Chennai Court September 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salem District Printers Service Industr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: [2007]290ITR371(Mad)
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. All the appeals stand admitted on the following question of law:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-co-operative society is engaged in the 'collective disposal of the labour of its members' and eligible as per Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) 2. Heard Mr. J. Narayanaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue/appellant, and Mr. V.S. Jayakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee.3. We are concerned with the asessment years commencing from 1987-88 and ending with 1994-95. Thus assessee co-operative society. Using its resources, it procures work and gets the work done by its members-the members being partnership firms or other associations of persons, is entited deductions in respect of its income under Section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's claim was sustained only by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and that is how the Department is before us. Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) and the p...
S. Gurumurthy Vs. N. Raman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC326; (2006)4MLJ1634
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 3.2.2005, made in RCA. No. 438/2003 on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai confirming the order dated 24.4.2003 made in R.C.O.P. No. 454/2001 on the file of the XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.2. The tenant is the revision petitioner.3. The respondent/landlord filed a petition under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for evicting the tenant/revision petitioner from the demised premises. It is the case of the respondent/landlord that the property situated at Old Door No. 15A, new Door No. 32/1, 1st street, Akbarabad, Kodambakkam, Chennai. 24 belongs to him and the revision petitioner/tenant occupied the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/-, but he failed to remit the rent as agreed upon and consequently he fell into arrears of Rs. 34,000/- from September 1999 to February 2001. He d...
Aravind Laboratories Vs. M.A. Rahim, Trading as Jamuna Product
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Mad1; 2007(1)CTC392; LC2007(1)142; (2006)4MLJ1072; 2007(34)PTC542(Mad)
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of his application for rectification of the Register, by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks and the dismissal of his appeal under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 by the learned Judge of this Court.2. The facts leading to the above second appeal are as follows:(a) The respondent obtained the registration of a trade mark bearing No. 302515, in Part-A of the Register, in respect of cosmetic preparations such as Kanmai, Kumkum, Eyebrow pencil and Bindi for sale in the States of Tamilnadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and Union Territory of Pondicherry. The mark consisted of the word 'IRIS' in Tamil character and the respondent sought registration claiming user from 15-5-1964 and the Registrar registered the mark on 29-1-1975.(b) On 13-6-1980, the appellant filed an application for rectification, on the ground that they are the registered Proprietors of a Trade Mark known as 'Eyete...
Y. Venkatrayulu Vs. the General Manager, Reserve Bank of India and the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2006
Reported in: [2007]135CompCas72(Mad)
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petition is filed for a direction against the second respondent to pay US$33,125 with interest of 24% at quarterly rest from the date of each bill by equivalent of Indian currency Rs. 43 per dollar making a total value of 35 Lakhs with costs.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is having a current account at the second respondent Bank, which is an authorised dealer to deal with foreign exchange having head office at Hyderabad. The petitioner who is doing export business, has submitted four shipping documents for export of Onions to Malaysia in four bills. 1. 15,000 U.S.dollars 2. 7,500 U.S.dollars 3. 3,625 U.S.dollars 4. 7,000 U.S.dollarsmaking a total 33,125 U.S.dollars. The bills of exchange were drawn on document against the payment terms and pursuant to that, the goods were shipped through the authorized bank with instruction to collect the payment from the buyer in foreign countries and deliver goods to the buyers. The shipping co...
S.V. Mahalingam Vs. the Collector, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1335
ORDERK. Suguna, J.1. Initially the petitioner has filed O.A. No. 2277 of 1993 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to set aside the order in Na.Ka. No. A1/85257/91 dated 15.4.93, passed by the Collector, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District at Sivagangai and to give all attendant benefits and the same has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 13819 of 2006.2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, by charge memo dated 02.04.92 certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner. For the said allegation, an enquiry was conducted and by an order dated 15.04.93 punishment order of reduction to lower post permanently was imposed. Challenging the same, the above writ petition/original application has been filed.3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner by the impugned order the punishment imposed is reduction to lower post permanently. As per Ruling (2) of Fundamental Rule 29 such punishment cannot be impo...
R. Arjunan Vs. Arunachala Gounder,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC133; (2006)4MLJ912
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed against the order passed under Order 3 Rule 3 read with 151 C.P.C.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Revision petition are as follows:(i) The respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit is for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule properties in S. No. 139/9 including the 3 feet channel. The suit has been decreed on 13.03.2003. The defendant and her three sons disobeyed the decree and have caused interference. Consequently, the plaintiffs could not cultivate their lands. On 15.12.2003, the defendant stopped the flow of water through the channel to the plaintiffs' lands. The defendant did not agree to the decision of the Panchayat also. Since the defendant has deliberately disobeyed the decree for injunction and caused interference, the plaintiffs' filed a petition in E.P. No. 14 of 2004 under Section 55 read with Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. for arrest and for detention in civil prison.(i...
V. Rathinam Vs. the Commissioner of Employment and Training and the Jo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1813
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:The writ petition is filed praying for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent relating to Charge Memo in O.N.1/38940/2003 dated 23.8.2006 (which was served on 11.9.2006) and consequently, direct the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Junior Employment Officer without reference to the above Charge Memo. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the order of the first respondent dated 23.8.2006 by which he was charge sheeted under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Under the charge sheet given to the petitioner, in Annexure I three charges have been levelled against him. The first charge is that when the petitioner was working as an Assistant in the District Employment Office, Villupuram during 1997-2000, he fraudulently collected amounts fr...
Wipro Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR540]
M.E.N. Patrudu, J.1. Wipro Ltd., is the petitioner.The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent; has issued a direction to the petitioner to pay the provident fund on cash value of food concession payable by the petitioner to their employees.2. The petitioner is challenging the same.3. In short the facts are that there was a settlement between the employer and the employees of the petitioner's concern under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and in pursuance of the same and as per clause G of the settlement the existing scheme of canteen subsidy will remain unchanged till the end of one year from the date of signing of the settlement. Thus there is settlement in this regard. Clause G sub-clause (6) of the settlement says canteen subsidy will not attract provident fund. So as per the settlement, canteen subsidy will not attract the provident fund.4. Further there was a scheme introduced by the petitioner known as Performance Linked Compensation Scheme an...
Pandurangam Vs. Annammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1758
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant before the Courts below concurrently is the appellant.2. The respondent as plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her alleged 1/2 share in the suit properties on the following grounds : viz., that the suit properties originally belonged to one Thanappa Gounder as his self acquired properties, that he died intestate leaving a son by name Venkatachalam and a daughter by name Annammal as his heirs, that since the properties were owned by Thanappa Gounder as his self acquired properties, Annammal was entitled to 1/2 share, which she had sold to the plaintiff on 30.1.1984, that the defendant is enjoying the properties, having purchased the same, as if all the properties belonged to Venkatachalam, though Venkatachalam was entitled to only 1/2 share and that since the claim for partition was negatived, which should be considered by the Court, granting the relief as prayed for.3. The defendant in the original written ...
R. Desikan Vs. State of Tamilnadu, Represented by Secretary to Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1280
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. One R. Desikan, who is said to be the Chairman of Federation of Consumer Organisations of Tamil Nadu, filed this Public Interest Litigation, seeking to quash the proceedings of the Government of Tamil Nadu in GO.Ms. No. 209, Rural Development (PR) Department, dated 13.12.1995, and the proceedings of the Director of Rural Development, dated 15.12.1995 and 28.12.1995; and direct respondents 4 to 11 to refund the sum of Rs. 7158.79 lakhs to the Government of Tamilnadu, which has been diverted from the Panchayats and Panchayat Union funds.2. Heard Mr. V. Selvaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Mrs. D. Geetha, learned Additional Government Pleader for the State; and Mr. S.A. Rajan, learned Counsel for the 5th respondent.3. In view of the points raised in this Writ Petition, it is unnecessary to traverse into the factual details as stated in the affidavit.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government is not justified in diverting the fund...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »