in Original Application Nos. 904 and 905 of 2004 in C.S. No. 862 of 2004, dismissing both the said applications, M/s. Devi Pesticides Private Ltd., Madurai has filed the above appeals.3. Plaintiff in C.S. No. 862 of 2004 is the appellant in the above appeals. The plaintiff filed the said suit against the respondent / defendant, M/s. Shiv Agro Chemicals Industries, Baroda, Gujarat State for,(a)Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by himself/ themselves, their men, servants, agents, distributors, stockiest, representatives, partners, directors or any of them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark BOOM PLUS by use of the trademark SUPER BOOM or any other mark similar to plaintiff's registered trademark;(b)Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by himself/ themselves, their men, servants, agents, ...
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited Rep. by Its Vice Presiden ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: [2006]134CompCas267(Mad); 2006(3)CTC529; (2006)2MLJ822; [2006]72SCL18(Mad)
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. Whether an Asset Reconstruction company formed under the Securitisation and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to for brevity's sake as 'Securitisation Act', is entitled to be associated in the process of the sale of assets of a company under liquidation along with the Official Liquidator is the question which falls for our consideration in these appeals.2. The facts leading to this appeal are that SIV Industries Limited (formerly South India Viscose Limited) run into financial difficulties and was declared as a sick industrial company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter called SICA) by order dated 09.07.2002. Attempts at re-habilitate proved unsuccessful. BIFR ultimately recommended that SIV Industries Limited should be wound up under Section 20(1) of SICA vide order dated 25.09.2003. Before BIFR, ICICI requested permiss...
Karnataka Bank Limited, a Company Registered Under the Provisions of t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CTC31; (2006)2MLJ821
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved inasmuch as the Court below declined to number the suit filed by the petitioner and returned the same directing the petitioner to comply with payment of stamp duty penalty in respect of Document No. 1, which is a memorandum of deposit of title deeds, which according to the Court below requires such payment by virtue of Article 6(2)(a) of the Indian Stamp Act. 2. When the revision came for admission on 17.4.2006, notice was ordered to be served on the Additional Government Pleader (Civil Side) to assist the Court.3. Today, when the revision was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Civil Side) pointed out that the very Explanation to Article 6(2)(a) and (b) of the Indian Stamp Act came to be added by Act 31 of 2004, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary Part-IV, Section 2, dated 25.11.2004, which came into effect on 16.12.2004. The explanation reads as under:Explanation.- For ...
Mohandass and ors. Vs. the Appellate Authority, District Judge,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ282
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in C.M.A.No. 23 of 2005 dated 13.12.2005 by setting aside the order of the third respondent in R.C.A.No. 810 of 1998 dated 20.05.2003, and quash the same.2. When the matter came up for admission on 13.04.2006, Mrs. Selvi George took notice on behalf of the Special Government Pleader (Forest) for Respondents 2 and 3 and submitted that against the judgment and decree passed by the First respondent-Appellate Authority, District Judge Udhagamandalam only a second appeal under Section 100 of CPC can be filed and not the writ petition. At the request of the counsel on either side, the case was adjourned and that is how the matter is listed today.3. There is no dispute that the impugned proceedings in the above writ petition is the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2005 passed in C.M.A.No. 23 of 2005 on the file of the District Judge, Udhagamand...
Chairman and Managing Director, Metal Box India Ltd. and Metal Box Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR99]; (2006)IIILLJ255Mad
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. These writ appeals are filed against the orders of the learned single Judge granting interim stay of the impugned settlement dated 1 8.1.2 006 entered into between the appellant and the fifth respondent on the prayer made by the first respondent herein. The facts of the matter have been dealt with in detail by the learned single Judge and therefore, we will only refer to the important facts.2. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/first respondent submitted that in the event of this Court coming to the conclusion that the stay deserves to be vacated, nothing would survive in the writ petition and therefore requested that the writ petition itself be taken up for disposal.3. The appellant-Company was declared as a sick company by order dated 27.5.1988 by the Board of Industrial Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and the third respondent was appointed as the operating agency. Originally, there were three Unions - the first r...
A. Chinnasamy Vs. the District Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ474
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of transfer dated 5.10.2005, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit are as follows.(a) Petitioner, while working as Taluk Supply Officer, Attur, Salem District, a complaint was sent by one Kannan to the first respondent alleging that one M.P.Rajendran is running a wholesale shop for selling rice and paddy in the name of Priya Traders at Attur, and is illegally transporting the ration rice supplied to the fair price shops, to other states and also using the name of the third respondent, who is his relation, for his illegal activities. (b) On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent, through the District Supply Officer, forwarded the same to the petitioner and requested him to make an enquiry and send the report within 15 days. On receipt of the said request, petitioner conducted an elaborate enquiry an...
Ms. Anantha Agencies, Rep. by Its Manager J. Kamalakannan Vs. Bharat P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CTC643; (2006)4MLJ892
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Order, dated 23.09.2005, made in I.A. No. 12194 of 2005 in O.S. No. 6352 of 2000 on the file of the learned 2nd Assistant Judge,City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. It is the case of the petitioner agency that it is carrying on the business of agency in petroleum and its allied products supplied by the first respondent company. The petitioner agency had filed O.S. No. 6352 of 2000 on the file of the 2nd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, against the respondents herein, who were the defendants in the suit, seeking :-a) to declare the order of suspension, dated 16.09.2000, in reference No. M42.01 passed by the second respondent as null and void b) for granting a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their men or servants, agents or any one acting on their behalf, or under their direction, from in any manner or in any way acting or initiating any action pursuant to the order of s...
Aurotrans Maritime Services (P) Ltd. Vs. the Chief Commissioner of Cus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2006
Reported in: 2008[12]STR201
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the First Respondent relating to the impugned Order No. 8/2001, dated 30.07.2001, passed by the First Respondent, and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to implement the Order No. 53/99, dated 05.01.1999, passed by the Appellate Tribunal.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.3. It is the case of the petitioner firm that it was granted with a temporary Custom House Agent Licence (in short, CHA), by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, in the year 1988. Subsequently, the said licence was converted into a permanent licence bearing No. R-3/89, dated 31.05.1989, by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, under Regulation 10, of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulation , 1984. Since the petitioner firm's business in Chennai had improved, the petitioner firm was qu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »