Chennai Court February 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.
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs Vs. Marimuthu S/ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(212)ELT29(Mad)
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Challenge in this Revision Petition is the order of dismissal of Application in I.A. No. 187 of 1999 in unnumbered Appeal, declining to condone the delay of 131 days in filing the Appeal. 2. Facts in nutshell are as follows: The First Respondent / Plaintiff has filed a Suit in O.S. No. 193 of 1996 on the file of Subordinate Court, Nagappattinam, making certain claim against the Petitioner / Third Defendant and other Defendants. The Petitioner / Third Defendant resisted the Suit claim by filing the Written Statement interalia contending that the Suit is not maintainable and the amount is not payable. After contest, the suit was decreed on 27.02.1998. Appeal was preferred with a delay of 131 days. By the Impugned Order, the Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 131 days in filing the Appeal was dismissed. 3. Heard the submissions of the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the Petitioner and the learn...
R. Chandramouleeswaran and ors. Vs. P. Vasudevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ874
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This judgment shall govern these two appeals, namely S.A. Nos. 904 and 929 of 1996.2. These second appeals have arisen from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam made in a common judgment made in A.S. Nos. 18 and 31 of 1993, C.M.A. No. 20 of 1993 and I.A. No. 420 of 1995 made in that CMA.3. The appellants in these two appeals have filed a suit for ejectment against the respondents herein in O.S. No. 484 of 1989. Pending suit, the first defendant filed I.A. No. 1153 of 1990 under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. On trial, the suit was decreed and the said IA was dismissed. Aggrieved over the judgment, both the defendants filed two different appeals, which were A.S. Nos. 18 of 1993 by the first defendant and A.S. No. 31 of 1993 by the second defendant. While the first defendant has also challenged the dismissal of I.A. in C.M.A. No. 20 of 1993. The learned Subordinate Judge, on enquiry of the appeals, allowed both the appeals ...
Shri V. Mylswamy Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR326(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. The sum and substance of the questions of law raised in all these appeals is, whether the Tribunal was correct in confirming the orders of assessment for the years under consideration, in estimating the professional income of the appellant Apart from the said question common in all the appeals, the assessee had also questioned the validity of the reopening under Sec 147 in TC. Nos. 180 & 181 of 2003, 1119/04 and 28/05, 76 & 77/04, 683/04 and 1141 and 1142/20041. The assessment years involved are:TC NO Assessment yearTC 180&181/03 1983-84TC 1119/04 and TC 28/05 1984-85TC 76&77/04 1985-86TC 683/04 1986-87TC 207&208/03 1987-88TC 1141&1142 1988-892. These appeals are at the instance of the assessee. The assessee is an advocate by profession . The original assessment was completed on 20.03.1986 under Section 143(3). Based on the materials seized in the search conducted in the premises of the assessee on 28-7-87, the assessments for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1...
K.S. Narasimhan Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2007
Reported in: (2008)11VST283(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner filed original petition praying to call for the records of the respondent relating to notice Rc. No. 1411/02/A3 and set aside the notice therein dated 22.09.2003.2. The case of the petitioner is that the company M/s. Triton Fine Mills Pvt. Ltd., was a dealer under the provisions of Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The petitioner was earlier the director of the company and ceased to be such since 1999 and notice in Form 32 was filed with the Registrar of Companies informing about the petitioner ceasing to be the Director of the company. Further, the company itself has ceased to carry on the business after 1997-98, but still the company is on the roll of the Registrar of Companies and has not been wound up. For the alleged arrears of sales tax, surcharge and additional sales tax and penalty due from the said company for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98 a notice dated 22.09.2003 was issued calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nicco Uco Alliance Credit Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2007
Reported in: [2007]293ITR127(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 1702/Mds/1991 dated 21.03.2001, raising the following substantial questions of law.1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that, while computing the book profit under Section 115J, the net profit shown in the profit and loss account is not to be increased by all the items in the Clause (a) to (ha) of the explanation to 115J (1A).2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation to be carried forward should be enhanced by an amount equal to the income assessed to tax under Section 115J?2.1. The revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1988-89. The assessee is a leasing company. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 1988-89 on 29.07.1988 declaring an income of Rs. 19,40,250/-. Even though th...
Subramania Udayar Sons Partnership Firm, Vs. Sathyanarayanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ771
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Challenging the Order of Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Judge, Salem in R.C.A. Nos. 67 and 69/1986, fixing the fair rent at Rs.2,340/-, Tenant has filed these revisions.2. Factual background which led to these revisions are as follows:2.1. The demised premises is a non residential building bearing New D. No. 6, 6-A, I Ward, Arisi Palayam, Leigh Bazar, Salem. The premises originally belonged to late Madura Das, Yamuna Das Sait and it was leased out to the father of the Revision Petitioners, who was doing business in the name and style of Subramaniam Udayar and Sons. The contractual rate of rent is Rs.300 p.m. The Respondents/landlords purchased the premises by registered Sale Deeds Exs.A-1 and A-2 dated 16.06.1980. Stating that the present market value of the entire building would be more than Rs.3,00,000/-, landlords filed Petition under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960, [for short, 'the Act'] for fixation of f...
Ramakrishna Mutt Vs. M. Maheswaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad180
S.K. Krishnan, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19-6-2003 passed in A.S. No. 184 of 2001 by the Vth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 29-9-2000 passed in O.S. No. 2221 of 1997 by the 16th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the plaintiff has come forward with this second appeal.2. The facts leading to the filing of this second appeal are as follows:a. The suit and other properties were originally owned by one Kannabiran Pillai, who is the father of the first defendant and grandfather of the second and third defendants.b. Some of the properties purchased by the said Kannabiran Pillai were endowed to the Plaintiff-Sri Ramakrishna Mutt absolutely by way of settlement deeds to perform Puja and Seva in the Mutt reserving life interest for him and his second wife Smt. Kumudammal. The Settlor Kannabiran Pillai died on 31-12-1956 and after his death, his second wife Smt. Kumudammal was in possession and enjoyment of the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tractors and Farms Equipments Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2007
Reported in: [2007]294ITR163(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law, which is common in both tax cases:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest paid under deferred payment scheme under which certain assets acquired is capital in nature and investment allowance is allowable on the same?2.1. The assessment years with which we are concerned are 1982-83 and 1985-86. The assessee is a company. The assessee claimed investment allowance on the interest paid under the deferred payment scheme through which certain assets were acquired, which was negatived by the assessing officer.2.2. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed investment allowance holding that the interest accrued under the deferred payment scheme is capital expenditure. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).2.3...
Srinivasa I.T.i., Rep. by Its Principal/Correspondent S. Anbalagan Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ601
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. By consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.2. Prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the rights of the students of the petitioner institute admitted in the trades of Electrician and Mechanical Motor Vehicle for the academic years 2002-2004 for the examination commencing on 23.7.2004.3. Petitioner ITI was established in the year 1995-96 with due recognition and affiliation for Electrician Trade and Mechanical Motor Vehicle Trade. In August, 2003, the respondents, placing reliance on the inspection report, disaffiliated the petitioner institute and stated that no admission of students for the recognised trade courses of Electrician and Mechanical Motor Vehicle Trade should be made from the academic year 2003 onwards till the compliance of the deficiencies as noted in their inspection report.4. The peti...
S. Narayanasamy Gounder and S. Samiyappan Vs. 1.Adi Parasakthi Charita ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)1LLJ1048Mad
M. Chockalingam, J.1. The appellants, whose request for a declaration that a settlement deed marked as Ex.A3 before the trial Court is invalid and for consequential prayers on being rejected by both the Courts below have brought forth this second appeal.2. The short facts which lead the plaintiffs to file the said suit are that the suit property belonged to the plaintiffs by a partition deed dated 18.9.1952 and they have been in enjoyment of the same. By a lease deed dated 22.6.1994 which is marked as Ex.A1, a lease was executed for a period of 30 years for conducting various works of Varavalipattu Magalir Manram and the suit property was leased out to the first defendant temple for Re.1 per annum and accordingly it was carried on. It was represented in the year 2003 by defendants 2 and 3 that A.K.Venkatasamy who was representing the first defendant all along under the lease deed was not associated as he was in the past and they have insisted for transfer of the lease in favour of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »