Chennai Court July 2007 Judgments
Bhagwan Chand and Co. Rep. by Its Proprietor, Mr. B. Chandanmull Vs. U ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC151
ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Judgment of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai) in R.C.A. No. 1080 of 2003 dated 21.12.2005.2. For the sake of convenience, the respondents herein will be hereinafter called as 'landlords' and the petitioner as 'tenant'3. The short fact which is necessary for the disposal of the present case is as follows:The landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 2064 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Controller (X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai), for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Lease (Rent Control) Act. The said eviction petition has been dismissed by the above referred rent controller on 18.08.2003. Challenging the said Order, the landlord has filed an appeal in R.C.A.No. 1080 of 2003 before the appellate authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai). The said appea...
Tag this Judgment!K. Munusamy Vs. the State Election Commissioner, Tamilnadu State Elect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CTC762
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The Petitioner and the 4th Respondent had contested for the election of President of Naaduvapalli Village Panchayat held on 13.10.2007 and the counting was held on 18.10.2006 in the Veppanapalli High Secondary School. It is the case of the Petitioner that after the completion of counting of votes and recording the total number of votes secured by each candidate in Form No. 22, the 3rd Respondent had announced that the Petitioner had secured 1056 votes and the 4th Respondent had secured 1055 votes and that thereafter, the 4th Respondent had demanded for recounting, which was accepted and recounting was done, in which also it was declared that the Petitioner had secured 1056 votes and the 4th Respondent had secured 1055 votes; that once again one more recounting for the second time was sought for by the 4th Respondent, which was also acceded by the 3rd Respondent; that even in the second recounting, it was confirmed that the Petitioner had secured 1056 votes and...
Tag this Judgment!A. Chinnasamy Vs. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ31
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ appeal is filed against the order dated 7.3.2003 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 21349 of 1994.2. The point for consideration in this writ appeal is, whether the renewal application made by the appellant herein under Section 58(2) of the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act') with a delay of 27 days can be directed to be considered under Section 81 of the new Act i.e., Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act') at this point of time?.3. The facts giving raise to the filing of the present writ appeal are as follows:One N.S. Rajasekaran was the holder of stage carriage permit for the route M.G. Gate to Kavalkarapatty via Tennur, Puthur, Samarasampatti, Thayanur and R.T. Malai, issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Tiruchirapalli. The permit of the vehicle expired by 5.5.1984 when the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was in force.Under the provisions of Section 58 of th...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Tractor's and Farms Equipment's Ltd., K. Patti Plant ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ406
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. In all these 90 Writ Petitions, heard the arguments of Mr. S. Sanjay Mohan, learned Counsel appearing for M/s. Ramasubramaniam and Associates and Mr. D. Hariparanthaman, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondents and Mr. K. Srinivasan appearing for the third respondent and have perused the records.2. In all these 90 Writ Petitions, the short question that arises for consideration is whether the prayer of the writ petitioner/Management seeking for a restraint order against the Labour Court from proceeding with industrial disputes raised by the respective second respondents under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short I.D. Act) can be granted by this Court? 3. Since the issue raised in all these Writ Petitions are common, the petitioner is hereinafter referred to as the Management and the second respondents are collectively referred to as the Workmen and the third respondent as the contractor.4. The workmen were employed by the manage...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayakumar Vs. Amirthavalli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4475
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. Mr. M.C. Swamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of setting aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Chidambaram in C.M.P. No. 462 of 2007 in C.C. No. 655 of 2006 allowing the petition filed under Section 302 Cr.P.C seeking permission to the complainant's husband to conduct the prosecution on behalf of the complainant.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate has passed the order without considering the infirmities involved in this matter in respect of power of attorney given in favour of the husband of the complainant. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that any appointment of power of attorney should be processed by an appropriate order of the Court. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this case the power of attorney was executed prior to the filing o...
Tag this Judgment!Maya Venkatesan Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Br ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4744
ORDERR. Regupathi, J.1. The Criminal Revision Petitions have been preferred as against the order of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, dated 02.07.2007, cancelling the statutory bail granted to the petitioner; and the Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking for the grant of Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 2 of 2007, pending investigation/enquiry for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 406, 420 and 307 read with 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, on the file of the respondent police.2. Firstly, as regards the Criminal Original Petition, seeking for grant of anticipatory bail, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, with his associates, projecting himself as the Managing Director of M/s. Nellai Cements, called for tenders from civil contractors through paper publications and received quotations. He concluded contracts with several contractors receiving huge money as E.M.D. with the promise that work orders would be issued to them. The...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Y.K. Shoji Stone Indo (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2007
Reported in: [2008]304ITR390(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Revenue has filed this appeal by formulating the following Substantial Questions of Law.i. Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the rectification of assessment by deducting the amount eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC from the profits, and not from 30% of the book profit was not erroneous as not being on a debatable issue?ii) Whether the adjustment to any deduction claimed by the assessee in total contravention to the provisions of statute would not amount to rectification of a mistake apparent on record for the purpose of Section 154?2. The facts of the case culled out from the statement of facts filed by the Revenue goes as follows.The assessee is a Private Limited Company whose return for the assessment year 1999-2000 was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Thereafter, the Assessing Officer found a mistake apparent on the record that inasmuch as deduction under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement Vs. M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC538; (2007)4MLJ1201; AIR2007NOC2489(Mad)(FB)
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. Whether the Director of Survey and Settlement is vested wih suo motu power of revision under Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Act 26 of 1948) (for brevity sake, hereinafter will be referred to as 'the Act') is the issue referred to this Larger Bench. It is not necessary to traverse upon the factual features. Suffice it to say that the Director of Survey and Settlement in exercise of suo motu power under Section 5(2) of the Act cancelled the grant of patta issued in favour of the respondent by the Assistant Settlement Officer. In the writ petition preferred against the order of the Director of Survey and Settlement, the learned Single Judge referred to a decision of the Division Bench in the case of The Director of Survey and Settlement v. R. Ramadoss 1992 (2) L.W.265, wherein the Division Bench (consisting of Nainar Sundaram and Thanikkachalam, JJ.) has held that there is no suo motu power of revision under Act...
Tag this Judgment!Prince Marketing Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2007
Reported in: (2009)22VST276(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated March 28, 2007 and for a direction to entertain the appeal.2. The petitioner who is a dealer in PVC pipes, tubes and fittings declared a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 6,91,48,764 and 6,66,06,326, respectively, in the monthly returns submitted in form A-l for the assessment year 2004-05. The first respondent passed an order of assessment on June 12, 2006 levied tax and penalty under Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 without giving any prior notice. While doing so, the first respondent failed to take into account payment of Rs. 5,26,859 and therefore, the petitioner submitted a letter dated July 4, 2006 requesting the first respondent to pass after deducting the said amount. The request of the first respondent was accepted, and a revised order of assessment was passed on August 21, 2006.3. On receipt of the revised order, the petitioner pref...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. State Industrial Promotion Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Mad)334; [2009]311ITR197(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. Tax Case Appeal Nos. 112 to 114 of 2004 are filed by raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee Company was entitled to exemption under Section 10(20A) of the Income Tax Act 1961 even though the assessee Company has not been formed under specific law for the purpose of development as per the requirements of Section 10(20A)?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee Company was eligible under Section 10(20A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even though the assessee has not substantially complied with the requirements of Section 10(20A)?3. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in directing granting of relief for the assessment yea4rs 1989-90 and 1990-91 when the scope of proceedings under Section 147 is limited to assessme...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »