Chennai Court August 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.
Esviel Exports Vs. Chairman, Chennai Port Trust and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CTLJ33(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the relief of issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to refund the earnest money deposit submitted in Tender No. C2/1471/06T dated 14.04.2006.2. The facts of the case proceed as follows:The petitioner is one of the tenderers for allotment of plots in the Jawahar Dock East ranging from 4230 sq. mtrs. to 7033.5 sq. mtrs. for a period of ten months and fifteen days for storage and export of iron ore lumps. As per the tender notification of the respondent-Port Trust dated 14.04.2006, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs as earnest money deposit. Further, as per the tender conditions, the tenders had to be opened on 28.04.2006 at 15.00 hours in the new Conference Hall, Ground Floor of the Centenary Building, Chennai Port Trust in the presence of the tenderers. While that being so, on that day, the respondent was not able to proceed further in respect of the tenders, as the respon...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.J. Ramaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC289; (2006)205CTR(Mad)352; [2006]286ITR77(Mad); (2006)4MLJ762
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. These two tax cases are before us on a reference order dated 25.02.2002 made by a Division Bench consisting of two learned Judges of this Court. The question referred to the Division Bench for answer is as hereunder:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the share income of the minors who are beneficiaries of a trust which was a partner in a registered firm cannot be clubbed in the hands of the assessee under Section 64(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act? Before the Division Bench, learned Counsel for the Revenue relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case reported in : [2002]256ITR191(Mad) (Commissioner of Income Tax v. K.J. Ramaswamy) to contend that in computing the total income of the individual/assessee in this case, such income of the minor should be included. The above referred to judgment is in relation to an assessee by name K.J. Ramaswamy, who is the assessee in T.C. No. ...
N. Jeisi Deisi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1206
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 235 of 1998 on 23.02.2000 and the prayer in the said W.P. is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No 5/A4/97 dated 12.11.19 97 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to approve the petitioner's appointment as a Secondary Grade teacher in the fifth respondent school. 2. The case of the appellant is that after passing Higher Secondary Course Certificate, she had joined Teacher Training Course at Children's Garten School, Mylapore, a recognised Teachers Training Institute and wrote the examination conducted by the Director of Government Examinations in 1989 and the said authority issued 'Teachers Training Certificate Secondary Grade' which also mentioned that she had appeared for the Kindergarten examination. 3. After serving in a school on a temporary basis, both in leave vacancy and also in secondary grade...
J.P. Vijayakumar and Mrs. H. Vijayakumar Vs. S. Ranjan and Sports Stat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ404
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 13.1.2003, passed in R.C.A. No. 366/2002 on the file of the VII Court of Small Causes, Madras, setting aside the order of eviction dated 28.3.2002 passed in R.C.O.P. No. 926/2000, on the file of the XIII Court of Small Causes, Madras.2. The brief facts leading to the Revision Petition are as follows:The Revision Petitioners filed RCOP No. 926/2000 on the file of 13th Court of Small Causes, Chennai against the respondents herein for eviction under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a), 10(2)(ii)(b), 10(2)(iii) and 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). By order dated 28.3.2002, the Rent Controller allowed the RCOP on all the grounds and ordered eviction against which the 1st respondent herein filed Appeal in RCA No. 366/2002 and the Rent Control Appellate Authority by order dated 13.1.2003 reversed the order of the Rent Controller and a...
Priya Lotteries Represented by Its Partner Mr. S.V. Shankar Vs. the De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ572; (2007)5VST425(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the assessment order dated 31.12.2003 in this writ petition on the ground that the order so made is ex facie illegal as the same has been passed violating the principles of natural justice and also without adhering to the procedures contemplated under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. 2. The facts of the case are : The impugned proceedings was passed based on an inspection conducted by the Enforcement Wing Officials at No. 103, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Chennai - 14, about which the petitioner was not aware of. In the above address, the petitioner had its administrative office till 31.3.1998 and it closed its business activities from 1.4.1998. The petitioner never registered itself under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, as it had the sale office only at Bangalore and was a registered dealer there at Bangalore. For the notice issued to the petitioner with the proposal to levy huge tax and ...
Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. Ah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: 2006ACJ2703; 2006(4)CTC433; (2006)4MLJ362
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. When C.M.A. No. 231 of 1994 came up for hearing, Justice K.P.Sivasubramaniam noticed that apparently conflicting views expressed by two Division Benches on the question canvassed by the appellant - Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited namely, whether compensation could be awarded separately on account of permanent disability and also on account of loss of earning capacity. There being conflict of opinions by two Division Benches of this Court, the learned single Judge deemed it fit to refer the matter to the Full Bench. 2. The facts giving rise to the present CMA are that on 27.05.1991 the 1st respondent was travelling on a TVS-50 motor cycle from Ayyampettai to Thanjavur. The 1st respondent was the pillion rider and one M.R.Abu Bakker was driving the motor cycle. When they were nearing Pasubathi Temple the appellant - transport corporation's bus bearing Registration No. TN-49-N-0099 coming from opposite direction hit the motor cycle. Abu Bakker died on the spo...
V. Kanniammal Vs. Anjalakshiammal (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1348
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. The third defendant in O.S. No. 74 of 1986 and the defendants 3 to 8 in O.S. No. 73 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Chengalpattu, are the appellants.2. The parties are referred to, as per their ranking in O.S. Nos. 73 and 74 of 1986.3. The first respondent in both the appeals has filed O.S. No. 73 of 1986 for declaration, that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, in part performance of the contract, to purchase the property, as per the agreement dated 25.7.1981 and therefore, her possession should be protected and in this view, she sought for permanent injunction also. 4. The defendants 1 and 2, by names Jayalakshmi and Jagannathan, are the admitted owners of the suit property. The plaintiff claims, in both the suits, that the power of attorney agent of defendants 1 and 2 viz. Ramabadran had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff on 25.7.1981, fixing the sale consideration at Rs. 60 per cent and pursuant to the agreement...
Karuppannan Vs. Thavasiappan and President Gobichettipalayam Co-operat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ706
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 28.1.2005 made in O.S. No. 122/2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam. 2. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner.3. The suit O.S. No. 102/1999 has been filed by the plaintiff/revision petitioner for partition and separate possession and for injunction, on the file of the Sub-Judge, Gobichettipalayam against the respondents/defendants. The first respondent filed ritten statement and contested the suit. Subsequently the suit was transferred to the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam and re-numbered as O.S. No. 122/2004. Pending disposal of the suit, the plaintiff/revision petitioner filed an Application in I .A. No. 1460/2004 under Order 7 Rule 14(3) for receiving the additional document, namely, the release deed dated 14.8.1994. The 1st respondent filed a counter and raised objections that the release deed was insufficiently stamped, unregistered and also forged and co...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Geetha Ramakrishna Mills P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Mad)365; [2007]288ITR489(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran,J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.5.2002 made in I.T.A. No. 1907/Mds/1992 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'D' Bench, raising the following substantial questions of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be levied in cases where the assessment was on the basis of book profits under Section 115J of the Act?2.1. The relevant assessment year is 1989-90. The respondent/assessee is a closely held company carrying on business in textiles. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 1989-90 admitting Nil total income. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order dated 27.3.1992 under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act (for brevity 'the Act'), computing the book profit under Section 115J of the Act as Rs. 17,90,717/- and arrived at the income of Rs. 5,39,670/-, taking a stand that th...
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner Secretary to G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ671
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. The above appeals have been filed by the official respondents 1 to 4 in W.P. Nos. 9668 and 12742 of 1992 challenging the common order dated 20.09.1999 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. 2. W.P. No. 9668 of 1992 was filed by the first respondent herein for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the appellants herein to release the salary grant of the former and to pay the same to her. 3. W.P. No. 12742 of 1992 was for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second appellant herein in Na.Ka. No. 60633/B19/91 dated 28.01.1992 and the consequential order of the fifth responde dated 10.08.1992 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. 4. According to the first respondent herein who was the petitioner before the learned single Judge, she is a trained Elementary School teacher. After passing her +2 examinations, she joined Balar Kalvi Nilayam, Madras, a Government recognised raining Institute and stu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »