Chennai Court September 2007 Judgments
The Correspondent, Dhanalakshmi Aided Elementary School Vs. S. Soundar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ87
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.3.2005 made in W.P. No. 10984 of 1996 allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein.2.1. Brief facts of case, requiring notice, are these : The first respondent was appointed in ' the appellant/Aided Elementary School on 12.9.1990. When the first respondent attended the school after summer vacation on 30.6.1991, he was prevented from attending the school from 4.7.1991 on the ground that he submitted his resignation, which was of course denied by the first respondent.2.2. Being aggrieved by the abovesaid act of the appellant, the first respondent herein filed W.P. No. 9459 of 2001, wherein this Court directed the first respondent to pursue his remedies by way of appeal under the provisions, of the Tamil Nadu Recognition of Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973.2.3. The first respondent herein preferred an appeal before the third respondent, who by order dated 27.9.1991 directed th...
Tag this Judgment!Aruna theatres and Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. S. Balasubramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2007
Reported in: [2008]88SCL275(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants against the order, dated 9-8-2007 - S. Balasubramanian v. Aruna Theatres & Enter prises (P.) Ltd. [2008] 141 Comp. Cas. 797 of the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench at Chennai, passed in Company Application No. 41 of 2007 in Company Petition No. 64 of 2006, raising the following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Company Law Board erred in law in granting interim relief to the respondents by directing the implementation of the resolutions for removal of the existing directors, pending disposal of the main company petition2. By consent of both the sides, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal.3. The background facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as follows:Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed a company petition in C.P. No. 64 of 2006 under Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 read with Sections 235, 237 and Schedule XI of ...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn Chemicals and Rubber Products Rep. by D. Sasidharan Nair Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2007
Reported in: (2008)13VST445(Mad)
ORDERChitra Venkataraman,J.1. The writ petitions are filed against the orders of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal dismissing the original petitions filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the first appellate authority wherein the appeals filed by the petitioner against the revised assessment orders were rejected on the ground that the delay in filing the appeals could not be condoned as the appeals were sought to be filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 31(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. 2. It is seen from the records that assessment orders for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 were served on the assessee on 30.3.2000 and 11.10.2000 respectively. The assessing authority took proceedings for recovery of the tax by notice dated 21.5.2001. It is seen that the assessee preferred a petition before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in O.P. No. 142 of 1998 for a direction to the Enforcement Wing Authority to return the Form XVII ...
Tag this Judgment!Aruna theaters and Enterprises Private Limited, Vs. S. Balasubramanian ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2007
Reported in: [2008]141CompCas820(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants against the order dated 09.08.2007 of the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench at Chennai passed in Company Application No. 41 of 2007 in Company Petition No. 64 of 2006, raising the following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Company Law Board erred in law in granting interim relief to the respondents by directing the implementation of the resolutions for removal of the existing Directors, pending disposal of the main Company Petition? 2. By consent of both the sides, the main Appeal itself is taken up for disposal.3. The background facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as follows:The respondents 1 to 5 filed a Company Petition in C.P. No. 64 of 2006 under Sections 397, 398, 402 & 403 read with Section 235, 237 and Schedule XI of the Companies Act. The first appellant is a Private Limited Company. The second and third a...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Saw Mill Represented by Mr. Haresh Patel, Partner Vs. the Author ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Mad8; 2008BusLR4; 2007(5)CTC480; (2007)6MLJ1221
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 26.07.2007, under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules').2. To state the facts briefly:The petitioner availed certain credit facilities from the respondent/Indian Overseas Bank for its business purposes sometime in the year 1998. The property covered by the impugned notice is one of the secured assets. The petitioner's account was classified and declared as N.P.A. (Non Performing Asset) and the Bank initiated Recovery Proceedings by way of filing Original Application before Debts Recovery Tribunal (in short, D.R.T.). That apart, the Bank also issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Act) on 17.09.2002 claiming payment of certain sums. Thereafter, possession notice under Section 13(4) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Vaithiyanathan Construction Represented by Its Partner A. Kalaiyaz ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CTLJ25(Mad); (2007)6MLJ831
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in respect of tender notification issued by the respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka. A1/1326/07 dated 26.07.2007 and quash the tender process pursuance to the above said tender notification and consequently, direct the respondent to call for afresh and conduct a fresh tender and proceed in accordance with law and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998.2. The petitioner's case in brief, as culled out from the affidavit, runs as under:a. The petitioner was registered as a Class I contractor with the respondent vide the proceedings of the District Collector, Villupuram dated 16.01.2006 and subsequently, its registration was renewed which is valid till 31.03.2008. While so, the respondent issued a Tender Notification in Ref. No. Na.Ka.A1/1326/07 dated 26.07.2007 and the procedure for getting tender schedule is that the respondent has to give...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Karim Telgi @ Lala @ Karim Lala, Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ532
ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to cause physical production of the petitioners, who are now confined in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune, State of Maharashtra, other than by video conferencing before the Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, in C.C. No. 35 of 2005 on necessary hearings, on an application filed by the petitioners.2. The facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:2.1. Petitioners/accused are facing trial before the learned Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, for the offences under Sections 255, 258, 259, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 475 IPC and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Charge sheet was laid before the said Court and PT Warrant was also issued for production of the petitioners, however, they, were not produced by the jail authorities.2.2. A petition in Criminal M.P.No.1032 of 2007 was filed before the trial Court, for production of the petitioners/accused to enable them to consult th...
Tag this Judgment!Chopard Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2007
Reported in: (2009)22VST126(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the revised orders of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Singanallur Circle, Coimbatore, the first respondent herein, in respect of assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99, respectively. Since the facts and law involved in both writ petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.2. Brief facts leading to the writ petition are as follows:The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') and an assessee on the file of the first respondent herein. The place of business of the petitioner was inspected by the enforcement wing officers on October 10, 1998 and certain records, such as, books of account, purchase bills and sales invoices were recovered. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of repeated requests, the regular books of account and other records said to have been recovered ...
Tag this Judgment!Rpp Construction Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Director, Mr. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2007
Reported in: 2008[9]STR122
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard Mr. Arvind P. Datar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Wilson, the learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents. 2. It is stated that the writ petition has been filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the letter, dated 08.03.2007, bearing reference O.C. No. 151/2007, issued by the 3rd respondent demanding service tax of Rs.1,85,47,826/-, under Section 66 read with Section 65(105)(zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994, on the contracts involving works contract as construction services without issuing proper show cause notice under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, for the period between 10.09.2004 to 28.02.2007 and to direct the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.11,40,833/- already collected as service tax and to pass such further orders. 3. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned letter of the third respondent, dated 08.03.2007, raising various grounds as stated...
Tag this Judgment!Sella Synergy (India) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2007
Reported in: (2008)304ITR366(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-V dt. 17th March, 2005 and pertains to asst. yr. 2000-01.2. The first issue raised is that CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening of assessment under Section 148.2.1 We have heard both the counsels and perused the relevant records.We find that the initial assessment in this case was processing under Section 143(1) of the IT Act. We find that the Hon'ble apex Court-in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. has held that intimation under Section 143(1)(a) cannot be treated as assessment order and in this view of the matter, we do not find any justification in the ground raised by the assessee.Hence the same is dismissed.3. The next issue raised is that the CIT(A) is not justified in opining that the benefit of reopening is only to favour the Revenue and cannot be used to favour the assessee, disregarding the express provision of Section 152(2) of the IT Act.3.1 We have heard both the counsel...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »