Chennai Court March 2007 Judgments

Thirupathy Kumar Khemka and Raj Kumar Khemka Vs. the Commissioner of I ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Mad)287; [2007]291ITR122(Mad)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The vexed, but substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the respective appeals isWhether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 3,07,302/- on the view that it was incumbent on the appellant to prove beyond shadow of doubt the existence of a bona fide belief that the interest under Section 244A was not taxable? under the following facts and circumstances of the case.2.1. Both the appeals are related to the same assessment year with identical facts, preferred by two different assessees. The appellants/assessees are individuals assessed to tax. For the assessment year 1996-97, the assessees filed their return of income on 29.11.1996. The returns were processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'Act'), and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued for scrutiny. After hearing the representative of the assessees, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act....

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Ramasamy

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]296ITR358(Mad)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal made in IT(SS)A No. 84/Mds/2003, dated 24.2.2006 for the block assessment period 1.4.99 to 22.6.99.2.1. The brief facts of the case are stated as hereunder:The Revenue is the appellant and the relevant block assessment period involved is 1.4.99 to 22.6.99. The respondent/assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cloth. Concededly, even though there was a search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on 22.6.99 in the business and residential premises of the respondent/ assessee, even prior to the date of search, the assessee filed his regular returns for the previous years falling within the block period as detailed hereunder:------------------------------------------------------------Previous year ended/ Date of filing Income admittedAssessment year of return------------------------------------------------...

Vinitha Associates Ltd. and anr. Vs. Lakshna Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and or ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR575(Madras)

S. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Original Petition No. 756 of 2000 has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter called 'the Act', to set aside the award dated 16.09.1998 of the 2nd respondent in AM No. 29 of 1997.Application No. 2402 of 2005 has been filed by the applicant/1st respondent to dismiss the above OP No. 756 of 2000 with exemplary costs.2. The brief facts as culled out from the above petitions are as under:The petitioner is a trading member of the National Stock Exchange (NSE) and carries on business in the sale and purchase of shares and securities on its own behalf and on behalf of clients and constituents. The petitioner is also a trading member of the Madras Stock Exchange Ltd. The 1st respondent became a client of the petitioner and placed orders for sale and purchase of shares and securities on the NSE of India Ltd. through the petitioner. The 1st respondent was represented in all its activities by UR. Lakshmi Narasemhan, its Direc...

The Senior Manager the Federal Bank Ltd Chennai Vs. the Branch Manager ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH J. {Open Court} The Opposite party in COP No.565/99 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: - The complainant was having account with the opposite party from the year 1979. The opposite party had been regularly submitting statement of accounts periodically and the statement of account for February 1998 revealed that a payment of Rs.1,20,000/- was debited on 20/2/98 against cheque No.231193 on 17/2/98. It was found that the said cheque was not at all issued to anyone and the cheque leaf had been taken away by someone without the knowledge of the complainant and was encashed fraudulently forging the signature of the Director. Vide letter dated 18/3/98 the complainant requested the opposite party bank to give credit to the said amount of Rs.1,20,000/- as the cheque had not been issued by them. After verification of the records, the opposite party informed vide letter dat...

Nagammal Vs. Valliammal

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2007Mad177; 2007(3)CTC633; (2007)5MLJ1367

P. Jyothimani, J.1. The plaintiff in the Trial Court is the Appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of mortgage against the defendant on receipt of the mortgage amount of Rs. 400/- and also for possession. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit property which is a tiled house along with a vacant site comprised in Natham Poramboke Survey No. 502/1 at Selai Kandigai Village, Tiruvallur Taluk, which was originally mortgaged jointly by the plaintiff's husband Anandan and his father Doraisamy Reddy to the defendant under the mortgage deed, dated 21.01.1973 marked as Ex.A.1, by which the defendant took possession. The plaintiff's husband Anandan died in 1983 before his father and ultimately his father Doraisamy Reddy also died on 17.11.1988. Thereafter, the plaintiff claming to be the legal heir has issued notice dated 05.10.1988 to the defendant for redemption marked as Ex.A.2 for which the defendant has issued a reply notice, dated 13.10.1988 marked as Ex.A.3 and filed...

The General Manager, Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. A. Maria J ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009ACJ418

Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal is by the Shipping Corporation of India Limited, Chennai challenging the award passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Chennai. The question of law raised in the appeal is whether the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act would apply in the case of the deceased, IV Engineer Officer, covered under the MUI-INSA agreement? Apart from that, the appellant had raised a further question as to, whether the injury or death caused due to wilful act can be said to be arising out of and in the course of employment? The appellant also questioned the authority of the Commissioner to decide on the question of compensation permissible under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958?2. One Sebastian Caesar was employed as a IV Engineer in the ship M.T. Sabarimala belonging to the appellant herein. The ship was berthed at Safi Port, Morocco. It is stated that on 28.7.1995, the deceased along with yet another II Engineer by name Narayana Prakash, went for a sw...

K. Sathyamurthi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to G ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)4MLJ171

ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions the petitioners seek to challenge the prospectus issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board in Advertisement No.4/2006-07 published in Tamil Daily `Dinakaran' dated 18.9.2006 pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.197, Higher Education (F2) Dept, dated 5.7.2006. Under the above referred to G.O., as well as the notification the respondents proposed to recruit Lecturers for appointment in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education.2. In W.P.No.32958/2006 the petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings of the University Grants Commission made in F.No.1-1/2002 (PS) Exemp dated 14.6.2006 and quash the said notification dated 14.6.2006. That was a notification by which an amendment was issued by the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as `U.G.C.')to the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment of Career Advancement of T...

A.S. Krishnan Vs. N.S. Venkatarama Pillai (Deceased) and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)6MLJ309

P. Jyothimani, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the trial Court is the appellant in this first appeal. The plaintiff filed a statutory suit under Section 70(2) of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) challenging the order of the second defendant, the Commissioner of H.R. & C.E. dated 5.5.88 passed in A.P.No.27/87 and also for a permanent injunction from interfering with the management of the suit temple and its properties.2. It is seen that as per the provisions of the the Act, the second defendant has contested that the plaintiff was not the hereditary trustee in respect of the suit temple situated in the midst of the ThenPennar River in T. Ammapet, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of H.R. & C.E. Department has originally passed an order on 13.12.86 declaring the first defendant in the suit as the hereditary trustee. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the second defendant in A.P. No. 27/87 and the se...

Tax Recovery Officer and anr. Vs. S. Ramakrishnan

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Mad)222

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The appellants, TRO and the ITO-II (5), have preferred this appeal against the order dt. 18th March, 1997 passed by the learned single Judge in WP No. 3414 of 1988, whereby and whereunder the order of attachment dt. 25th Feb., 1988 was set aside and the writ petition was allowed.2. As the case can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts except the relevant one as mentioned hereunder:On the ground that the respondent/writ petitioner failed to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000 as was payable on behalf of the assessee, S.A. Kamia Pillai (late), the appellants passed an order of attachment of the house property of the respondent/writ petitioner on 25th Feb., 1988. This was challenged by the respondent/writ petitioner on one of the grounds that before such attachment, no notice was issued on him.Learned single Judge having accepted such submission allowed the writ petition, the order of attachment having passed in violation of rules of nat...

Dadha Estates Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director, Mr. Mahendar D ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2007Mad217

M. Jeyapaul, J.1. O.A. No. 1033 of 2006 is filed seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the fifth respondent LIC Housing Finance Limited from taking further action pursuant to the auction notice in respect of flat bearing N0.F6 situate at Lloyds Towers, 93, Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. This Court was pleased to grant ad interim injunction when the said Original Application was moved, in absentia of the respondents. The fifth respondent moves Application No. 179 of 2007 seeking to vacate the order of ad interim injunction granted by this Court on 28.12.2006 in O.A. No. 1033 of 2006. The fifth respondent has taken out another application No. 180 of 2007 praying to reject the plaint and dismiss the suit in C.S. No. 960 of 2006 on the file of this Court.2. To avoid confusion, the plaintiff is referred as the applicant and the fifth defendant is referred as respondent herein.3. The applicant would contend that the applicant is engaged in the business of real estate....