Chennai Court January 2008 Judgments

Sword Global (i) (P) Ltd. Vs. the Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

1. The appeal of the Assessee is directed against the order of the C.I.T.(Appeals)-III, Chennai dated 12.10.2006. The assessment year involved in these appeal is 2003-04.2. The facts of the case are that the Assessee company is 100% subsidiary of Global Software Services Ltd. (Global UK), Summer Haze Bath, Woolley Bath, BAI 8 AS, U.K. The Assessee company has filed a return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 on 20.11.2003 admitting a loss of Rs. 28,54,452/- and the same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 27.2.2004 accepting the loss returned. The Assessee has claimed an exemption under Section 10B of the Act of Rs. 2,66,83,098/- in the original return and the case was selected for scrutiny to verify the exemption claimed. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the Assessee. In response to the same, authorized representative of the Assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the details called for. While examining the de...

Union of India (Uoi) Owning Southern Railway Rep. by Its General Manag ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)1MLJ1110

R. Banumathi, J.1. Aggrieved against the award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal Chennai Branch dated 09.07.1998, made in O.A. No. 9600031, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of one Velayutham, Southern Railway has preferred this appeal.2. Brief facts are as follows:Dead body of Velayutham was found adjacent to the Railway track of sub-urban train between Avadi and Annanur. A case was registered in Cr. No. 445/1994 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. by Perambalur Railway Police. It is the case of respondents/ claimants that while returning from Thiruninravur, where Velayutham had gone to borrow money from his friend AW-2 Sukumar, while travelling in the train, Velayutham hit against the post and fell down from the train and died on the spot on the night of 16.08.1994.3. It is the case of appellant/Railways that Velayutham was hit by train while he was trying to cross the Railway track at K.M.18/33A between Avadi and Annanur on 17.08.1994. 4. To substantiate their case, th...

icici Bank Limited Rep. by Its Sr. Vice President-hr Vs. Lakshminaraya ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009(1)CTC22

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The respondent-Writ Petitioner, who was allowed voluntary retirement with effect from 1.2.1992 from the services of the appellant-Bank of Madura Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') on his request, preferred Writ Petition No.7744 of 2000, for direction to the appellant-Bank to pay pension. The prayer in the said Writ Petition, having been allowed by the learned single Judge, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Bank.2. It is seen that with effect from 10.3.2001, the Bank of Madura Limited merged with ICICI Bank Limited; subsequently, by virtue of the Order of the Reserve Bank of India, dated 26.2.2002, the Bank of Madura Limited was changed as ICICI Bank Limited; accordingly, the name of the appellant in the cause title in the Memorandum of the Grounds of Writ Appeal was accepted by as ICICI Bank Limited as per the Order of the Court dated 18.7.2002 in W.A.M.P.No.3581 of 2002 in W.A.S.R.No.52118 of 2002.3. The questions involved...

The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Vs. P.M. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)2MLJ543

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Whether the adverse remarks entered into the Annual Confidential report for the period of 01.04.1998 to 31.03.1999, by itself stand concluded and offend Articles 14, 309 and 311 of the Constitution of India and the Rules framed thereunder for want of pre-decision opportunity to the delinquent? and Whether the charge memo issued to the delinquent is vitiated for the reason that it is based on the materials that were collected by way of preliminary enquiry conducted by the same officer who conducted the discreet enquiry based on anonymous pseudonymous letters, are the issues that arise for our consideration in these appeals which are directed against the common order dated 26.9.2003 made W.P. Nos. 11543 and 11544 of 2000, in and by which, the writ petitions were allowed in favour of the writ petitioner/respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the delinquent').2.1. It is necessary to recapitulate the facts of the case. According to the delinquent, he joined the ...

Bank of Baroda Employees Union Vs. Bank of Baroda Rep. by Its Assistan ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)IILLJ253Mad

ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the award of the second respondent, dated 05.12.2002, made in I.D. No. 581 of 2001. The issue in the said award related to non-employment of one Thiru S.S. Rajan, who was employed as a Shroff-cum-Clerk in the first respondent Bank. He joined the services of the Bank on 30.01.1982. He was issued with a show cause notice, dated 01/03.02.1996, in which as many as eight allegations were levelled against him in the course of discharge of his duties at Tanjore Branch. The delinquent employee submitted his reply, dated 22.04.1996. In the said reply, he admitted his guilt in respect of allegations 1 to 5. As regards allegations 6 and 7, he denied the same and with regard to eighth allegation, which related to borrowal made by him from one of the constituents of the Bank, he stated that he would repay the amount, honouring his promise.2. Thereafter, as the first respondent was not satisfied with the explanation, a Charge Memo, dated 05...

K. Perumal, Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Commissioner and Secretary ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ231

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The unsuccessful writ petitioners have preferred the above writ appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.11.2000 made in W.P. No. 5668 of 1992.2. The brief facts which led to the filing of the writ appeal are as under:(a) The petitioners are the owners of 2.69 acres of land in S. No. 18/3, Ponmeni Village, Madurai District. The respondents initiated land acquisition proceedings to acquire 217.20 acres of land, including the lands of the petitioners, for Ellis Nagar Housing Scheme at Madurai. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in G.O.Ms. No. 311, Housing and Urban Development, dated 17.2.1979. The declaration under Section 6 in G.O.Ms. No. 735, Housing and Urban Development, dated 7.6.1980 was published in the Gazette on 2.7.1980.(b) According to the petitioners, no enquiry was conducted nor they received any communication about the enquiry or award. Since G.O.Ms. No. 735, Housing and Urban Development, da...

Power Petro Products Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Mad)78; [2008]301ITR228(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The relevant assessment year is 1994-95. 1 This appeal is filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in I. T. A. No. 1898 of 2002 dated December 8, 2006.The facts culled out from the statement of facts stated in the memorandum of appeal, are as follows:2. For the assessment year 1994-95, initial assessment was framed on March 30, 2000, in terms of Section 143(3) of the Act on the total taxable income at Rs. 1,29,82,250 as against the reported total taxable income at Rs. 1,28,290. A sum of Rs. 1,20,00,000 has been added as cash credit as well as security deposit in the assessment. Challenging the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who, by his order dated January 15, 2001, set aside the assessment and remitted back the matter to verify whether the assessee had sources of income for the security deposit. In the reassessment, the Assessing Officer has accepted the most of the contrib...

Xavier Dhanaraj Vs. the Secretary to Government, Public Works Departme ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)1MLJ1303

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner in all these seven writ petitions is the same person. He was working as Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Salem. He filed an Original Application being O.A. No. 2463 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal [for short, TAT'] seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for inclusion of his name in the panel for Superintending Engineer fit for promotion as Chief Engineer for the year 1994-95 and also to promote him on par with his Junior ignoring the charge memos and disciplinary proceedings as illegal and arbitrary and pass appropriate orders. 2. The said Original Application was dismissed by an order dated 09.01.2003. In paragraph 8 of the order, it was stated as follows:Para 8: ...The applicant was punished with stoppage of increment for one year and this order was passed in December 1993. Therefore the applicant could not be considered for inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion because the...

Sundaramoni Venkatesan Vs. T. Karthikeyan and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(2)CTC654; (2008)1MLJ851

M. Venugopal, J.1. This L.P.A. No. 33 of 2002 is filed by the appellant/6th respondent/5th defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in A.S. No. 959 of 1985 dated 22.6.1998 praying to set aside the said judgment and decree in regard to the Item No. 4 of the Plaint 'B' Schedule Property purchased by the appellant herein as per sale deed Ex.B6 dated 22.12.1980 from the first defendant.2. The 2nd and 3rd respondents herein (minors) represented by their mother and guardian have filed a suit as Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 35 of 1981 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Nagercoil praying for partition and separate possession of their 2/3rd share in 'A' Schedule joint family properties and for declaring their title to an extent of 2/3rd share in 'B' Schedule properties setting aside the sale deeds executed by their father, the first defendant in favour of defendants 2 to 5 and for recovery of the same with future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 98...

H. Mohamed Ibrahim Kaleel and ors. Vs. the State Rep. by the Inspector ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3167

ORDERA. Selvam, J.1. These criminal revision cases have been filed against the orders passed in Crl.M.P. Nos. 540 & 398 of 2007 in Calendar Case No. 509 of 2004 by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukottai.2. The second respondent in Criminal Revision Case No. 188 of 2007 as petitioner has filed the petition in question under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same has been taken on file in Crl.M.P. No. 540 of 2007 praying to issue search warrant. The Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai after considering the divergent contentions raised on either side has allowed the same. The revision petitioners as petitioners have filed a petition under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same has been taken on file in Crl.M.P. No. 398 of 2007 praying to discharge them from the proceedings of Calendar Case No. 509 of 2004. The Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai after considering the rival contentions raised on either side has dismissed the same.3. Since common question o...