Chennai Court March 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.
Karur District Dyeing and Bleaching Factory Owners' Association repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2007
Reported in: 2009[13]STR317
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner association has filed this writ petition seeking a Writ of Declaration declaring that the job contracts of bleaching and dyeing entered into by its Members cannot be subjected to imposition of Cess under the provisions of Section 5A of the Textiles Committee Act, 1963.2. The case of the petitioner association, in short, is as follows:a. The Members of the petitioner association are owners of Dyeing and Bleaching factories located in Karur District and are engaged in the business of job work of processing yarn received from various customers for the purpose of bleaching and dyeing the same and returning the same to the customers in lieu of which they are paid labour charges on job work basis based on the number of bundles for which job work is done.b. The members of the petitioner association are not involved in the process of manufacture of any product as defined under the Textiles Committee Act (in short 'the Act') and they have not been hithert...
B. Sivaraman and ors. Vs. S. Ramalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad221
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The legal representatives of the defendants are the appellants in the second appeal. The respondents filed a suit against the defendants in O.S.No. 2251 of 1985, against the father and mother of the appellants, who were the sole defendants for an injunction from using a pathway shown as A, B, C, D in the plaint plan, claiming exclusive right. Likewise, he has filed another suit in O.S.No. 9158 of 1986 from preventing the plaintiff from using the A, B, C, D pathway to reach the land E, F, G, H. There was a common trial of both the suits and ultimately the Trial Court has dismissed both the suits, as against which the plaintiff filed the first appeal in A.S.No. 362 of 1991 and 363 of 1991 respectively and both the appeals were taken together and allowing both the appeals, the First Appellate Court has granted an order of injunction, as prayed for in both the suits by the plaintiffs. It is as against the said judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court, the defend...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Msk Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR18(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Tribunal even dated 28.2.2006 made in ITA Nos. 822 and 823/Mds/2004 for the assessment years 1997-98 and 2000-2001 respectively, raising the following common substantial questions of law:i. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee suffered a loss in the relevant assessment year? and ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amendment to explanation 4(a) to Section 271(1)(c) is to be treated as having retrospective effect?2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessee filed a loss return and claimed deduction of interest paid to IREDA under the head Wind Mill Division. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (for brevity, 'the Act'). The assessment was reopened by issue of notice under Section 148 on the ground that the interest on bo...
M. Aswath Vs. Jeeja Baby and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC803; (2007)3MLJ902
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 22.12.2003 made in I.A. No. 488/2002 in O.S. No. 184/1996 on the file of the District Munsif Hosur.2. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner.3. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 184/1996 on the file of the District Munsif, Hosur against defendants 1 to 5 for the following reliefs:a) declaring the plaintiff's right and title to the suit property.b) grant mandatory injunction to demolish the two unfinished upstairs with wall and steps (10 pillars) noted in the Commissioner's plan, to remove the temporary shed as noted in the Commissioner's plan as 'D' and to remove temporary thatched wall as noted in the Commissioner's plan as 'G', to remove the iron rods from the suit place as noted in the Commissioner's plan as 'J' and to remove the store jelly heap put up in the suit property which has been shown in the Commissioner's plan as 'L' and close the pit which has been shown in the Commissioner plan as 'N'. (...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vijay Shanthi Finance Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR302(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 10.3.2006 made in ITA No. 1826/Mds/1999 for the assessment year 1995-96, raising the following common substantial questions of law:i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that an amount of Rs. 1,40,727/- being the difference between the cost price and market price of the share is to be deleted?ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not considering the fact that the assessee as per the books had valued the shares at cost price but had made the adjustments only in the income tax adjustment/ computation statement, which is not proper?iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in not considering the fact that very same claim was admitted for the assessment year 1996-97 by the assessee before the Settlement Commission and as such the same claim ca...
Compania Naviera 'SODNOC' Vs. Bharat Refineries Ltd. and Mr. Christoph ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad251; 2008(1)ARBLR344(Madras); (2007)3MLJ1062
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Original petition has been filed under Sections 47 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter called 'the Act', praying that the award dated 2.3.2000 be deemed to be a decree of this Court and to pronounce judgment according to the award dated 2.3.2000, made and published by the 2nd respondent (the arbitrator) and direct the 1st respondent to pay to the petitioners a sum of USD 63,923.98 as more particularly set out in paragraph 6 of this petition and that the respondents be ordered and decreed to pay the petitioners the costs of this petition.2. Briefly stated, the facts are as under:3. By a Charter Party, dated 24.8.1998, one Mutual Task Maritime Ltd., chartered m.v. SEA MANA to the 1st respondent herein to carry a cargo of minimum 8000 m.t., bagged salt from Kandla, India to Tanga, Tanzania on terms and conditions as set out in the Charter Party. The above said Mutual Task Maritime Company claimed demurrage or damages for detentio...
Sri Panduranga Brick Works Rep. by Its Power Agent Mr. E.V. Perumalsam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC157; (2007)4MLJ863
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. Original Application No. 839/2006 has been filed by the plaintiff for an order of interim injunction restraining the 1stdefendant, their servant, agent or any one acting under them or in any manner acting on the basis of the document styled as agreement for sale dated 12.6.2006 purportedly entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and the letter dated 13.6.2006, extracted from the plaintiff under coercion, pending disposal of the above suit.2. Application No. 4354/2006 has been filed by the plaintiff to direct the 1st defendant to furnish security to the extent of the said claim and costs on or before a particular date to be fixed by this Hon'ble court and failing which to pass order in the nature of attachment before judgment of the property described in the schedule hereunder and communicate the same through the Sub Court, Poonamallee.3. The plaintiff is the applicant in both the above applications.4. The plaintiff filed the suit for the follow...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jagath Enterprises (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2007
Reported in: [2008]301ITR60(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. Tax Case No. 14 of 2004 relates to the asst. yr. 1995-96. Tax Case Nos. 1094 to 1096 of 2004 relate to the asst. yrs. 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. All these appeals are at the instance of the Revenue. The facts are common in all the cases. The question of law raised is also the same, which is as follows:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing interest neither contracted to be paid to the trust, nor claimed in the return, as a deduction from income from house property 2. For convenience, the facts in Tax Case No. 848 of 2005 are referred to here.3. The assessee is a private company. The promoters of the company are the trustees of Shri Lakshmi Ammal Educational Trust. The trust owns shares in the company. It is seen that the said trust advanced a sum of Rs. 72,46,000 to the assessee company. With this money the company purchased two properties and let them out. The company filed its return for the first time fo...
Mrs. S. Bagavathy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Law ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC207
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.I. CORNERSTONE1. The Constitution is the documentation of the founding faiths of a Nation and the fundamental directions of the fulfillment. An organic, but not pedantic approach in interpreting the constitutional validity of any enactment should be the guiding principle in the judicial process. Finding of solution for the gruesome evils in economic and social life of the citizens, through the healing art of promoting Rule of Law, blending the whole statute harmoniously, without being tempted by the game of hair-splitting, to achieve the common object of the legislation should be the basic rule of construction while testing the constitutional validity of a legislation, particularly when it deals with economic and social reliefs, because the distance between societal realities and constitutional challenge often creates a dilemma while considering the legislative competency relating to a socio-economic legislation. The Court, therefore, should be more cautious as w...
Ramgopal Estates Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Managing Director K.S. Hemanth Kum ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC369
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.I. PREFATORY CAVEAT1. The meat of the matter is the tussle between eco-environmental maintenance and vigorous industrialization. To answer as to the need of the day for the right to life, viz., whether we should maintain eco-friendly environment or opt for prosperous economic growth, neither the eco-environment alone nor the industrial and economic growth by itself will meet the human needs in the global competition. Then, what is desirable is a sustainable development, by being resilient, but not rigid; organic, but not static; liberal, but not strict; wider, but not narrow, as to both eco-friendly environment and prosperous industrial development, that are to be worked out harmoniously, to meet the challenges in global economic competition and in order to meet the ends of socio-economic justice. And the core of the dispute raised is, whether the acquisition of lands impugned in these writ petitions for Petrochemical Park, a major industrial project, satisfies t...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »