Chennai Court July 2006 Judgments
P. Devaraj Vs. V. Geetha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC28; (2006)4MLJ122
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. As the dispute between the parties is very narrow, the parties were directed to appear in person to sort our their differences as requested by their respective counsel. Accordingly, both the parties appeared before this Court on 14.07.2006. Allst were initiated by their respective counsel to sort out differences and to bring the parties together for amicable settlement. But, unfortunately, learned Counsel for both the parties could not succeed in their efforts to bring the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife together. Hence the matter stood adjourned today.2. When the matter was taken up for hearing today (26.7.2006), at the outset, this Court opined that the submissions may be made before some other Bench as the efforts made by the learned Counsel for both sides before this Bench ended in vain. Howe the learned Counsel appearing for both sides expressed their view that there is no need to post this case before any other Bench and requested us to dispose of t...
Tag this Judgment!P. Victor Joseph Raj Vs. the Accountant General,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ41
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the G.O. Ms. No. 191, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 16.3.1996 and consequently direct the respondents to pay the dearness allowance on petitioner's family pension and further direct to pay the recovered amount from petitioner's family pension.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows.(i) Petitioner is working in the Southern Railways and he is receiving salary from the Central Government. His wife was employed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the Municipal Middle School in the year 1980. The marriage of the petitioner took place in the year 1983 and the wife of the petitioner expired in the year 2005, while she was in service and the first respondent granted family pension to the petitioner as per the rules from the date of death of petitioner's wife.(ii) The grievance of the petitioner is that the amount of family pension sanctioned is now reduced to half from April...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Synergy Financial Exchange Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Mad)481; [2007]288ITR366(Mad); (2006)4MLJ1411
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The Revenue filed the appeals challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 14.5.1999 in ITA Nos. 1959 & 1696/Mds/1997 raising the following questions of law:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to 100% depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on gas cylinders and spindles?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,45,399/- being the provident fund payments applying the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2.1. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of leasing and hire purchasing. The assessee claimed 100% depreciation with regard to certain assets leased out, namely, gas cylinders and spindles. The assessing officer refused to grant 100% depreciation in respect of those assets on the ground tha...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Race Club Rep. by Mr. Aruna Officer in Charge (Legal) Vs. the C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to demolish and remove the unauthorised construction in Survey No. 82, T.S. No. 1, Block No. 13 put up by the respondents 3 and 4 in Government lands leased out to the petitioner forthwith.2. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits as follows:The Petitioner is Madras Race Club. The Government of Tamil Nadu under lease deed dated 06.03.1946 leased out the lands to an extent of 8 3.17 acres comprised in Survey No. 82, TS No. 1, Block No. 13, Velacherry Village, Chennai to the petitioner, however, it is in continuous occupation of the said lands ever since 1845 onwards; that the property comprised in Old Survey No. 78 (part) in T.S. No. 1, Block No. 15, Velacherry Village to an extent of 9600 square feet located on the Northern side of the petitioner's property was purchased by the respondents 3 and 4 herein on 15.12....
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkatesan Vs. J. Indumathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC283
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. The order passed in I.A. No. 2282/2003 in F.C.O.P. No. 728/2003 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai, is being challenged under this revision.2. The revision petitioner is the husband. The wife had filed I.A. No. 2282/ 2003 under Sections 24 and 26 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000 for herself and Rs. 5,000 for her minor daughter and Rs. 7,500 towards litigation expenses. There is no dispute that she is unemployed. According to the respondent/wife, the income of her husband/revision petitioner herein is Rs. 5,00,000 per year. But she has not produced any documents to substantiate this claim. On the other hand, the husband/revision petitioner has admitted in his counter that his annual income is Rs. 50,000. So, on the basis of the admitted income, the learned Family Court Judge has awarded an interim order of maintenance of Rs. 1,500 per month for the wife and Rs. 1,500 per month for her minor chil...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Foundation (P) Ltd. Rep. by Its Director, R. Thiagarajan Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC52; (2006)4MLJ676
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. This writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the connected records of the second respondent issued in his Proceedings Na.Ka. S.R. 154/98 dt. 24.2.1998 under Section 9(5) of the Principal Act declaring the petitioner's land in S. No. 429/1C of Perumbakkam village measuring to an extent of 3550 sq.mts. as excess vacant and the notice issued by him in 2nd respondent's proceedings R.C. No. 154/98 in Form VII dated 30.11.1998 under Section 11(5) of the said Act requiring to surrender possession of the said land with the Tahsildar, Tambaram and the proceedings of the 1st respondent in his Endt. R.C.2896/2001-J1 dated 20.2.2003, quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned and direct the second respondent to declare that all proceedings taken by the second respondent to acquire the lands as excess vacant land shall abate under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act (Act 20...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.S. Lakshmi Vs. the Government of India, Represented by Its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1425
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The petitioner seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated 24.3.2004 passed by the second respondent, Deputy Secretary to Government of India (F.F.(INA) Ministry of Home Affairs in his proceedings F. No. 52/CC/9/2004 FF(INA) Ministry of Home Affairs, Government India and to direct the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner under the said scheme with effect from 22.5.1982.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The husband of the petitioner viz., late S.M. Shanmugam was a freedom fighter and had participated in Indian Independence struggle. He was a member of Indian National Army organised by Netaji Subash Chandra Bose and also a member of Indian Independence League. He had also actively participated in the propaganda Department of I.N.A. from 1942 till May 1945. In the course of freedom struggle, he was also arrested and detained by the British Forces in Rangoon Central Jail for more than six months...
Tag this Judgment!Times Guarantee Ltd. Vs. Branch Manager, Industrial Development Bank o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2006
Reported in: [2006]134CompCas237(Mad); (2007)1CompLJ261(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The secured creditor Industrial Development Bank of India, Chennai, obtained a decree on November 21, 2001, against the debtor Rajalakhmi Mills Limited, Singanallur, Coimbatore, in O.A. No. 91 of 2000 from the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai. As the debtor failed to pay the amount, the Recovery Officer brought the mortgaged property in an extent of 20 acres 87 cents of land situated at Uppilipalayam village, Coimbatore District for sale in D.R.C. No. 79 of 2002. In that sale, one Ramajeyam, the fourth respondent in W.P. No. 25636 of 2004 has knocked down the property for a sum of Rs. 15.08 crores. The said auction purchaser deposited 25 per cent of the amount on the date of sale on August 30, 2004, and the balance amount of Rs. 11.31 crores on September 30, 2004, as per the terms of the sale notice. While that being so, on September 7, 2004, writ petition in W.P. No. 25635 of 2004, was filed by Times Guarantee Limited seeking for the relief of writ of manda...
Tag this Judgment!Kumaran Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Chennai)484
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 18th Oct., 2005. The assessee has taken the following grounds: 1. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the approval granted by Software Technology Parks of India for change of name is effective from the date of registration of the partnership firm as a company. 2. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee would not be entitled to deduction under Section 80HHE of the Act as the deduction was claimed and allowed in the hands of the firm, raised as an alternate contention without prejudice to the claim of deduction under Section 10A without appreciating the fact' that the firm that had claimed deduction under Section 80HHE on the income earned by the firm upto the date of registration of the firm as a company.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed a return of income for the asst. yr. 1999-2000 on 31st March, 2000 admitting an income of Rs. 2,09,340 and claimed exemption of ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Srinivasalu Vs. the Food Corporation of India, Rep. by Its Zonal Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ1133
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. Petitioner seeks to quash the order of the second respondent dated 3 1.10.2005 and to direct the respondents to grant all terminal, service benefits and all other attendant benefits to him.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit are as follows.(i) Petitioner belongs to Kurumans Community, which is one of the Scheduled Tribes. He joined the services of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture Department, Government of India at Madras as a Peon as per the order dated 19.12.1966, after his name was sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, North Madras, Madras-1. In the year 1971, the Food Corporation of India was formed and the petitioner's services were transferred to the said Corporation. In the year 1977, petitioner's services along with others were confirmed by the Food Corporation of India, by order dated 28.7.1977. Later on, petitioner was promoted as Daftry in the year 1983; as Gestetner Operator ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »