Chennai Court May 2008 Judgments

The Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs. India Cements Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 30.12.2004 for the above Asst. Year. In this appeal, the Revenue has taken the following ground: 1. The CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the Assessee is entitled for relief under Section 80-I to the extent of Gross total income of Rs. 9.89 crores. 2. The CIT(Appeals) erred in concluding that deduction under Section 80I of the I.T. Act should be restricted not to the profits and gains of business but to the Gross total income which includes income from other sources. 3. The CIT(Appeals) erred in concluding that the components of the Gross Total Income cannot be examined for limiting deduction under Section 80-I of the IT. Act. 4. The CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that when a particular item of income cannot be considered for computing deduction under Section 80-1 of the I.T. Act, the same cannot be considered for limiting the deduction under the said section. 5. Without prejudice to the above t...

Mrs. Naseema Begum Rep. by Her Power of Attorney Holder Chennai Vs. Em ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. The complainant in OP No.356/2004 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was follows: - The complainant along with her child proceeded to Dubai from Chennai airport by the flight of the 1st opposite party on 5/9/2003. The journey was booked under PNR BC 2Y5S. The tickets were purchased on 29/8/2003 from the 2nd opposite party through the 3rd opposite party. The tickets indicated the journey status as OK. The categorisation was under business class. The 1st opposite party though promised to provide a baby cradle in the front row, the facility was not provided. On 3/9/2003 the complainant received a phone call at 3.30 pm from the 1st opposite party seeking to ascertain whether the proposed journey would be performed on 5/9/2003 as fixed already. She answered in the affirmative. On 5/9/2003 the complainant took the child accompanied by their attorney and other family members and turn...

S. Nagarajan Vs. M/S. Spencer’s Travel Spencer and Co. Ltd Rep. b ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH J. {Open Court} The prayer in the complaint is as follows:- In the foregoing circumstances, it is prayed that this Honble State Forum may be pleased to a) direct the 1st and 2nd opposite parties jointly to pay a sum of USD 30,000/- towards the loss of profit. [Rs.14,10,000/- in Indian currency at the rate of Rs.47/- per US Dollar] b) direct the 1st and 2nd opposite parties jointly to pay a sum of USD 2,00,000/- towards the business loss (Meaning the loss of profit for subsequent year business losses) [Rs.94,00,000/- in Indian currency at the rate of Rs.47/- per US Dollar] c) direct the 1st and 2nd opposite parties jointly to pay a sum of USD 1,000/- towards material loss [Rs.47,000/- in Indian currency at the rate of Rs.47/- per US Dollar] d) direct the 1st and 2nd opposite parties jointly to pay a sum of USD 3,000/- towards the cost of trip [Rs.1,41,000/- in Indian currency at the rate of Rs.47/- per US Dollar] e) direct the 1st and 2nd opposite parties jointly to pay a ...

R. Premakumari Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Gover ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)5MLJ1349

P.K. Misra, J.1. The present appellant was working as Post Graduate Assistant under the fourth respondent school with effect from 4.11.1996, after having obtained M.A. (English) in 1983, B.Ed., in 1987, M.Phil. in 1989, M.Ed., in 1991 and M.A. (Sociology) in the year 1995. Her basic pay had been fixed at Rs. 1,820/- in the scale of pay of Rs. 1820-60-2300-75-3200. Subsequently, such pay was fixed as per the revised scale of pay at Rs. 5900/- in the scale of pay of Rs. 5900-200- 9900 and ultimately fixed in the scale of pay of Rs. 6500-200-10500 in the year 1998. She was granted an incentive increment for having obtained M.Ed. qualification and another incentive increment for having obtained M.Phil qualification. While the matter stood thus, the Director of School Education issued order in Proceedings Na. Ka. No. 1 47502/K2/2000 dated 18.10.2000 indicating that the teachers who are appointed between 1.1.1996 to 13.4.1998 were not eligible to incentive increments. Since recovery was soug...

The Unemployed Secondary Grade Teachers Welfare Association Vs. the St ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)6MLJ224

1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment of the learned single Judge dated 4.2.2008 in W.P.Nos. 10583 and 6377 of 2007 respectively.2. W.P. No. 6377 of 2007 was filed for a declaration that the Government (Standing) Order No. 447 (Education of Science and Technology Department) dated 16.7.1996 in so far as it restricts the selection and appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers by Districtwise seniority in the employment office as ultra vires and unconstitutional.In W.P. No. 1 0583 of 2007, prayer was for issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing G.O.Ms. No. 447 dated 16.7.1996 and the subsequent G.O.Ms. No. 241 (School Education Department) dated 22.9.2007 and quash the same so far as it prescribes Districtwise Recruitment of Secondary Grade teachers in the Government / Panchayat Union / Municipal Schools in the State and for a further direction to the respondents to make recruitment on statewide basis.3. The brief facts are as follows:From 1960 onwards...

A. Jayagopal S/O. Anand Alwar Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Centra ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(129)ECC203; 2008(155)LC203(Madras); 2008(230)ELT212(Mad)

ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. Seeking to quash the private complaint in C.C. No. 13 of 2002 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, the petitioner, who is the one of the accused in the said case has come forward with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. Admittedly, the petitioner was employed as Senior Marketing Executive in a company known as M/s. Indian Aluminium Company Limited (in short hereinafter referred to as 'INDAL') at Chennai. Yet another company known as M/s. Shree Meenatchi Aluminium Extrusions Limited, Madurai (in short hereinafter referred to as 'SMALEX') was engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Extrusions at Vellaripatti in Madurai District.3. According to the allegations in the complaint, INDAL is the real manufacturer of Aluminium extrusions in terms of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act 1944 and by suppressing the said fact, INDAL has engaged SMALEX by means of a Memorandum of understanding for getting their goods manufactured on j...

V.P. Thamaraiselvi Vs. Indian Bank and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]143CompCas662(Mad)

K. Suguna, J.1. This writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of declaration, declaring the entire process undertaken by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein starting from the filing of O.A. No. 287 of 2004 up to the auction sale dated February 14, 2007, is without jurisdiction, invalid and void ab initio.2. The case of the petitioner is the petitioner's husband late V.P. Palanisamy was originally a partner of a firm called V.P. Garments. The said firm availed certain loans and facilities from the first respondent-bank during the period between December 4, 1992 and November 9, 1994. However, the firm was dissolved and reconstituted into a partnership business in the name of the petitioner's husband Mr. V.P. Palanisamy. The properties of the petitioner's husband comprised in S.F. No. 330 of Rakyapalayam village, Avinashi taluk, Coimbatore district, were given as collateral security for the loans availed and equitable mortgage in respect of the properties was also created by late Mr. V....