Chennai Court January 2007 Judgments

T. Gnanamani Ammal Vs. the Avaniappuram Town Panchayat Represented by ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2007(4)CTC67; (2007)5MLJ243

A. Selvam, J.1. The plaintiff calls in question the legality judgment and decree dated 22.12.1995 passed in Appeal Suit No. 137 of 1992 by the II-Additional District Court, Madurai wherein the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No. 289 of 1998 by the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai are confirmed.2. The appellant herein as plaintiff has instituted the Original Suit No. 289 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai, for the reliefs of declaration and injunction wherein the present respondent has been shown as sole defendant. The trial Court after contemplating both the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the suit without costs. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court have been challenged in Appeal Suit No. 137 of 1992. The first appellate Court after reappraising the evidence adduced on either side has dismissed the appeal whereunder the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are confirmed.3. The material averments made in the ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ttk Pharma Limited

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]300ITR346(Mad)

Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal is by the revenue, challenging the order of the Tribunal, rejecting the plea on question of rectification, on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court delivered subsequently in Karnataka Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2002) 258 ITR 770.2. This appeal relates to the assessment year 1989-90. The total income of the assessee was assessed under Section 115J of the Income Tax Act, finding that the correct loss was to be assessed at Rs. 16,02,388/- as against the relief granted at Rs. 41,71,492/-, the Assessing Authority issued notice under Section 154 of the Act, to pass an order thereby rectifying the error pertaining to the loss carried forward. The order passed was set aside originally in appeal, directing a remand to give a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to state its objection. Thereafter, the Officer passed an order once again to hold that the assessee was not entitled to carry forward the amou...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nonmag Wires Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Mad)413

Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal is by the Revenue, challenging the order of the Tribunal, on the question of rectification made to restrict the unabsorbed business loss to the extent of business income only.2. The case of the revenue is that the assessment of the assessee was originally completed under Section 143(1)(a), by disallowing set off of the unabsorbed loss and depreciation.3. The assessment was taken up for rectification on the view that the assessee could set off of carry forward loss only to the extent of business income and that only the carried forward depreciation loss could be adjusted against the short terms capital gains. On notice, the assessee contended that the losses relating the earlier years were determined and allowed to be carried forward for setting off against the taxable income and, as such, the assessment was rightly done. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and rectified the assessment. The assessee preferred an appeal befo...

He Tamil Nadu State Housing Board, Rep. by Its Chairman Nandanam Vs. T ...

Court: Chennai

P. SATHASIVAM,J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.08.2004 made in W.P.No.9488 of 2004, the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board through its Chairman has filed the above appeal.2. The brief facts:The respondents 1 to 19 herein have filed W.P.No.9488 of 2004, to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent therein, Tamil Nadu State Housing Board to issue No Objection Certificate in their favour in respect of entire extent of 81 cents in Survey No.188/4 of Thiruvanmiyur Village. The said writ petition was allowed on 16.08.2004. In order to appreciate the impugned order, it is useful to refer the further details furnished in the affidavit filed by the Chief Revenue Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board. According to him, at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, an extent of 275 acres of lands bearing V.No.140 of Thiruvanmiyur Village and V.No.141 of Kottivakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, formerly Chengalpattu District, presently Kancheepuram District we...

S. Karthikeyan Vs. Teachers' Recruitment Board, E.V.K. Sampath Maligai ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2007(3)CTC814

ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. The writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Junior Graduate Assistant (Maths subject) and for such other consequential reliefs.The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:2. The petitioner comes from a socially oppressed family with a rural background. He belongs to the backward community. After obtaining a B.Sc. degree in the year 1983, he had also obtained a B.Ed., degree in the year 1989. Later, by sheer hard work, he had also acquired the educational qualifications of M. Sc., M.Ed. He had duly registered himself in the concerned Employment Exchange. Thereafter, he has been working as a Teacher in a private School. Inspite of having registered himself in the employment exchange, the petitioner did not get an opportunity of employment. In the year 2000, the Teachers' Recruitment Board was constituted. A scheme was devised to give weightage to the se...

The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. G. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008ACJ1773

S. Manikumar, J.1. Aggrieved by an order dated 09.05.2001 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 5 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge), Nagapattinam, the Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts leading to the appeal are as follows: On 11.08.1998 at 7.00 p.m., when the first respondent/claimant along with his relative by name Josi was travelling in an Auto-Rickshaw bearing Registration No. TN.49-04-E-0226, owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, the bus owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Auto-rickshaw. The first respondent/claimant sustained injury in the spinal cord and fracture in both legs in the accident. A case in Cr.NO.561 of 1998 was registered against the driver of the bus in Manali Police Station.3. The appellant-Transport Corporation admitted the accident, but contended that the accident d...

Mohan Agencies Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-ii (Enforcement),

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)22VST448(Mad)

ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the files of the second respondent herein in appeal No. CST 8/97 dated 9.4.97 confirmed by the third respondent herein in proceedings in M.T.A. No. 426/97 dated 9.12.98 and quash the same in so far as the directions given to the first respondent herein to make fresh revision of assessment for the year 1980-81 (CST) after re-check of petitioner's accounts and further directions to the petitioner produce accounts as and when called for by the first respondent herein since the limitation prescribed for revision of assessment under Section 16 of the TNGST Act, 1959 had already expired for the assessment 1980-81 (CST).2. The writ petition is filed against the order of the Appellate Sales Tax Tribunal, who confirmed the order of remand passed by the second respondent - Appellate Assistant Commissioner(CT), Madurai (South) in one of the appeals in Appeal No. 462/97 m...

G. Charles Balasundaram Vs. the Deputy General Manager, Pondicherry Ag ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)IILLJ266Mad

ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. The writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the Award, dated 13.1.2003, in I.D. No. 6 of 2001, on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and consequently to direct the first respondent to re-employ the petitioner with all consequential benefits.The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Store Keeper in the year, 1989. He was paid a sum of Rs. 39/- per day being a casual employee. While so, after March 1993, the first respondent had declined to engage the petitioner in service. Therefore, the petitioner had approached the concerned Labour Officer. While the matter was pending, the Managing Director of the first respondent Corporation had informed the petitioner that his case was considered by the Board, for absorption, and that he should withdraw the petition pending before the Labour Officer....

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sambandam

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009ACJ203

S. Manikumar, J.1. Aggrieved by the award dated 2.11.1999 made in M.C.O.P. No. 111 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge), Mayiladuthurai, the transport Corporation has preferred this appeal.2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:On 15.3.1997 at 11.30 p.m., when the respondent-claimant was walking on the road, the bus owned by the appellant transport Corporation, came in a rash and negligent manner, hit the respondent-claimant and he fell down. He sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was rushed to the Government Hospital at Mayiladuthurai and intensive treatment was given. Thereafter, he was referred to Thanjavur Medical College & Hospital, where he was treated as inpatient for two days. He had taken native treatment at Puttur. Since the treatment did not give the expected result, he was again treated as inpatient in Bone & Joint Clinic, Anna Nagar, Chennai for 16 days. A complaint was lodged in Sembanar K...

Coromandel Leather Employees Union, Rep. by Its Secretary and S. Krish ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2007]137CompCas950(Mad); (2007)4MLJ483; [2007]78SCL425(Mad)

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. These writ petitions are filed by the Trade Union and an employee seeking for a direction to the first respondent bank to set apart Rs. 3 Crores towards the dues of the employees represented by the petitioner Union from out of the sale proceeds of the assets of the second respondent Company. A tender notice dated 12.12.2005 was issued by the first respondent bank in terms of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and the same was published in the Daily Thanthi News Paper on 13.12.2005 wherein the property of the second respondent was sought to be brought in auction. In that notice, it was clearly stated by the Authorised Officer the dues recoverable from the second respondent, which are as follows:Sales Tax Department - Rs. 555.88 lakhsEPF Department - Rs. 6.29 lakhsESI Department - Rs. 16.35 lakhsDues to SIPCCOT - Rs. 1.28 lakhsWorkers' Due - Rs. 90 lakhsAll these figures were promptly stated. However, it is the apprehension of the workmen that the moneys which were r...