Chennai Court June 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.
S. Subramaniam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ509
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of declaration that all the proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 in respect of the land owned by the petitioner situated at Survey No. 167/1I (Old Survey No. 167/1) in Karapakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, admeasuring about 24050 sq. metres are illegal and non-est and that in any event have abated consequent upon the repeal of the Principal Act by the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repealing Act, 1999 and consequently direct that the petitioner is entitled to deal with the above mentioned lands owned and possessed by him as a full and absolute owner.2. The brief facts for filing of the present writ petition are as follows:The lands which form the subject matter of the present proceedings are Punja lands comprised in Survey No. 167/1I, Karapakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk. The said lands had been purchased by the petitioner from one Perum...
Prabhakaran and ors. Vs. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC392
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. On 29.11.1997, one Selvaraj, a Police Constable, who was on bundobust duty, was murdered by some Muslim fundamentalists in Coimbatore. As a consequence of this murder, there was an utter chaos and confusion prevailed in the City. The accused/Hindus thought that the entire Muslim community was responsible for the murder of the said Selvaraj and as an act of revenge, the accused had the common object of committing murder of Muslim public. Accordingly, on 30.11.1997, A1 to A11 along with A14 at the instigation of A12 and A13 murdered four Muslims, viz., Harris, Habib Rahman, Hariff and Liyagath Ali at C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore. On this accusation, A1 to A14 were tried for the offences under Sections 148, 302, 149 read with 302 I.P.C. Ultimately, A4, A12 and A13 were acquitted. The other accused were convicted. Those accused have filed these appeals.2. The relevant facts for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:(a) On 29.11.1997 at about 9.00 p.m., one S...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Data Software Research Co. P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2006
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Mad)323; [2007]288ITR289(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 1476, 1477 and 1493/Mds/2000 dated 15.6.2005.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The above appeals relate to assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively. According to the assessee, the tax audit reports for the relevant assessment years were filed in time along with necessary forms. But, the assessing officer finding that there was no tax audit reports enclosed with the necessary forms and further, finding from the tax returns, which were filed much later, i.e. only on that the audit reports were prepared only on 28.2.97 for the year ending 31.3.1996, 28.2.98 for the year ending 31.3.1997 and 25.2.1999 for the year ending 28.2.98, concluded that the tax audit reports had been reduced to a 'ritualistic exercise' and accordingly, by proceedings dated 24.1.2000, levied penalty under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act.3. In response to the sa...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sengunthar Thirumana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
Reported in: [2008]298ITR330(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. As against the order of the Tribunal dated 27.9.2004 made in ITA Nos. 1198, 1199, 1200, 1201 and 1202/Mds/2003, the revenue has preferred these appeals, raising the following substantial question of law.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee society was entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act merely on the ground that the registration under Section 12AA has been granted with effect from 1.4.1990 , without noticing that no charitable activities have been conducted and the income from the letting out of Kalyana Mandapam assessable under the head business has not been applied for any charitable purposes like education or any other object of general public utility?2.1. The assessee is a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The relevant assessment years are 1994-9 5, 1 995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-1999 respectively. Admit...
In Re: AshwIn Poultry Farms (India) (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
Reported in: [2008]85SCL192(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. These company petitions are filed under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rules 11(a), (10) and 79 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, to sanction the scheme of amalgamation.2. Ashwin Poultry Farms (India) (P.) Ltd., the petitioner in C.P. No. 58 of 2006, is the transferor company. The main objects of the transferor company as set out in the Memorandum of Association is to establish poultry farms, hatcheries and to engage in the purchase, manufacture and sale of poultry outputs and to carry on the business of the agents, dealers, distributors, importers and/or exporters of poultry farm related products.3. It is stated that the Board of Directors of the transferor company and the transferee company, in the resolutions passed on 23-12-2005, approved the scheme of amalgamation of the transferor company, the petitioner in C.P. No. 58 of 2006, with the transferee company, the petitioner in C.P. No. 59 of 2006. The resolutions passed by th...
G. Ganesan Vs. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ1000
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 31.03.2006 made in WPMP. No. 37677 of 2005 & WVMP. No. 240 of 2006 in Writ Petition No. 34802 of 2005, in and by which the learned Judge, after finding that the writ petitioner has violated Condition Nos.3 and 5 of the Agreement dated 19.10.2004 and failed to deposit 25% of the amount, vacated the interim order granted earlier. Against which the writ petitioner has filed the present writ appeal.2. It is not in dispute that as per the terms of allotment, the allottee/petitioner has to deposit 25% of the cost of the plot, which comes to Rs.19,92,000/- towards initial deposit and the same has to be deposited within a period of 30 days on receipt of the allotment order. The said clause further makes it clear that failing which, it will automatically result in cancellation of the allotment. In view of the same and in the light of the admitted factual position that the petitioner / appel...
E. Ramalingam Vs. the Director of Collegiate Education and the Regiona ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC832; (2006)3MLJ641
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. Though W.P.M.P. No. 5349/2006 is listed today for hearing, by consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner while he was working as a Lecturer in Physics(SG) in A.V.C. College (Autonomous) Mannampandal, Mayiladuthurai, suffered a heart attack on 7.4.2004. He was admitted in Vijaya Hospital, Chennai, one of the recognised Private Speciality Hospitals for heart ailments. As per the advise of the Doctors, PTCA Stenting was done on 22.4.2004. The petitioner had spent a sum of Rs. 1,33,234/- for the treatment. After the treatment, the petitioner was involved in the admission process during May,2004 and June,2004. He made the claim on 19.7.2004 to the respondents for medical assistance of Rs. 99,975/- being 75% of the claim. The said application was returned by the respondents by order dated 3.8.2004. The reason for refusal to accept the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner had not made the applicatio...
A. Arun Thamburaj Vs. Prof. Dr. Brimanandham, M.D., D.M.(Cardio), Vice ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ826
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to reassess the answer sheet with regard to the forensic medicine.2. Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this is a case where injustice has been done to the student who was first through out his academic career and in all the internal examinations too and he failed only in the forensic medicine theory. The petitioner was shocked since according to him he could not have secured fail marks in forensic medicine theory paper especially when his academic performance has been consistently excellent throughout his career. He applied for re-totaling. According to the petitioner, the Vice Chancellor asked him to come on 24-04-2006 and he met the Vice Chancellor along with the parents. For three short notes his marks were given as incorrect though the answers were correct. It is his case that when the short notes were read out to him by the Vice Chancellor the answers...
Poompuhar Shipping Corpn. Ltd. Vs. the Income-tax Officer,
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: (2007)109ITD226(Chennai)
1. The assessee has filed appeals for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2004-05 against the common order dated 25-11-2005 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals)-XI, Chennai. The Revenue's appeal is directed against the order dated 30-1-2004 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals)-XI, Chennai and relates to the assessment year 2003-04.2. The solitary common issue raised in these appeals relates to the question whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source while remitting payments to various shipping companies under time charter agreements.3. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us and the precedents relied upon. The assessee is a Tamil Nadu Government Undertaking. It is engaged in the business of transport of coal from various ports in India on behalf of the Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board, Chennai. For the transportation of coal the assessee charters vessels from India as well as from Fore...
V. Rajakumari and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ1012
ORDERK. Suguna, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the notification issued under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act in G.O.Ms. No. 92 dt. 25.4.2005 and published at Page Nos. 7 to 13 Section 2 of the Extraordinary Order of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No. 97 dated 25.4.2005. 2. As far as the petitioner in W.P. No. 9557/2006 is concerned, the land acquired is 146 sq.m., in S. No. 280/1B1B, Kottivakkam Village. As far as the petitioner in W.P. No. 9559/2006 is concerned, the extent acquired is 325 sq.m. in S. No. 282/1A2 in Kottivakkam Village and as far as the petitioners in W.P. No. 10460/2006 is concerned, the land acquired is 125 sq.m. in S. No. 280/1G2 in Kottivakkam Village. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the lands were not acquired in equal extent from the middle of the highway. Consequence of this, though the petitioners' lands have been acquired, to remove the curves, so as to have a straight road, but, by...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »