Chennai Court August 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.
H. Manimekalai Vs. S. Suganya, Chief Education Officer, Government Hig ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC800; (2007)6MLJ690
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. The contempt petition has been filed under Section 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for her willful disobedience of the order, dated 10.4.2006, made in W.P.No. 39154 of 2004, on the file of this Court.2. It has been stated by the petitioner that she is a destitute lady deserted by her husband. She had qualified as a Tailoring Instructor and had worked as a part time Tailoring Instructor in Government Schools for over two years. During the year, 1990, the second respondent had conducted an interview for selecting permanent Tailoring Instructors for appointment in Government Schools. Though the petitioner was 36 years of age, she was eligible to be sponsored for the interview on account of the age relaxation granted in her favour, as she was in part time service. However, the District Employment Officer, Krishnagiri, the third respondent in the writ petition, was unwilling to consider the name of the petitioner to be sponsore...
R.P. Motors Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2007
Reported in: (2008)15VST442(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. Writ petition is for a certiorari to quash the order of the respondent dated March 30, 2007 as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990.2. Brief facts leading to the writ petition are as follows:3. The petitioner-company is an authorised dealer for two wheelers manufactured by M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., Dharukera, Haryana and an assessee on the file of the respondent both under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner imports two wheelers from outside State into the State of Tamil Nadu and sell them locally and they are liable to pay tax under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 (hereinafter termed as, 'the Entry Tax Act'). For the assessment year 2001-02, they had reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 80,81,381, vide monthly returns filed under the Entry Tax Act. However, ...
Nallathambi Resorts (P) Ltd. Rep. by Its Chairman and Managing Directo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ93
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the records of the letter No. 7339/Su3/2003-10. dated 17.06.2004 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to grant subsidy as per G.O. Ms. No. 14 dated 20.01.1992 along with Interest.2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, which stated to have invested a sum of Rs. 47.46 lakhs for starting a hotel resorts. The petitioner company has applied for planning permission with the local body, the same was considered and planning permission was also granted on 23.03.1990, but the petitioner could not commence the construction, in time, hence, sought for renewal and the same was also considered by the local authorities and renewal was granted by order dated 07.03.1992. In the meanwhile, the first respondent has issued G.O. Ms. No. 306, Industries, (MIG.2) Department dated 22.05.1989 wherein ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. Rajapandian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2007
Reported in: [2009]311ITR477(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, Chennai 'D' Bench, Chennai in I.T.A.No.2145/Mds/2003 dated 13.04.2007, raising the following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act is bad in law and the reopened assessment is annulled, even though the assessing officer complied with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1994-952. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is an individual. The relevant assessment year is 1993-94 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.1993. The assessee filed Return of income on 08.12.1996 admitting income at Rs.55,530/- from maligai business an...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Khursheed Anwar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2007
Reported in: [2009]311ITR468(Mad)
D. Murugesan, J.1. This Tax Case Appeal is at the instance of the revenue questioning the order of the Income Tax Appellante Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench made in ITA No. 368/Mds/99 dated 31.10.2003 for the assessment year 1996-97.2. The respondent-assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 1996-97 admitting a total income of Rs. 74,620/-. He also filed another return of income for the above assessment year admitting the same total income of Rs. 74,620/- and along with the said return, the assessee also enclosed proof for commission received in foreign currency in support of his claim for deduction under Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a). As the assessee had admitted service charges of Rs. 1,000/- and claimed huge expenses amounting to Rs. 1,76,242/- resulting in net loss of Rs. 1,75,242/-, he was asked to explain the reasons for claiming such huge expenses against the service charges of Rs. 1,000/- received in India. Apar...
i. Shajahan Vs. the Regional Transport Officer and the Motor Vehicles ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Mad93; 2008(1)CTC835; (2008)3MLJ654
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The challenge to this Writ Petition is a demand notice dated 25.10.2002 issued by first respondent, wherein the petitioner has been directed to pay the tax of Rs. 34,000/-for the month of October 2002, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a State-wide Contract Carriage Permit holder issued by the Kerala State Transport Authority, in respect of vehicle No. KL-09-J-1117. The vehicle was under repair and after carrying out the repairs, he took the vehicle for a test drive. When he crossed the State border of Kerala and entered into the State of Tamilnadu, the subordinates of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, K.G.Chawadi Checkpost (incoming), the second respondent herein stopped his vehicle and checked the documents and he replied to the authorities that the vehicle was operated only as a test drive. Thereafter, second respondent issued a check report dated 9.10.2002 alleging that the vehicle is operated wit...
K. Chidambara Manickam Vs. Shakeena and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Mad108; [2009]152CompCas196(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. These writ appeals have been preferred by the appellant against the common order dated 9-3-2007 of the learned single Judge made in W.P. (MD) Nos. 634 and 635 of 2006.2. Brief facts, sans unnecessary details, leading to the filing of these writ appeals are stated hereinunder:2.1. The first respondent in both the writ appeals, who have obtained a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- each from the second respondent/Bank, are hereinafter referred to as 'borrowers'. As they defaulted in repayment, the second respondent/Bank issued notices dated 19-10-2004 and 1-12-2004 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, 'SARFAESI Act') to the borrowers, calling upon them to discharge the loan within sixty days.2.2 As the borrowers have not complied with the said demand, the second respondent/Bank, alleging that as on 31-10-2004, a sum of Rs. 10,72,483/- was due from each of them, directed the ...
G.K. Chemicals Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: (2008)13VST88(Mad)
ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. By the proceedings of the second respondent dated October 30, 2000 the petitioner was finally assessed for a total and taxable turnover for the year 1999-2000, on self-assessment basis. In the self assessment, the petitioner disclosed an inter-State purchase of chemicals effected from other State dealers, in a particular amount.2. However, on the basis of a counter check of the transactions mentioned in the 'C' form, made by the second respondent through the inter-State Investigation Cell of Mumbai city, the second respondent reopened the assessment and issued a pre-revision notice dated February 21, 2005. The petitioner requested the respondent to produce the copies of the documents available with the second respondent to enable him to file a detailed objection. However, the second respondent passed an order dated June 21, 2007, holding that as per the extract and copy of the bogus 'C' form, the petitioner had purchased the chemicals from Mumbai dealers. ...
A. Jaganathan Vs. S. Kalyani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ222
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. This order shall govern these two revisions in CRP Nos. 306 of 2002 and 42 of 2004.2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not appeared.3. From the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and also the materials available, it is quite evident that the respondent filed a petition in RCOP No. 390/94 for eviction of the revision petitioner on the ground of willful default alleging that the revision petitioner is a tenant in respect of the premises which belonged to the respondent-landlady, on a monthly rental of Rs. 200/- for non-residential purposes; that from June 1993 to December 1993, there were rental arrears; that under the circumstances, the tenant committed willful default, and hence, he was to be evicted.4. The petition was resisted strongly by the tenant stating that there was no default, much less willful default.5. On enquiry, the petition was ordered by the Rent Cont...
Dinesh Kumar Jhunjhunwala Vs. the Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: (2007)5CompLJ131(Mad); [2007]79SCL227(Mad)
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order of the Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench, Chennai, dated 5.5.2005, insofar as directing the respondent to furnish the extract of its Register of Members, excluding the list of beneficial owners of shares of the Bank.2. Notice of motion was ordered in the appeal on 18.10.2005 and after service of notice, the appeal was listed and on 24.7.2007, by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as respondent, the appeal was taken up for final disposal.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the respondent/Bank is a Company having its Registered Central Office at Erode Road, Karur. The Company is engaged in banking business. The appellant is a member of the Company, holding 100 equity shares. On 18.10.2004 the appellant applied for the extracts of register of members not earlier than 30.9.2004. On 27.10.2004, the respondent Company refused to give the e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »