Chennai Court November 2007 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.
S. Anthony Vs. the Registrar, the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST654(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. The writ petitions are filed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal rejecting the original petitions filed by the petitioner on the ground that the delay in filing the appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could not be condoned as the appeals were sought to be filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 31(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner is an unregistered dealer. As per the assessment order, the petitioner had supplied stone ballast to Southern Railway, Madurai in terms of the contract agreement and received payments for such supplies made during the years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. Being an unregistered dealer and inasmuch as the assessee has not filed any return and paid tax, it was proposed by the assessing officer to assess the assessee finally to the best of judgment for the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. Accordingly a pre-...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pioneer Asia Packing (P) Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Mad)202; [2009]310ITR198(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeal is filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench dated 7.3.2007 made in I.T.A. No. 896/Mds/2003 for the assessment year 2000-01.2. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the statement of facts stated in the memorandum of appeal are as follows:The assessee company is engaged in the business of packing and printing. For assessment year 2000-01, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.11.2000 declaring nil income. A notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act was issued on 13.9.2002. The return filed on 30.11.2000 was considered as the return filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. In the said return the assessee claimed set off of capital gains amounting to Rs. 10.57 lakhs against the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. The assessee's explanation that prior to 1996 unabsorbed depreciation could be set off against any other head of income and could be carried forward individually. ...
Mani and Muthu Vs. K.S. Santhana Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ567
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. The tenants in RCOP. No. 9 of 1995, who have lost their defence before the Courts below are the revision petitioners herein. RCOP. No. 9 of 1995 was filed before the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Arrakkonam, under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1969.2. According to the landlord, he is in possession of D. No. 59, Thasildar Street, Arakkonam. The first respondent has taken lease of the said Door No. 59 for a monthly rent of Rs. 120/- for the purpose of running a tailoring shop in the name and style of New York tailors and has agreed to pay the monthly rent on or before 12th day of every English calendar month. Without informing the landlord, the first respondent had sub-let the premises bearing Door No. 59 for a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- to the second respondent. The landlord is running a mess by name Kumari Vilas Naidu Mess in a rental premises, for a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/-, ...
Samsudeen Vs. the Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1872
ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. Petitioner, who is branded as a Goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition, against the order of detention, dated 16.02.2007, clamped against him by the second respondent in No. 6/BDFGISSV/2006.2. Petitioner came to adverse notice of the police in as many as seven cases. The detaining authority, namely, second respondent, on the strength of the report of the sponsoring authority, namely, Inspector of Police, B-1 Vilakkuthoon Police Station, Madurai, passed the detention order. The ground case mentioned therein goes to the effect that on 10.01.2007 at about 9.00 a.m., when one Shanker and Sethuramalingam were chatting in front of Kumaran Hospital near Arasamaram Pillaiyar Kovil, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai, the detenu came and issued threats to them, demanding money, for which Shanker refused and then the detenu picked up a knife, hidden in his left waist, and pointed it towards Shanker's chest and, on threatening, he robbed a sum...
Govindaraj Vs. Tmt. H. Suraj Bai and Devdass Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ552
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment in RCA. No. 1228 of 2005 on the file of the VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, which had arisen out of the order in RCOP. No. 1144 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Controller (X Judge, Small Cause Court) Chennai. The tenant, who had lost his case before the Courts below, is the revision petitioner herein.2. RCOP. No. 1144 of 2004 was filed before the Rent Controller (X Judge, Small Causes Court, Chenna) under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, (herein after 'the Act' for short).3. The brief facts stated in the petition filed by the petitioner/landlord is that the respondent became tenant under the petitioner/landlord for non-residential purpose in a land measuring 387 sq.ft and 412 sq.ft for a monthly rent of Rs. 1,750/- and Rs. 2,000/- respectively. The petitioner's husband is doing pawn broker shop at Door No. 18, 4, 3, & 21 in Dr. Sathasiva...
Pichammal Wife of Chinnaiyan and Unnamalai Wife of Chinnasami Vs. Anna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CTC47; (2008)1MLJ935
ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. Heard the counsel for petitioners.2. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the Trial Court in O.S. No. 440/1998 on the file of III Additional District Munsif at Kallakurichi. The suit was dismissed for default on 31.10.2002 for non-appearance of both the plaintiffs. In I.A. No. 390/2003 an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 28 days in filing Order 9 Rule 9 application a conditional order was passed on 21.2.2003 as to the payment of costs and the same was ordered to be paid on or before 27.2.2003 and the matter when called on 28.2.2003 the application was closed for non-payment of costs.3. It is represented that the cost was not paid and I.A. No. 883/2003 was filed by the petitioners herein praying for adjournment of one week time for payment of costs. The said I.A. No. 883/2003 was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the Court has no power to extend the time when the Court has become functus ...
Subramanian @ Ravi Subramanian Vs. the State, Represented by the Addit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC873
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. The above petition has been filed in the following circumstances:The petitioner is an accused in S.C. No. 94 of 2005; he has been tendered pardon and he has been taken as an approver and hence he is still under custody; according to the petitioner the trial is pending for more than 2 years and he is languishing in prison and with a view to move a petition for bail, the petitioner filed a copy application in S.R. No. 8574 of 2007 dated 17.08.2007 before the Court below seeking certified copies of F.I.R., remand report, confession statement and order tendering pardon etc. but the said application has been returned with an endorsement that the provisions of Cr.P.C. or Rules under Cr.P.C. or any other authority has to be mentioned. Being aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition for a direction to permit the counsel for the petitioner to peruse the case bundles and also furnish the certified copies of the documents in S.C. No. ...
Angammal and Vs. C. Sellamuthu and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ560
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The plaintiffs in the suit are the revision petitioners. The revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the learned trial Judge in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs in I.A. No. 1005 of 2006 under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 98 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode for declaration that the decree passed in O.S. No. 311 of 1998 on the file of Sub Court, Erode is void and not binding the share of Chennimalai Gounder in the suit properties and for injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner either alienating or encumbering the suit properties and for preliminary decree for partition dividing the suit properties into six equal shares and to allot one such share to each of the plaintiffs.3. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties are agricultural properties and A-schedule properties are ...
Gopal, Vs. Ema Gounder,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ828
K. Venkataraman, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 200 of 1986 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai, are the appellants in the second appeal. The defendants in the said suit are the respondents herein. The parties are arrayed in the same position as they have been arrayed before the trial Court.2. The case of the plaintiffs in nutshell is as follows:- Suit 'A' schedule property originally belonged to one Ramasamy Naidu, s/o.Govinda Naidu. Ramasamy Naidu sold the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 03.05.1943 to the first plaintiff's father viz. Ellappa Gounder. Suit 'B' schedule property absolutely belongs to the defendants. The said property has been purchased by the defendants' grand father viz. Pachayappa Gounder under a registered sale deed dated 06.04.1925. Thus, the 'A' schedule property was purchased by the first plaintiff's father Ellappa Gounder and 'B' schedule property was purchased by the defendants' grandfather Pachayappa Gounder. Even thou...
P. Arumugham Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu by Its Secretary, Commercial ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CTC279; (2008)1MLJ264
K.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 9.10.2003 in W.P. No. 28025 of 2003 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant to declare the auction held on 1.10.2003 in respect of the property of the third respondent in T.S. Nos. 2750/1, 2750/2 and 2751 at Cuddalore as null and void.2. The writ petition is preferred against the order dated 11.6.2003 on the file of District Registrar, Cuddalore in Appeal No. 1 of 2002 confirming the order of the Sub Registrar II, Cuddalore dated 6.9.2002 whereby the sale deed in respect of the property in T.S.Nos. 2750/1, 2750/2 and 2751, which was kept pending for registration was returned to the petitioner.3. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the writ appeal and the writ petition are as follows:The immovable property having an extent of 4.84 acres in T.S.Nos.2750/1, 2750/2 and 2751 in Cuddalore Taluk in the District of Cuddalore was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »