Chennai Court October 2008 Judgments

R. Vijayakumar Vs. M. Ravindran, Sr. Advocate, Administrator, Anubhav ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]147CompCas223(Mad)

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In the company petition, the appellant, R. Vijayakumar filed company application, C.A. No. 1037/06 to set aside the sale pursuant to order dated 11th Nov., 2003, passed by the Court in C.A. No. 211/03 in respect of lands situated in survey No. 3 to an extent of 1.20 acres in Kazhipattur village, Kanchipuram District. Learned Judge having rejected the application, the present appeal has been preferred.2. According to the appellant, agreement for sale of certain lands were reached between M/s.Good Luck Inn Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Managing Director, Mr.R. Vijayakumar with Mr.C. Natesan of the company in liquidation. In most of the cases full consideration amount was received except some in which certain amounts were payable. In some cases, sale deeds were executed; in some cases sale deeds were prepared, but not executed and in all cases none of the sale deeds were registered. The grievance of the appellant is that, this Court, by its order dated 18th Dec., 20...

The Tamil Nadu Consumers Cooperative Federation Ltd. Vs. T.A. Jayalaks ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ53

D. Murugesan, J.1. As the issues raised and argued in both the writ appeal and the writ petition are one and the same, they are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the 'land owners', 'the State Government' and 'the allottees' of the lands in question.2. The land owners numbering four along with other partners, entered into a partnership agreement registered in the year 1966 with the avowed object of running a film studio for the purpose of letting on hire, production of cine films, distribution, exploitation and exhibition of pictures. The firm purchased an extent of 7.59 acres of land in Saligramam village during the year 1967. Out of the above extent, an extent of 1.32 acres of land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for formation of a road leaving the balance of 6.27 acres. Out of this, an extent of 5706 square metres was put to agricultural use. Constructions were made along with the existi...

N. Panneerselvam Vs. the Secretary to Government Public Works Departme ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ54

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the learned Government Advocate.2. The writ petitioner was born to one Narayanasamy through his second wife and this fact is not in dispute. While the father of the petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant in the Public Works Department of the Government, in the first respondent, he died. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground by the third respondent on 16.07.1997 as Typist on temporary basis. The petitioner joined the said post on 23.07.1997 and he has been in the said capacity for the past eleven years on temporary basis. The petitioner has made repeated representations for the purpose of regularization of his service and the same has not been considered by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was not born to said Narayanasamy through his legally wedded wife. It is seen that the first and third respond...

Mrs. Farhana Sait Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-ii,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Mad)465; [2009]308ITR257(Mad); [2009]181TAXMAN105(Mad)

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The Writ Appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 17.6.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 5251 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the learned single Judge refused to decide the case on merits on the ground of the availing of the alternative remedy under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the I.T. Act').2. The main plea taken in the present Writ Appeal is that the availing of the 'Revision' under Section 264 of the I.T. Act is not applicable in a case of attachment of property(ies) of a third party.3. According to the appellant-writ petitioner, the second respondent-Tax Recovery Officer, Range II, Ernakulam, Kerala State, issued a notice on 10.2.2005 under Rule 48 of the Second Schedule to the I.T. Act, for attachment of the property(ies) in question. Having preferred Writ Petition No. 20918 of 2005 against the said notice, learned single Judge, by order dated 27.6.2005, allowed the writ petitioner to approach the aut...

Sriram Chits Tamil Nadu (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad68

D. Murugesan, J.1. The appellant is Sriram Chits Tamil Nadu (Private) Limited. The fourth respondent by name S.M. Bakir Mohammed approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2049 of 2002 questioning the order of the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department dated 13-12-2000 and for a consequential direction to the Secretary to Government to take the appeal of the fourth respondent/writ petitioner filed against the order of the Deputy Registrar of Chits dated 7.2.2000.2. The writ petition came to be filed on the following facts:The fourth respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the writ petitioner') was a subscriber to a chit under the Agreement No.72 of 1994 in Suriya Chit Funds, Pollachi, namely, the third responc ent and the maturity amount of which was Rs. 50,000/- payable in 20 instalments i.e., Rs. 2500 x 20. He had been regulirly paying the instalments and during tie sixth auction, he bid the auction and took the chit for Rs. 35,000/-. According to him, he has pai...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kovai Medical Centre and Hospitals Limi ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Mad)302; [2009]313ITR262(Mad)

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The assessee is a hospital and it claimed depreciation on furniture and fittings at the rate of 15 per cent. applying old Appendix I of the Income-tax Rules. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the assessing authority was wrong in not accepting that the hospital is a 'welfare centre' and that in view of Section 32(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, as it then stood, concluded that the 'welfare centre' would include hospital. The Tribunal also accepted the decision. Against that the Revenue is before us and raises the following substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent. on the furniture and fittings in the hospital on the view that the hospital comes within the term 'welfare centre' as appearing in Appendix I, Part II(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962?2. The assessee has ...

B. Ammu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ866; (2009)1MLJ1090

ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This Writ Petition has been preferred by a widow of an accused claiming compensation from the Government of Tamil Nadu for the death of her husband in police custody on 14-11-1998.2. Factual matrix necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition are as under:Petitioner's version:(a) The petitioner was married to the deceased Balu and in the said wedlock, the petitioner had two children. The deceased was working as a construction worker.(b) While so, on 9-11-1998, about 8 to 10 policemen in mufti came to the residence of petitioner's mother-in-law and under the pretext of washing their hands after taking snacks, they conducted search in her residence and on enquiry, they informed that they were policemen from Chennai and they have come in search of Balu as he was involved in a case of theft. Since the petitioner told them that her husband was missing for the last three months, the police left the place. On the very same evening her husband came home and he was in...

Joint Registrar/The Special Officer, TuticorIn District Central Co-ope ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant is the 2nd opposite party, 1st respondent is the complainant and the respondents 2 and 3 are the 1st and 3rd opposite parties before the District Forum. 2. The main ground raised in the above appeal is to the effect that the complainant shall avail remedies only by approaching the authorities prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act,1983 and the Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The law is already settled by this Commission by rejecting the similar contentions in FA.Nos.634/2006 to 636/2006 dt.15.11.2007. By following the above principles this appeal is also dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cost....

The Special Officer, Uthamapalayam Co-operative, Uthamapalayam, theni ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. {Open Court} 1. The Appellant is the opposite party and the Respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The complainant has approached the District Forum under the following circumstances: The complainant has availed two loans bearing Nos.5304 and 5403, Rs.6500/- and Rs.3660/- respectively, for which he has mortgaged the agricultural lands belonging to him. He has availed the said loan on 4.4.1975 and 22.7.1975. Due to the certain problems, he was not in a position to discharge the amounts due, resulting in property was brought into auction on 25.2.1993. As there was no bidder, the opposite party themselves took the property in auction for a sum of Rs.32000/-. Later on, the complainant discharged the entire loan amount and requested the opposite party to re-convey the properties. The opposite party has demanded the amount paid by the society in the auction along with the expenses incurred for the said auction. According to the complainant, even thoug...

Sreenivas and Co. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)19VST39(Mad)

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The assessee purchases raw skins to fulfil export orders for finished leathers. They claimed that their turnover is eligible for exemption in view of the decision T. Azeezur Rahman and Company v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [1991] 82 STC 355 (Mad). The assessing officer held that they had not filed correlating statement to prove that the raw skins were purchased in the course of export and therefore, disallowed the claim for exemption. Against that, an appeal was filed by the assessee. Referring to the correlation statement filed in respect of the purchase of raw skin against the export orders and following T. Azeezur Rahman and Company v. State of Tamil Nadu [1991] 82 STC 355 (Mad) the appellate authority held that the purchases of raw skin within the State against purchase orders for export are not liable to tax accepting the assessee's case that the purchase of raw skin was effected for fulfilment of export orders of finished leathers. The Revenue challenge...