Chennai Court March 2007 Judgments
K. Venkataraman and S. Hemamalini Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ804
P.K. Misra, J.1. The Writ Petition in W.P. No. 11704 of 1998 has been filed for issuance or mandamus directing the investigation in Crime No. 328 of 1998 in the file of Sub-Inspector of Police, the 5th respondent herein, to be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the 6th respondent herein and further direction to the State Government, the first respondent herein to pay a compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs to the petitioners.W.P. No. 13470 of 1998 has been filed for writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to entrust the entire commission and omission of crimes relating to murder of Palanivelu and other connected matters to the Central Bureau of Investigation and to maintain public peace without being disturbed by political parties and communal groups in public interest at Chidambaram and in Cuddalore districts.2. So far as the first prayer in W.P. No. 11704 of 1998 and the prayer in W.P. No. 13470 of 1998 are concerned, during the pendency of the Writ Petitions, investig...
Tag this Judgment!P. Samraj Vs. the Commissioner of Police and R. Riazuddin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC437; (2007)3MLJ290
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. Petitioner seeks to quash the order of the first respondent dated 9.11.2006 transferring the petitioner from T-9 Pattabiram Police Station to R-6 Kumaran Nagar (Crime) Police Station, within the Chennai City Police limits.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner was originally appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1989 and subsequently promoted as Inspector of Police and he was having total service of about 19 years. By the impugned order, petitioner was transferred from T-9 Pattabiram Police Station to R-6 Kumaran Nagar (Crime) Police Station, Chennai, within three months. The said order is challenged on the ground that only to accommodate the second respondent, who was promoted as Inspector of Police from the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police, the order of transfer is made. It is also stated in the affidavit that...
Tag this Judgment!Kothandaraman, Vs. K. Rajammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC699; (2007)6MLJ374
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. This order shall govern all the above seven revision petitions.2. The unsuccessful tenants, three in number, who have suffered an order of eviction in the three RCOPs filed by the respondent-landlady in RCOP Nos. 439, 440 and 441 of 2003, and whose appeals in RCA Nos. 788, 789 and 790 of 2004 have failed, have brought forth three revisions in CRP Nos. 36, 37 and 38 of 2006 respectively. 3. Equally, on dismissal of the three RCOPs filed by the tenants for deposit of rental arrears under Section 8(5) of the Act in RCOP Nos. 1037, 1038 and 1039 of 2003, they preferred three appeals in RCA Nos. 798, 799 and 800 of 2004, and on dismissal of the same, they have brought forth the other three revisions in CRP Nos. 39, 40 and 41 of 2006 respectively. 4. The landlady filed another petition in RCOP No. 1370 of 2002 against the tenant who is actually shown as the respondent in RCOP No. 440/2003, seeking eviction on the grounds of personal use and occupation and additiona...
Tag this Judgment!Villiupuram Market Committee, Rep. by Its Special Officer, Vs. K. Seka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ666
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The Writ Appeal and the Cross-Objection have been filed by the petitioner and respondents in the Writ Petition challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.06.2006 passed in W.P. No. 18567 of 2006. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the Appellants in W.A. No. 1016 of 2006. While, the writ petitioner is the petitioner in Cross-Objection No. 11 of 2007. The very same writ petitioner has preferred W.P. No. 22507 of 2006 as against the order of the appellants dated 12.07.2006, cancelling the extension of lease granted in favour of the writ petitioner in respect of the weigh-bridge in the Villupuram Market Committee in the extension order dated 3.4.2006.2. In the Villapuram Market area, a weigh-bridge was stated to have been purchased in the year 2001 and the maintenance contract was granted in favour of the writ petitioner by letter dated 12.06.2002. Initially, the contract was for a period of eleven months. The said contract was extended fo...
Tag this Judgment!G. Ramanikumar, President, State Legal Cell, Bharathiya Janatha Party ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ366
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Sometimes, politics makes strange bedfellows. In this batch of five writ petitions, except in one case, four were filed by persons / organisations having same political outlook and are birds of same feathers.2. The first writ petition (W.P.No. 39044 of 2002) is filed by the President of the State legal Cell of the Bharathiya Janatha Party, Tamil Nadu, for a declaration that the closure of all educational institutions run by the Christian minorities in the State on 24.10.2002 as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently, to direct the official respondents, viz., respondents 1 to 3, to do all that is necessary to give effect to the declaration, if any, made by this Court.3. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner had not produced any authenticated copy of the resolution allegedly made by the respondents 4 to 7 in declaring one day closure of all Christian Minority Educational Institutions in Tamil Nadu. All that he had done was after seeing the newspaper...
Tag this Judgment!Bellamma Vs. Nagarathnamma, Chinnamma and Munigowaramma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC261
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. By an order dated 23.11.2006, this Revision was already disposed of, by allowing the same on merit, even though there was no appearance on behalf of the respondents.2. The respondents had filed a petition for permission to reopen the case and there was delay in filing the petition and this Court already condoned the delay.3. Today, learned Counsel for the respondents, who filed the petition for the purpose of setting aside the order dated 23.11.2006, was allowed to argue the revision on merit.4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the respondents.5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, when it remains a fact that the plaintiff had already filed an application in I.A.No.442 of 2005 in O.S.No.19 of 2003 before the lower Court for the same relief i.e., for reopening and reexamining P.W.1 for marking certain documents, which are stated to be filed along with the plaint, and the same was dismissed on 25.10.2006, I do no...
Tag this Judgment!G. Amsaveni, Vs. P. Kanakaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ1037
Acts/Rules/Orders: Limitation Act - Section 5; Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Order 9, Rule 13Cases Referred: N. Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy 1998(II)CTC 533 : 1990-1-LW 739; Shriram Chits and Investments (P) Ltd., v. M.Krishnan and Ors. 1999(I)CTC 238; C.Subramaniam v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board rep. By its Chairman 2000 (III) CTC 727; State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao and Ors. 2005(3)SCC 752; The Secretary, Madras Race Club, Chennai v. Saraswathy Kailasam 2007(II) CTC 58; Rathinathammal v. Muthusamy and Ors. 2004 (3) MLJ 36; Ramlal and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. 2003(3)MLJ 709; Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575; State of West Bengal v. The Administrator Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749; O.P. Kathapalia v. Lakhmir Singh 1984 (4) SCC 66; Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji 1987 (2) SCC 107; M.K.Prasad v. Arumugam 2001(6)SCC 176Disposition: Petition allowedOREDRR. Banumathi, J.1. Challenge in this Revision is to the Order of dismissal of the application filed und...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Metal Power Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: [2008]300ITR48(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against 1 the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated January 27, 2006, in I.T.A. Nos. 737-739/Mds/2001 and 251, 282/Mds/2002, 2070-2072/Mds/ 2001 and C.O. No. 30/Mds/2002 in I.T.A. No. 282/Mds/2002, raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that excise duty and sales tax collection does not form part of the turnover, for the purpose of calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC?2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that conversion charges does not form part of the turnover, for the purpose of calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC?3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing a deduction of the amounts spent on replacement of machinery as revenue expenditure?4. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, re...
Tag this Judgment!M. Loganathan Vs. Government of India Represented by Commissioner of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: [2008]302ITR139(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. W.P. No. 29573 of 2002 is against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Coimbatore, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated April 10, 2002. W.P. No. 41014 of 2002 is filed by the very same petitioner against the order of the Settlement Commission, the first respondent therein, wherein the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated September 19, 2000.2. It is seen that the petitioner, an assessee on the file of the second respondent, filed a petition for settlement of his case under Section 245C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Settlement Commission, the first respondent in W.P. No. 41014 of 2002, on September 19,1999. It is stated by the petitioner herein that he had preferred appeals in respect of the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1996-97. By letter dated March 23, 2000, the chartered accountant representing the petitioner herein, filed a petition before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for...
Tag this Judgment!Cairn Energy (India) Limited Vs. the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2007
Reported in: [2008]297ITR59(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. These two Tax Cases are filed by the assessee, seeking admission. The appeals relate to the assessment years 1996-97 and 1998-99.2. The following are the substantial questions of law raised seeking admission in respect of T.C. No. 251 of 2007:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 88,05,226/- relating to the exploration expenses in respect of the following:(a) Cambay offshore exploration permit : Rs. 69,94,968/-(b) Krishna Godavari Offshore exploration permit : Rs. 12,29,632/-(c) India General Evaluation : Rs. 5,80,626/-----------------Rs. 88,05,226/-----------------(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the disallowance of pre-effective cost of Rs. 2,72,93,866/-?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, even assuming without conceding that the expenditure is not allowable as a de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »