Chennai Court August 2006 Judgments
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Corporation (Agencies) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2006
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Mad)233; [2007]290ITR217(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeals are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, in I.T.A. Nos. 2656/Mds/95, 2657/Mds/95, 1553/Mds/94, 1919/Mds/94, 2676/Mds/96, 43/Mds/96, 44/Mds/96, 45/Mds/96, 46/Mds/96, 47/Mds/96, 1612/Mds/94, 1922/Mds/94 and 2600/Mds/96 for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1989-90, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1986-87 to 1989-90, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'B' Bench raising the following common substantial questions of law.ITA Nos. 2656 and 2657/Mds/95 for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1992-93:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the 60% of the expenses incurred on partly convertible debenture had to be allowed as deduction?ITA Nos. 1553 and 1919/Mds/94, 2676 and 43 to 47/Mds/96 for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1988-89, 1992-93, 1993-94:2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the mamool ...
Tag this Judgment!Manoharan Vs. D. Kannan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1105
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. The claimant in M.A.C.T.O.P. Nos. 30/1992 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Addl. Sub-Judge). Chengalpattu, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition by the order dated 10.9.1998, has filed the above appeal.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:On 11.1.1991, the appellant/claimant was driving the vehicle bearing Registration No. T.M.C.1116 belonging to the first respondent. The lorry bearing Registration No. A.E.E.5679 belonging to the third respondent was driven rashly and negligently by its driver and dashed against the vehicle driven by the appellant and thereby the appellant sustained injuries. The lorry belonging to the first respondent and driven by the appellant had been insured with the second respondent and the third respondent lorry has been insured with the fourth respondent. 3. According to the petitioner, he sustained multiple grievous injuries. In respect of the injuries sustained, he claimed ...
Tag this Judgment!U. Angamuthu Vs. the Commissioner, Trichengode Municipality,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ517
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J. 1. With the consent of either counsel, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal.2. All the petitioners herein are occupying different extents of land, by raising pucca buildings in S.Nos.12/1 and 12/2, Ward-B, Block-12 in Kombainagar to Sengondanpalayam Road, Kailasampalayam Village, Trichengode Municipality. 3. One A.A. Loganathan, the impleaded fourth respondent in some of the writ petitions, who is a resident of Weavers Colony, Tiruchengode, had filed W.P.No. 32224 of 2005 before this Court, as against the District Collector, Namakkal and the Commissioner of Tiruchengode Municipality, praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents therein, to take emergent steps to remove the entire encroachments on the Kombainagar to Sengodampalayam Road in T.S.Nos.12/1, 12/2 and 12/3 of Tiruchengode Municipal limits, by considering his representation dated 23.9.2005 in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipali...
Tag this Judgment!P. Muthusamy Vs. Tamilnadu Cements Corporation Limited Rep. by Its Cha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ504
P. Sathasivam, J.1. In W.P. No.18952 of 2003, the petitioner challenges the charge memo, dated 16.09.2002, issued by the 1st respondent/Tamilnadu Cements Corporation Limited (TANCEM), and Order dated 30.06.2003, and seeks to quash the same insofar it states that he is being retired without prejudice to the pending disciplinary proceedings against him; and on the ground that withholding the terminal benefits is illegal, arbitrary, without any authority and jurisdiction, and contrary to the service regulation of the first respondent/Corporation.In W.P. No.18953 of 2003, he challenges another charge Memo dated 15.05.2001, here again, to the extent reserving the right of the authority to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings.2. In view of the common order to be passed here-under, we are of the view that it is unnecessary to refer all the factual details, however, it is relevant to note that the petitioner joined the services of the first respondent as Assistant Manager during the year ...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Navamani Vs. C.K. Sivasubramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad347; (2006)4MLJ79
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 06.06.2005 in I.A. No. 633 of 2004 in 0.S. No. 193 of 2O04 the file of the learned District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam, in discharging the Guardian.2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. The petitioner, who is the son of the first defendant/respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from selling and against defendants 3 and 4 from purchasing 'A' scheduled property and further reliefs in respect of 'B' scheduled property. The plaintiff and the second defendant in the suit are the sons of the first defendant and they form a Joint Hindu Family. The family owns considerable landed properties and was doing money lending business. The said business was done in the name of a firm C.P. Kandasamy Mudaliar and Sons and for income tax purpose, a partition deed was made on 02.03.1964, during the life time of his grand-father. The said deed is sham and a nominal ...
Tag this Judgment!Usha @ Ramalakshmi and Minor Meenakshisundari Vs. P. Shanmugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC835; (2006)4MLJ45
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent and her minor daughter have filed Tr.C.M.P. No. 138 of 2006 praying for withdrawal and transfer of the proceedings in M.C. No. 3 of 2005 pending on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore to the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tuticorin as per the amendment ordered by this Court in C.M.P. No. 8322 of 2006 on 07.07.2006. In Tr.C.M.P. No. 139 of 2006, the petitioner prays for withdrawal and transfer of H.M.O.P. No. 588 of 2004 from the file of Family Court, Coimbatore to the file of Sub Court, Tuticorin.2. The facts of the case leading to the Transfer Petitions are as follows:(i) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 01.05.2000 at Tirunelveli as per Hindu rites and customs and a daughter, by name, Meenakshisundari was born to them on 20.05.2002. Their marital life was happy only for one year. The parents of the petitioner presented her 25 sovereigns of gold jewels and house hold a...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Chief Personnel Officer, Vs. t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ412
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Officers of the Railway Administration are the applicants in this Review Application.2. The Railway Administration, aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dated 19.07.2005, made in O.A. No. 882 of 2004, filed W.P. No. 36108 of 2005 before this Court, which was dismissed at the admission stage, confirming the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The second respondent herein, viz., M. Sathiamurthy, joined Railways on 05.01.1979 as Apprentice Mechanic (Junior Engineer Grade-II) against unreserved vacancy through Railway Recruitment Board. At the time of his appointment, he had mentioned his community status as 'Hindu' (not specifically mentioned his caste). Treating him as an unreserved candidate, the Administration promoted him as Junior Engineer Grade-I with effect from 1.8.1982 on ad hoc basis and regularised as such from 1.1.1984. In the meantime, he had produced a Community Certificate issued by the Deputy Tahsil...
Tag this Judgment!Food World Supermarkets Ltd. Rep. by Latha Nambisan, Latha Nambisan, H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC48
S. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Revision petitioners/A-3 to A-5 who are charged with offence under Section 7(i) which is punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, against the order dated 12.1.2004 made in Crl.M.P. No. 3340/2003 in C.C. No. 154 of 2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Pondicherry dismissing the application for discharge....2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:(a) The complainant, a Senior Food Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, Pondicherry on 14.11.2002 at 10.45 a.m., went to M/s.Food World Super Market Ltd., at No. 108, Kamaraj Salai, Pondicherry-11 for inspection. After disclosing his identity to the fifth accused, he inspected the premises. During the time of inspection, he purchased 6 bottles of (150 ml.each) Naodis packaged drinking water and 9 bottles of (1000 ml each) Kindly packaged drinking water for analysis. The purpose of taking samples was intimated...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Customs Vs. L.T. Karle and Co. and the Customs, Ex ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(112)ECC488; 2006LC488(Madras); 2007(207)ELT358(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.I - Subject in issue1. The drawback on imported materials, in the custom laws, is an allowance made by the Government upon the duties due on imported merchandise, when the importer, instead of selling it in the imported land, re-exports it. In other words, it means the refunding of such duties already paid on the imported merchandise.2. Chapter X of the Customs Act deals with the drawback allowable on re-export of duty paid goods, the drawback on imported materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported, the interest on drawback and the prohibition and regulation of drawback in certain cases.II - Order in appeal and substantial questions of law3. Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent-the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the CESTAT'), allowing the claim of duty drawback in respect of 4 shipping bills filed by M/s. L.T.Karle & Co., the first respondent herein, who admittedly imported the materials use...
Tag this Judgment!N. Chinnasamy Vs. P.S. Swaminathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC850
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 1.11.2004, passed in I.A. No. 1531/2004 in O.S. No. 275/2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruppur.2. The defendant in the suit is the Revision Petitioner.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.4. Plaintiff filed O.S. No. 233/1998 for specific performance of the sale agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on 15.2.1994. The defendant filed written statement on 10.6.1999 wherein in para 3 it was specifically stated that the alleged sale agreement dated 15.2.94 is a forged document and fabricated by the plaintiff to grab the defendant's property and also for unlawful gain and the defendant stoutly denied his signature in the sale agreement dated 15.2.94.5. Thereafter defendant filed I.A. No. 1531/2004 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to direct the handwriting and finger print expert described in the pet...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »