Chennai Court July 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.
K. Mariappan Vs. the Registrar of Co. Operative Societies and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC763
ORDERK. Suguna, J.1. This writ petition has been filed as against the order passed in O.A. No. 710 of 1993 dated 11.4.2000. The facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary Junior Inspector with effect from 16.12.1985. Subsequ y in the year 1988, the Government has issued G.O.Ms. No. 271 dated 10.11.1988 proposing to regularise all the temporary Junior Inspectors of Co-operative Department by conducting a special qualifying examination through the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission. Since the petitioner has also one of the candidate, who came within the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms. No. 271, he too applied for the said post, but the petitioner's results have been withheld. As against this, the petitioner has filed an origin al application No. 710 of 1993 and by an order dated 11.4.2000, the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal dismissed the above original application. As against this, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.2. Accor...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Valli Cotton Traders Pvt. Ltd., (Unit o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: [2007]288ITR400(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The Revenue is the appellant. 2. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal made in C.O.30(Mds)/2001 in ITA No. 27(Mds)/2001 dated 29.8.2005 with reference to the assessment year 1993-94.3.1. The brief facts of the case are stated as follows:The assessee filed its return on 24.12.93 for the assessment year 1993-94 claiming a loss of Rs. 12,31,784/- and the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (for brevity 'the Act') was completed on 29.3.96. In this assessment, the interest paid on borrowed funds which was diverted to sister-concerns was not disallowed, as the same was disallowed during the previous year. In view of this, income had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Hence, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued and assessment was completed under Section 147 of the Act, which resulted in profit. Since the assessee had not filed Form 10CCAC, which ought to have b...
Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Global Calcium (P) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Chennai)179
1. These are group of appeals by the Department and different assessees involving common issues and, therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order. The following two common issues are before us for consideration: (1) Whether interest earned from fixed deposits with bank is connected or interlinked with carrying on assessee's business and, therefore, is eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC from the business profits after excluding 90 per cent under Expln. (baa) to Section 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961. (2) Whether the receipts on account of interest, commission, brokerage, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature is to be excluded net or gross from such profits for the purpose of computation of deduction under Expln. (baa) to Section 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961.2. On this issue, first of all Shri K. Ravi, learned senior counsel of the assessee argued that the issue was whether interest on deposit in lien with the bank as a precondition...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. Chinnasamy and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ254
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the separate but identical orders, dated 30.01.2001, of the learned single Judge, made in W.P. Nos. Nos.21596/2000, 21597/2 000, 21595/2000, 21594/2000 and 21593/2000, directing the Special Tahsildar (LA), Housing Development Scheme, Hosur, Dharmapuri, to make proper reference of the claim of the respective petitioners/land owners to the competent civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, has filed the above Appeals.2. Heard Mr. D. Veerasekaran, learned Counsel for the appellant; Mr. C. Thiruman, learned Government Advocate for the official respondents; and Mr. M.A. Abdul Wahab for other respondents/land owners.3. It is seen from the materials placed that the writ petitioners/ land owners made a representation dated 16.08.2000 for enhancement of the compensation. The Special Tahsildar (LA), Housing Schemes, Hosur, by letter dated 18.10.2000, after stating that their representation has been...
Estate of B. Kannaih Naidu and Varadammal, Kannaih Naidu Charities and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC237; (2006)4MLJ779
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition filed against the order and Decretal order in I.A. No. 424 of 2002 in O.S. No. 195 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tirukalugundram, dated 16.12.2 003.2. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 195 of 1996 are the revision petitioners before this Court.3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiffs' title to the properties described in the schedule and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession. The written statement was filed by the defendant on 23.11.1995. Thereafter, on 05.12.2002, the defendant in the suit filed I.A. No. 424 of 2002 under Order 14 Rule 2(2) (a) of C.P.C to try the jurisdiction point as a preliminary issue. The trial Judge by an order dated 16.12.2003 allowed the said I.A. by holding that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and returned the plaint to be filed before the appropriate Court. Aggrieved...
Chinnu Gounder and Mani Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ1017
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 12.07.2002 passed in W.P. No. 14353 of 1995, dismissing their writ petition, the petitioners have preferred the present writ appeal.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.3. Before the learned single Judge, two contentions were raised, viz., (i) there was violation of Rule 3(b) of the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules; and (ii) there was delay in publishing the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.4. With regard to the first contention, the learned Judge, after finding that the land acquisition is on behalf of the Revenue Department, which includes the Department of Harijan Welfare and Backward Classes, held that there is no question of observance of Rule 3(b) and rejected the said contention. It is not in dispute that the land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to Salavayalars of Vadakkanandal Village, ...
Tvl. Ayyappan Textiles Limited, Rep. by the Director Vs. the State of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ1001
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The validity of Section 3-A of the Tamil Nadu Electricity (Taxation on Consumption) Act, 1962, as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 1991, had been questioned in a batch of writ petitions before a learned single Judge. 2. By a common order dated 21.10.2003, the learned single Judge upheld the validity of the impugned Act, namely, Act 32 of 1991, and dismissed the batch of writ petitions. 3. Challenging the same, all these Writ Appeals have been filed by the appellants. The connected Writ Petitions, which were not listed for disposal before the learned single Judge, are also listed now, along with these Writ Appeals.4. Section 3 of the parent Act 1962 provides for levy of tax on consumption of electrical energy. By the impugned enactment, namely, Act 32 of 1991, dated 01.10.1991, Section 3-A has been introduced, providing for levy and collection of additional tax, quantified as a percentage of the price of energy consumed. This is under challenge before this Divis...
S.A. Velusamy, Vs. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Secretary to Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ782
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, dated 05.02.200 2, made in W.P. No. 18843 of 1994, the writ petitioners have preferred the above Appeal.For convenience, we shall refer the parties as described before the learned single Judge.2. According to the petitioners, the property comprised in S. No. 10 9/1, No. 13, Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District, originally belonged to their father late Arunachala Gounder. After the demise of their father, they have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid property by changing the patta in their name. They are the permanent residents of Coimbatore. Whileso, they came to know during the second week of October, 1994, from the neighbouring land owners about acquisition of their land by the respondents for implementation of a Housing Scheme.3. Mr. Srinath Sridevan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, after taking us through the relevant materials and the i...
Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology (a Deemed to Be Univers ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ870
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The answer to the following questions will decide the lis between the parties in all these writ petitions:(1) What are the parameters of power of the All India Council for Technical Education over Deemed to be Universities?(2) How do the University Grants Commission and the All India Council for Technical Education achieve their objects for which they were created in a harmonious way?2. The writ petitioners, who are the Deemed to be Universities, have prayed for writs of declaration seeking to declare Sections 10(o) and 11 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, hereinafter referred to as the 'AICTE Act' insofar as they relate to the power of the AICTE to prescribe guidelines for admission and to inspect the petitioners/deemed to be universities is concerned, and the consequential rules framed in Notification bearing S.O. No. 610(E) dated 10.8.1992 as framed by the Central Government as unconstitutional, arbitrary and ultra vires the provi...
S. Goparam Vs. the Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Forc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ274
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the Order of the second respondent 'Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force', Chennai-90, dated 21.05.2 001; and the show cause notice, dated 10.11.2001, of the first respondent Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Mumbai; the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to quash both the orders on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder,According to him, he was initially appointed as Constable on 01.07.1989 in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), NLC, Neyveli. On 19.12.1999, he was on 'B' shift duty from 13.00 hours to 21.00 hours at the GWC Store Gate, Neyveli Lignite Corporation. After completion of his duty hours, he handed over the duty to his reliever who was on 'C' shift duty. Everything was in tact when he handed over duty. The store key was kept with the officials of the NLC and not with the CISF. Subsequently, on 20.12.1999, when the store was opened by the Ch...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »