Chennai Court July 2008 Judgments

A.S. Subramanian Vs. State

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ239

T. Sudanthiram, J.1. The appellant herein who is the first accused in Special Case No. 1 of 1998, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chenglepet, stands convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 131(1)(d) and the sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that P.W.2, Neelamegam was the Deputy Manager of 'Futura Polymers Ltd.,' at No. 1-A, Kamarajar Salai, Chinnasekadu, Madras-68, P.W.4, Ramakrishnan was th...

A.J. Mapillai Mohadeen Vs. Sub-registrar, Registration Department and ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2008Mad256

V. Dhanapalan, J.1. This writ petition is filed praying for a declaration declaring that the petitioner is liable to pay and the respondents are entitled to claim the stamp duty only on the value recited in the sale deed document No. 1620 dated 4.4.2007 executed by TIIC, a public authority, in favour of the petitioner herein in respect of property measuring 1.23 acres with building in R.S. No. 77/4 and also 0.05 cents out of 0.85 cents in R.S. No. 77/6 situated in Kuladeepamangalam Village, Tirukovilur Taluk, Villpuram District.2. With consent of the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The case of the petitioner is as under:(i) The property originally belonged to M/s. Sri Raghavendra Splints Industries, Tirukoilur Taluk, a partnership concern having its Head Office at Tirukoilur and factory at R.S. No. 77/4 Kuladeepamangalam Village, Tirukoilur Taluk. The said property was mortgaged with the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (hereinafter called TIIC)...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pallava Granite Industries

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Mad)614

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeal is filed against the order of the Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench dt. 31st Jan., 2006 made in ITA No. 2002/Mad/2002. The relevant assessment year is 1997-98.2. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of quarrying of granites and exporting the same. During the accounting period relevant for the asst. yr. 1997-98, the assessee had exported the goods manufactured by it and it had also shown trading activities and arrived at a loss in respect of export of such traded goods. In the return of income filed on 31st Oct., 1997, the assessee had shown the working towards deduction under Section 80HHC of the IT Act at Rs. 1,02,17,696, but however, had restricted the claim to the gross total income of Rs. 1,01,06,406. The return filed by the assessee was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act vide intimation dt. 24th Sept., 1999. While arriving at the figure of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act of Rs. 10,21,796 the assessee had actuall...

The Land Acquisition Officer Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)7MLJ298

G. Rajasuria, J.1. Heard both sides.2. Animadverting upon the enhanced compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur vide judgment dated 10.11.1997 in L.A.O.P. No. 353 of 1996, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed this appeal. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.3. A resume of facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:The Government effected publication under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 26.07.1990 intending to acquire the lands in Survey No. 375/2 totalling an extent 0.73.0 hectares in Annialam Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Dharmapuri District for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidas. After complying with the procedure, the land acquisition officer passed the award dated 16.03.1993 assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs. 16,000/- per acre to Rs. 2,18,333/- per acre. The land owner being aggrieved by it got ...

The Customer Relations Officer Lufthansa German Airlines New Delhi Vs. ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. The 2nd opposite party in OP No. 377/2003 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) is the appellant herein. The case of the complainants was as follows: - They had bought to and fro tickets to USA from the 2nd opposite party through the 1st opposite party on 8/8/2002 for Rs.1,60,160/-. The return tickets were valid upto 8/2/2003. The 1st complainant who had undergone a bypass surgery could not withstand the cold weather in USA. He suffered chest pain. In such circumstances, the complainants wanted to return to India as early as possible. They approached the 2nd opposite party in USA to confirm the ticket for any date in the last week of November. They were told that seats were not available upto January 2003. The complainants had to make arrangements with North West Airlines on 1/12/2002 for returning to India. When the 1st opposite party was contacted, the complainants were told that refund would be possible on medical grounds and a ...

Ganesapandi and ors. Vs. State

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ232

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This is a typical case where the cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt.2. The present appeal is by the convicted accused, viz., A-1 to A-5 in Sessions Case No. 461 of 2005 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. In the said case before the learned Sessions Judge, totally nine accused were tried on various charges including the charge of murder and the learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 30-11-2006, while acquitting A-6 to A-9 for the offences levelled against them, convicted the appellants/ A-1 to A-5 for the offence under Section 302 read with 109, I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life. A-1 to A-4 were also convicted for the offence under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and A-5 was convicted under Sectio...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Qatalys Software Technologies Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]308ITR249(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Revenue is on appeal against the order of the Tribunal dated January 3, 2008. The relevant assessment year is 2003-04.2. The material facts culled out from the statement of facts stated in the memorandum of appeals are as follows:The assessee is engaged in the business of software export. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee-company has filed its return of income on November 13, 2003, admitting a total income of Rs. 2,34,810 after claiming deduction under Section 10A in a sum of Rs. 3,09,382. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) on December 20, 2003. Thereafter, notice under Section 148 was issued on October 5, 2004. The assessment was reopened under Section 147 as the Assessing Officer was of the view that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as the assessee has included interest receipt from bank in a sum of Rs. 17,09,661 in the profits of business eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. Sub...

State Rep. by Its Inspector of Police Vs. Logu Ayyappan, President, Pe ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)7MLJ245

A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed by the Government of Puducherry, represented by the Inspector of Police, Ariankuppam Circle, Puducherry, impugning an order dated 27.2.2008 passed by a learned Judge of this Court on a petition filed by the respondent. In the said petition, the respondent challenged an order dated 27.11.2007 passed by the appellant refusing his prayer to hold a public meeting.2. It is, no doubt, true that the right to hold a public meeting is a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India, viz. all citizens shall have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. In Himat Lal v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad : [1973]2SCR266 , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court dealt with the question of a citizen's right to hold a meeting on a public street subject to the control of the appropriate authority and in paragraph 31 at page 95 of the said judgment, Chief Justice Sikri (a...

Rajan A.V. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)ILLJ623Mad

V. Dhanapalan, J.1. Workman has filed this Writ Appeal against the order, dated October 19, 2006, passed in W.P. No. 2774/2001, wherein, the award of the first respondent, ordering reinstatement of the appellant, was set aside by a learned single Judge.2. According to the appellant, he was appointed as a worker in the second respondent management on August 16, 1983 and continuously working as a temporary worker for over 14 years; though he was a daily rated worker, his wages were paid once in a week and for some time he was also engaged as a Boiler Attender; at that time, he filed a Writ Petition before the High Court in W.P. No. 15051/1991 for appointment as a Boiler Operator, which was rejected, observing that as and when the post of Boiler Operator was brought into existence in the respondent's Corporation, the respondent should consider the appellant's case for being appointed in that post; thereafter, on coming to know that he was dismissed from service by the second respondent wi...

infosys Technologies Ltd. Vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009(233)ELT56(Mad); (2008)17VST256(Mad)

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The three writ petitions are filed by the same company. W.P. No. 38544 of 2005 is filed seeking for a declaration declaring that unbranded/customised software developed and sold by the petitioner with or without obligation, for system upgradation, repairs and maintenance or employee training is 'goods' within Article 366(12) of the Constitution of India read with Section 2(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the CST Act') and corresponding to Section 2(j) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, 'the TNGST Act') and, therefore, the petitioner as producer and processors of such software for export is entitled to the beneficial provisions of Section 8(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with Rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. In the light of the declaration, they sought for a restrained order to the respondents from refusing to issue form 'C' declaration and initiating penalty proceedings under ...