Chennai Court June 2008 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sardarmal Kothari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Mad)414
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The relevant assessment year is 2001-02. The assessees Shri Sardarmal. Kothari and Shri Shanthilal Kothari, filed their respective returns of income admitting a total income of Rs. 3,02,593 apart from the agricultural income of Rs. 25,000 each. The assessees have claimed exemption of capital gain tax under Section 54F of the IT Act. The AO rejected the same on the ground that the construction was not completed when he made a personal visit. Against that order, the assessees preferred appeals before the CIT(A) who allowed the appeal by holding that the assessees have invested the capital gains in the land and substantially completed the construction and directed the AO to grant the benefit to the assessees. Against that order, the Department preferred appeals before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the CFT(A) and dismissed the appeals. The correctness of the said orders is now canvassed in these appeals by formulating the following quest...
Sambath Kumar Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ520
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Challenging the conviction and sentence dated 30.3.2004 imposed on the appellant/accused in S.C. No. 107 of 2003 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Perambalur, convicting him for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentencing to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, the accused has come forward with the present appeal.2. The allegation in the charge framed against the accused is that due to previous enmity with the deceased with respect to money transaction, during the midnight on 20.4.2003, when the deceased Ramesh was sleeping in the terrace of a Community Hall at Thirumalapadi Village, the accused cut the deceased with aruval resulting in his death and thereby alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC.3. The prosecution case, which rests upon the evidence of eye-witnesses, is as under:(a) P.Ws. 1 to 3 are the independent eye witnesses, who deposed tha...
M. Radhakrishnan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ273(NULL)
ORDERA.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Heard Mr. M. Radhakrishnan in person, who is a practising advocate of this Court and also the learned Government Pleader for the State. The challenge in this writ petition is to the notification issued by the Government in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 19.1.2007, prescribing therein the method of appointment, qualification and age for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), hereinafter referred to as 'the said post'. The petitioner-in-person submits that while prescribing qualification for appointment to the aforesaid post, in Column-4, the following qualification has been prescribed:Must be a fresh Law Graduate possessing a degree in law from a recognized University as mentioned in Clause (1) above, who is eligible to be enrolled or enrolled as an Advocate and who has secured at the final year examination of the Degree in law not less than an average of 50% marks in case of open categories. In respect of the other res...
Union of India (Uoi) Owning the Southern Railway and anr. Vs. Rajesh D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR615(Madras)
K.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.11.2006 in IA No. 9425 of 2004 in OS No. 6112 of 2003 on the file of XVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.2. The suit in OS No. 6112 of 2003 has been preferred by the respondent against the revision petitioners before the City Civil Court, Chennai praying for a declaration that the action of the revision petitioners in invoking the risk purchase recovery in respect of the purchase order dated 19.08.1999, as amended by the order dated 12.05.1999, is illegal, invalid and unenforceable and for a direction to the revision petitioners to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 99,072 with further interest on Rs. 57,600 at 24% per annum from the date of the plaint till realisation and for other incidental reliefs.3. In the plaint in OS No. 6112 of 2003, it was the case of the respondent that the revision petitioners have placed purchase orders with him for supply of fibre glass type R.P. tissues as per I...
Kumaravel Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ262
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Totally two persons were tried in S.C. No. 29 of 2005 on the file of Additional Court of Sessions (Fast Track Court) Dharmapuri under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. A.2 was acquitted by the learned Trial Judge for the charge under Section 201 I.P.C. However A.1 was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C, for which he stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- carrying a default sentence for the offence of murder and for causing disappearance of evidence of offence, he stands sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Therefore A.1 alone is before this Court in this appeal. The State has not challenged the acquittal of A.2 till date.2. A.1 and A.2 are the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased Valarmathi respectively. The charge against the accused is that on 25.9.2002 at about 9.00 p.m. at the matrimonial home at Kottrapatti Ko...
Vaiyapuri P. Vs. Executive Director-reviewing Authority and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2008
Reported in: (2009)ILLJ462Mad
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner was an Assistant Manager in the respondents-Bank. On December 22, 1999, the petitioner was suspended from duty on the ground that he has exceeded the Managerial Discretionary Limit while sanctioning loan. The suspension was followed by a charge memo, dated January 24,2000 and an enquiry officer was appointed, who submitted his report holding charges 12 and 17 as not proved, charges 5,6, 11 and 13 as partly proved and the remaining charges as proved. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated November 28, 2001 along with a copy of the Enquiry report, for which, he submitted his reply on December 4, 2001. The Assistant General Manager-Disciplinary Authority, Pondicherry concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and by order dated January 23, 2002, dismissed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal before the General Manager-Appellate Authority, second respondent herein, on February 28,...
The Chairman, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Ministry of Hrd, Vs. Dr. T. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ261
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 09.6.2005 made in O.A. No. 1027 of 2004, the petitioners, who are the Chairman, Commissioner of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti [for short, 'NVS'] functioning under the Ministry of HRD at New Delhi as well as the Deputy Director of NVS at Nongriss Hills, Shillong at Meghalaya State, have filed the present writ petition. 2. By the aforesaid order, the CAT set aside the order of termination of the first respondent dated 13.6.2003, confirmed by the order dated 31.8.2004 passed by the appellate authority, and directed reinstatement of the first respondent with all consequential benefits.3. This Court admitted the writ petition on 11.10.2006 and also granted an interim stay on the same day. When the first respondent filed M.P. No. 2 of 2006 to vacate the stay order, this Court confirmed the stay and dismissed the vacate stay application. It directed the disposal of the main writ petition at an earl...
Tarapore and Co. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Mad)697
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ appeal is filed against the order of the dismissal of the writ petition in Writ Petn. No. 14198 of 2000, wherein, the relief of issuance of a writ of declaration, declaring Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the IT Act, 1961, as ultra vires and unconstitutional and consequently to strike down the said rule, has been sought for. The said relief was sought on the ground that the TRO, being a statutory creation, cannot decide the issue as to the bona fide of the transfer made in respect of the property owned by the alleged defaulter under the IT Act. Even to find out as to whether any transfer of property was made with the intention to defraud the Revenue, some enquiry has to be conducted under Rule 11(6) of the Act. Such enquiry can only be carried out by a competent Civil Court. Such power vested with the TRO to conduct an enquiry is illegal and against the Article 19 of the Constitution of India.2. The above writ petition came to be filed in the follow...
Natarajan Vs. Kaliaperumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2008
Reported in: (2009)ILLJ335Mad
M. Venugopal, J.1. Challenge in this civil miscellaneous appeal is against the order dated April 30, 2004 in W.C. No. 89/2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy/Tribunal directing the appellant/respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 77,351/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty One only) to the respondent/claimant together with the interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident till date of payment.2. The respondent/claimant has filed the claim petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy/Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as against the appellant/ respondent.3. The facts of the claim in nutshell are as follows:On February 21, 2002 at about 11.30 a.m, when the respondent/claimant was working as machine driver in Malathi Saw Mill near Santaipet, West 4th Street, Pudukkottai, owned by the appellant/respondent, the wood he was cutting in the machine got in suddenly and dragged his right hand into the mac...
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2008
Reported in: [2008]305ITR418(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated March 26, 2001, in I.T.A. No. 2306/Mds/92, raising the following questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing grant of investment allowance for the year 1986-87 when the plant and machinery had been installed in the year 1981-82?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that investment allowance can be allowed in any year subsequent to the date of purchase or installation and having put to use?2. When the above appeal came up before this court for admission on February 16, 2004, the tax case was admitted on the following question of law.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing grant of investment allowance for the year 1986-87 when the pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »