Chennai Court July 2006 Judgments
The Dy./Asst. Commissioner of Vs. Shri C. Krishnan
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: (2007)108ITD16(Chennai)
1. These appeals by the Revenue for the assessment year 1990-91 in the case of different assessees emanates out of different orders of the CGT (Appeals). Though the Revenue has contested these appeals in the case of different assessees, the issue involved is common in all these cases. Hence, these appeals were clubbed and heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order 2. The common issue for consideration in these appeals is against deletion of addition by the Commissioner of GT(A) holding that Stridhan settlement dated 08.11.99 conferred the property on Smt D. Janaki and hence, the same does not attract Gift Tax in terms of provisions of Gift Tax Act.3. The briefly stated facts in these appeals are that these assessees are members of the family known as CD Family i.e C.Duraisamy family.Shri C. Duraisamy and Shri C. Krishnan were brothers born to Shri M.Chinnappa Gounder and wife Smt C. EIayammal and the family tree is as under:Shri M. Chinnappa Gounder and wife ...
Tag this Judgment!Ride Master Rims Private Ltd. Vs. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Mad34
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. Original Application No. 264 of 2006 is filed by the applicant/plaintiff to pass an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from bringing the schedule properties for sale, based on the alleged equitable mortgage dated 1 -1-2003 and Application No. 3452 of 2006 is filed by the respondent/defendant to vacate the order of ad interim injunction granted on 20-3-2006.2. According to the applicant/plaintiff firm, it purchased the suit property from the owner and the documents were also placed before the Sub-Registrar Office, Avadi and the same was not returned due to deficit Stamp Duty.3. In this context whether the claim of the respondent/defendant bank in having created the equitable mortgage on 1-10-2003 in its favour by the applicant/plaintiff is acceptable.4. Mr. R. Krishnamurthi, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank drew my attention to the petitioner's letter dated 1-10-2003 addressed to the Sub-Registrar of Assu...
Tag this Judgment!Jothi Anand Vs. Amirtha Raj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ929
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. The order passed in I.A. No. 6234/2005 in I.A. No. 6112/2004 in O.S. No. 9516/1996 on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is under challenge before this Court. 2. The conditional order passed in I.A. No. 6112/2004 in O.S. No. 9516/1996, according to both the counsels, is that the revision petitioner/defendant in O.S. No. 9516/1996 is to pay a cost of Rs. 500/- to the plaintiff on or before 3.3.2005. The said application was filed to reopen the suit and recall P.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination. Since the Defendant could not comply with the condition before 4.3.20 05, I.A.6112/2004 was dismissed. Subsequently, the Defendant has filed I.A. No. 6234/2005 on 11.3.2005 for extension of time to comply with the condition imposed in I.A. No. 6112/2004. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application holding that the Court has become functus officio following the decision reported in 2001(1) TNLJ 291 and : AIR1988Mad2...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpanjali Silk Private Limited Represented by Its Director, Sanjiv K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ968
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the third respondent's refusal to accept the declared value of the goods and the subsequent show cause notice, when the earlier identical show cause notice issued in respect of goods under the same contract has been set aside in appeal accepting the declared value. 3. The petitioner is a major importer of various varieties of raw silk through Chennai Port and has been importing huge quantities of silk from M/s. International Enterprises, Hongkong. The above purchases are made in terms of formal contracts entered into between the parties, wherein details such as total quantity of import, time limit for supply of contracted quantity, price, etc., are specifically stipulated. The goods covered under a single contract are supplied in several consignments within the time stipulated in the contract, which may extend to about a year. According to the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Jaswant Chand Vs. G.V. Films Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad378
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. This is an application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3(A)C.P.C. to set aside the compromise decree dated 27-1-2003 arrived in C.S. No. 49 of 2003 filed by the respondent against this petitioner claiming a money decree for Rs. 2.50 crores and interest of Rs. 45 lakhs and it is at such claim a compromise was arrived at on 27-1 -2003, whereby a decree for 3.00 crores was passed and which is not sought to be set aside.2. This petitioner company was managed by a Board of Directors originally headed by one Mr. G. Venkateswaran (known as G.V.), who ended his life on 3-5-2003 probably under financial pressure, thereupon all the Directors, Statutory Auditor and Company Secretary resigned and there was a total vacuum. Subsequently there was a Scheme approved by this Court order dated 29-4-2004 in C.P. Nos. 89 and 90 of 2004 and a new Board of Directors took over the management, who upon scrutiny found that several creditor...
Tag this Judgment!The Income-tax Officer Vs. Shri P.C. Ramakrishna, Huf
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: (2007)108ITD251(Chennai)
1. These two appeals, one by the Revenue and one by the Assessee are directed against two different orders of the C.I.T. (Appeals). The appeal of the Assessee in I.T.A. No. 783/Mds/2001 is against the order of the C.I.T. (Appeals)-XII, Chennai dated 19.2.2001 confirming the order of the Assessing Officer regarding refusal to recognize the partition of H.U.F. under Section 171 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 907/Mds/2001 is directed against the order of the C.I.T. (Appeals)-XII dated 19.2.2001 in respect of the assessrment framed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act 2. First we will take up the Assessee's appeal in ITA No. 783/Mds/01.The only issue it this appeal relates to confirming the order of the Assessing Officer by the C.I.T. (Appeals) in regard to refusal to grant recognition to the family partition r f Hindu Undivided Family under Section 171 of the Act which took place on 16.9.1994.3. The briefly stated facts of the case are tha...
Tag this Judgment!Ramathal, W/O. Marappan Vs. Suppathal W/O. Late Subramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1051
P.K. Misra, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant against the reversing judgment.2. Appellant filed O.S. No. 72 of 1984 before the Sub Court, Tiruppur, which was subsequently transferred to the Sub Court, Coimbatore and renumbered as O.S. No. 525 of 1985. The suit was for partition. One Thanga Gounder, the grandfather of the plaintiff, had a son named Palanichamy Gounder. Palanichamy Gounder, who died in 1961, and his wife Ramathal, who died in 1981, had three sons and three daughters, including the plaintiff. One of the sons, namely, Natarajan had died in 1977 without leaving any issue. Another son Subramaniam had died leaving behind his widow Suppathal, Defendant No. 4 and two minor children, Defendant Nos. 5 and 6. The only other surviving son of Palanichamy Gounder, Chinnappa Gounder was arrayed as Defendant No. 1. Two other daughters were arrayed as Defendant Nos. 2 and 3.According to the plaintiff's case, the suit properties were purchased by Palanichamy Gounder and Ramathal and were t...
Tag this Judgment!Asirvatham and ors. Vs. G. Chandrasekaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ657
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1285 of 1998 has been preferred by the claimants and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1989 of 2000 has been preferred by the owner of the lorry.2. The claimants are the parents, unmarried sisters and brothers of the deceased. It is stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was 21 years old and he was working as sugarcane cutter. Apart from that, when there was no employment in sugarcane factory, he was also working as a mason.3. It is seen that the accident occurred on 13.12.1990. When the deceased by name Lazer was trying to cross the road, a lorry bearing registration No. TN 23-Z 2022 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Lazer and he died. For the death of Lazer, the claimants made a petition claiming a sum of Rs. 1,45,000 as compensation.4. Before the Tribunal, Sebastian, PW 2, was examined as an eyewitness. In his evidence, he deposed that while he was walking in Sholingar Road, the deceased w...
Tag this Judgment!D.V.D' Monte Vs. N. Venkatesh and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ342
P.K. Misra, J.1. O.S.A. No. 401 of 2002 has been filed by the first defendant in C.S. No. 180 of 1990 against the part of the decree directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 4,13,300/-. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have filed the connected O.S.A. No. 128 of 2005 against the refusal of the learned single Judge in granting a decree for specific performance of the contract. Both the appeals have been heard together.For convenience, parties are referred to as they are described in C.S. No. 180 of 1990.2. The plaintiffs had made the following averments:Three plaintiffs are brothers, being the son of one A. Narayanaswami. Defendants 2 to 8 are the children of the first defendant. The first defendant entered into an agreement dated 13.5.1981 mainly with the plaintiffs and their mother and one S. Padmanabhan. First defendant's wife and children were also shown as partners. The agreement was to sell the property situate at Nos. 15, 16 & 17, Wallers Road for a consideration of Rs. 13,00,000/-. Fir...
Tag this Judgment!Remuki Enterprises and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: (2007)8VST729(Mad)
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. By consent of the learned Counsel on either side, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.2. Since the facts of all the above four cases are identical and the issue involved is one and the same, a common order is being passed in all the above writ petitions.3. The petitioners in the respective writ petitions are registered dealers under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). Admittedly, the certificate of registration was not renewed by the petitioners within the validity period of one year and hence as per Section 21(3) of the Act, the registration certificate of the dealers is deemed to have been cancelled with effect from April 1, 2006. In all the four cases, the petitioners applied for renewal, for the year 2006-07 only on June 13, 2006, by each of them enclosing demand draft for Rs. 1,400 (rupees one thousand four hundred only), all dated June 7, 2006. All the four applications were returned along with...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »