Chennai Court July 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.
K. Saravanan Vs. the Principal, Government Law College
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)4MLJ632
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner, is a student of the Government Law College, Madurai and has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 14.6.2007 by which he was permanently dismissed from the College.2. The said order has been passed by the Principal of the Law College. It is stated by the petitioner in his affidavit that he is faced with a criminal case arising out of an incident between the two fellow students and a case has come to be registered in Crime No. 1407 of 2006. The petitioner has been alleged to have committed a murder and charged with offences under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 302 IPC. He was arrested from the College on 7.11.2006. 3. Thereafter, an Enquiry Committee consisting of three senior selection grade lecturers were asked to go into the issue. The said committee conducted an enquiry and submitted its report dated 6.6.2007. It was stated in the report that the petitioner was solely responsible for the incident and his continuance in the Colle...
Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Its Secretary, Ministry of Telecommunica ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC186; (2007)4MLJ824
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J. 1. Challenge is made to an order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, namely the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, made in RCA No. 209 of 2001 affirming an order of eviction in RCOP No. 2068/99 on the file of the Rent Controller, filed by the revision petitioners.2. The respondent-landlady sought the eviction of the tenant from the petition mentioned premises at Door No. 60 (Part), Montieth Road, Egmore, alleging that the first revision petitioner has been a tenant from 1964; that out of the larger extent, a part has also been sold; that the premises was being used by the third petitioner for its office use; that the monthly rental payable was Rs. 18,127/-; that though acquisition proceedings were initiated, possession was not taken over; that under the circumstances, the matter has not become final; that the tenant was making payment of rental till March 1999; that there was default in payment of rental from 1.4.1999; that a notice was issued on 3...
Pusparaj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary, Department of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4426
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This is a Petition for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, questioning the legality of the continued imprisonment of the Petitioner.2. The Petitioner, is a life convict, who was convicted Under Section. 120-B, 365, 386 r/w. 34 & 302 r/w. 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to death ( Under Section 302 r/w. 34 I.P.C.), R.I. for 10 years ( Under Section 386 r/w. 34 I.P.C.) and R.I. for 7 years ( Under Section 365 I.P.C.) by the Sessions Court, Chennai, in S.C. No. 227/94 on 27.11.1996. In C.A. No. 58/97, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the Petitioner. The sentence of death awarded to the Petitioner was subsequently commuted to imprisonment for life by the Supreme Court of India in C.A. Nos. 1234 to 1237/97.3. The Petitioner has completed 13 1/2 years of actual sentence as on 01.03.2007. According to the Petitioner as he has served more than 10 years, he is eligible for release as per G.O.(Ms). No. 873 Home (Prison IV) Department, dated 14....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.M. Pachayappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: [2008]304ITR264(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai in I.T.A. No. 228/Mds/2002 dated 28.10.2005, raising the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not considering the Explanation 2 to Section 147 which provides that the assessing officer can reopen the assessments even if the assessments have not been completed under Section 143 and only intimation had been sent, if the conditions laid under Section 147 are fulfilled?2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in not considering that the addition of incentive bonus to the total income is proper or not in view of the decision of the Madras High Court reported in the case of CIT v. E.A.Rajendran reported in : [1999]235ITR514(Mad) in which it has been held that no deduction except wh...
Bank of India, Rep. by Its Branch Manager, Lakkampatti Branch Vs. N. N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC360; (2007)5MLJ1206
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 10.11.2006 made in I.A. No: 784 of 2006 in O.S. No. 227 of 2006 by the learned District Munsif, Sathyamangalam in extending the interim stay when the suit and the I.A., are not maintainable in law in view of the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. 2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property till the completion of the agreement period of three years starting from 10.3.2006 and ends with 10.3.2009. According to the plaintiff he entered into an agreement on 10.3.2006 with the second respondent herein and took possession of the suit property and invested huge amount for working capital and doing modern rice mill business. It is his case that he also verified the encumbrance and found that there was no encumbrance entries regarding the sui...
India Comnet International Vs. the Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: [2008]304ITR322(Mad); [2009]185TAXMAN51(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessee, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'A', Chennai in I.T.A. No. 2512/Mds/2005 dated 29.12.2006, raising the following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the interest income derived by the appellant is not eligible for relief under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act? 2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is a Private Limited Company established under the Madras Export Processing Zone and is engaged in the business of development and export of software. It is a 100% Export Oriented Unit. The relevant assessment year is 2002-2003 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.2002. The assessee filed Return of income on 31.10.2002 admitting 'nil' income after claiming exemption under Section 10A of the ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Khader Khan Son
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Mad)589; [2008]300ITR157(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The Revenue has preferred the above tax case appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 479/Mds/2005 dated 13.10.2006, raising the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income Tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that the statement made during a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act has no evidentiary value?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in not considering the fact that the Branch Contractors Agents Account Book in which entries were made subsequent to the survey and not found during the survey nor produced the survey, could be relied upon?(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in not considering the fact that the voluntary statement made without any coercion or duress given during the course of survey action under Section ...
Board of Trustees of Chennai Port Trust rep. by Its Chairman Vs. Ircon ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR130(Madras); (2007)4MLJ593
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The petitioner has come forward with this Writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in the matter of Arbitration between M/s. Ircon International _ Sree Bhavani Builders and Chennai Port Trust and quash the order passed on the said proceedings dated 16.04.2006 and consequently refer the dispute to the High Power Cabinet Committee as per the Supreme Court Judgment stated supra and the Office Memo dated 31.12.1991 issued by the Government of India.2. The petitioner is a public sector undertaking governed by Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and is controlled by Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Government of India. The first respondent is a joint venture, in which M/s. Ircon International is a public sector undertaking owned by the Government of India and Sree Bhavani Builders, a Partnership firm. The petitioner invited tenders for the construction of extension of container terminal berth at Bharathi Dock duri...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Viswas Footwear Company Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: [2008]304ITR127(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The vexed substantial question of law, as raised by the Revenue, arises for consideration is,Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that deduction under Section 80HHC shall be granted before setoff of the unabsorbed depreciation, unabsorbed business loss and unabsorbed investment allowance of the earlier years before grant of depreciation under the following facts and circumstances of the case.2.1. The relevant assessment year is 1996-97. The assessee is an exporter of leather footwear. Originally, a 'Nil' return of income was filed by the assessee and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on a total income of Rs.3,18,715/-, which was reduced to 'nil' after giving setoff of the carried forward loss for the assessment year 1993-94. Later, finding that the assessee has claimed excess deduction resulting in escapement of income, assessment was r...
Shivakumar Vs. Palanisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC242
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Gobichettipalayam in Crl. M.P. No. 1124 of 2006 in C.C. No. 222 of 2007 dated 10.3.2006 dismissing the petition filed under Section 311, Cr.P.C. to recall PW1 for the purpose of cross-examination.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial for the alleged offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner's Counsel was not well, the petitioner was not able to cross-examine PW1. As a result, the learned Magistrate closed the petition on the ground that there was no representation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the cross-examination of PW1 is just and essential in rebutting the presumption contemplated under Section 139, Negotiable of Instruments Act....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »