Chennai Court July 2008 Judgments
Sivasamy, Vs. Poomalai,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)CTC294; (2009)1MLJ441
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. One unfortunate Masi Ambalam died on 01.11.1987. We do not know whether his end came by fair means or foul. It is evident that the parties herein including his only daughter were more interested in the suit properties than him.2. The plaintiff, who is the first respondent, is the daughter of Masi Ambalam. She filed the suit for injunction and declaration that she is the owner of 'A' schedule property, for partition of 'B' schedule property and for injunction and alternatively for possession. Her mother pre-deceased her father. There was no other issue. Masi Ambalam died intestate. The plaintiff learnt that her father was abducted by the third defendant on 08.09.1987 and later he was reported to have died on 01.11.1987, allegedly killed by the third defendant and his henchmen. As the sole legal heir of Masi Ambalam, the plaintiff performed the Karumadi on 16.11.1987 at Tiruvayyaru. The plaintiff had also given a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruvonam ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Zonal Officer-v, Corporation of Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2008
Reported in: [2010]320ITR491(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench dated June 9, 2006, in I.T.A. No. 1198/Mds/2002, raising the following questions of law:1. If the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not clear according to the Tribunal, whether the Tribunal is vested with powers to remit back the matter to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the circumstances of the case instead of the Assessing Officer ?2. When the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not satisfied both on the merits and also did not condone the delay in filing the appeal without setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) relating to the non-condonation of delay in filing the appeal, whether the Tribunal was empowered to remit back the matter directly to the Assessing Officer ?3. Whether the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is sustainable...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Enterprises Vs. Omega Cables Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: [2008]145CompCas56(Mad); [2009]91SCL54(Mad)
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This appeal challenges an order of dismissal made by the learned single judge in Company Petition No. 108 of 1994.2. The court heard learned Counsel for the appellant. No representation on the side of the respondent, despite service.3. Seeking an order of winding up under Sections 433(e), 434(1)(a) and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, the appellant herein/petitioner came with specific allegations that the petitioner supplied PVC compound and other raw materials to the respondent under various invoices during May, June and July, 1976 and in respect of the said supplies, a sum of Rs. 1,64,914.41 was due and payable by the respondent-company as detailed in the petition ; that there was practice of payment of 18 per cent, interest per annum ; that again in the year 1984, there was supply made under three invoices, amounting to Rs. 1,755.52, Rs. 2,100 and Rs. 3006.75 on May 10,1984, May 11,1984 and July 21, 1984, respectively ; that many a reminder was made ; that the r...
Tag this Judgment!Deen Dayal Medical and Educational Trust Vs. Housing and Urban Develop ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Mad81; (2009)1MLJ875
ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This Writ Petition has been preferred by an Educational Trust praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent dated 24-2-2007 proceedings No. HUDCO/DDMET/2007/33360 and the consequential order of the third respondent dated 15-6-2007 in proceedings No. HUDCO/OW/DDMET/2007, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to process the application of the petitioner for loan dated 20-7-2006.2. Factual details as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are as under:(a) The petitioner is an Educational Trust functioning at Chennai and they have submitted an application on 17-7-2006 to the fourth respondent for availing loan for construction of building and purchase of equipments for the proposed medical college. The fourth respondent called upon the petitioner to pay the process fee and to apply in the prescribed format and accordingly, the petitioner made an appli...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Rep. by Its Chairman-cum-managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: (2009)ILLJ425Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. W.P. No. 37547/2005 is filed by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short, 'HPCL'), a Public Sector Undertaking, against the Award dated March 14,2005 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribuna cum Labour Court, Chennai (for short, 'CGIT') in I.D. No. 311/2004 in granting relief of regularisation to the respondents 3 to 10 from the date of their alleged retrenchment with all attendant benefits including back wages quantified at 50%.2. W.P. No. 12772/2006 is filed by eight workmen challenging the very same Award dated March 14,2005 as well as the order dated September 19,2005 made in I.A. No. 239/2005 and seeks for regularisation of their service from the date of completion of 480 days of service of their service, which was denied by the CGIT.3. The writ petition filed by the Management of the HPCL was admitted on November 21, 2005 and an interim stay was granted on the same day. Subsequently, when the workmen filed a petition for vacating the...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Krishna Woollen Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator of F.D. St ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: [2008]144CompCas720(Mad); [2009]89SCL355(Mad)
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This appeal challenges an order of the learned single judge in Company Application No. 1126 of 1989 in Company Petition No. 73 of 1985 Kasturi and Sons Ltd. v. F.D. Stewart P. Ltd. and Official Liquidator v. Shree Krishna Woollen Mills P. Ltd. [2003] 113 Comp Cas 438 (Mad), whereby the appellant was directed to pay the official liquidator a sum of Rs. 1,47,797.60 with interest at 12 per cent, per annum from August 30, 1984, till the date of payment.2. The court heard learned Counsel on either side.3. The claim was made by the official liquidator by making the instant application stating that a sum of Rs. 1,47,797.60 along with interest of Rs. 1,53,298.65 from August 30, 1984, thus totalling to Rs. 3,01,096.25, along with interest till date of payment is payable by the appellant herein; that the company in liquidation was ordered to be wound up by an order dated September 7, 1987, in Company Petition No. 73 of 1985; that the erstwhile managing director of the compa...
Tag this Judgment!B.V.V. Paper Industries Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: [2008]145CompCas815(Mad); (2008)18VST262(Mad)
P. Jyothimani J.1. Heard K. Hema Karthikeyan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and V. Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. The writ petitioner-company is a public limited company operating from the year 1989 onwards, engaged in the manufacture and sale of finished paper, newsprint and other ancillary products. The petitioner-company has also registered under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner-company has become sick, since it could not meet out the statutory requirements, a reference was filed before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter called as 'the BIFR'), under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SICA') for declaring the company as a 'sick company' and also for effecting rehabilitation. It is stated that the BIFR by an order dated May 9, 2001, has declared the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Its Divisional Manager Vs. G. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: (2009)ILLJ181Mad
M. Venugopal, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/second respondent The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, dissatisfied with the award dated July 15, 2004 passed in W.C. No. 200/2002 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai/Tribunal.2. The first respondent/petitioner has filed a claim petition before the Commissioner/Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 4,78,560/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty only) and the Commissioner/Tribunal after contest, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has passed an award on July 15,2004 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,08,146/- (Rupees One Lakh Eight Thousand One Hundred and Forty Six only) and directed the appellant/second respondent Insurance Company to deposit the said sum within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the said sum shall carry an interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of pe...
Tag this Judgment!Gajendran Vs. Smt. Vasantha Bai and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Reported in: (2009)2MLJ159
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 983 of 1996 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and for mesne profits.2. The averments in the plaint sans irrelevant particulars are as follows: The plaintiff, first defendant and second defendant are the children of one Saradhambal, who got the plaint schedule property bearing No. 109, Bazaar Road, Periapattai, Mambalam Zamin, Saidapet, Madras-15, under a settlement deed dated 05.02.1953. There was a mortgage over the said property, which was to be discharged by the settlee. Mrs.Saradhambal, the settlee under the settlement deed dated 05.02.1953 had discharged the mortgage and she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till her death on 12.05.1980. Before her death she had put up the first floor and had rented out the front portion of the suit property to various tenants. She was getting...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Late N. Kasi Viswanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Reported in: [2008]305ITR371(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated May 28, 2007, in I.T.A. No. 667/Mds/05, by formulating the following question of law:In the light of the Explanation to Section 54EA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whether it is the net consideration received that is to be invested as contemplated by the statute for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 54EA of the Act or it would be sufficient if any other amount equivalent to the same is invested even before the date of receipt of the compensation?2. The assessee is an individual. The relevant assessment year is 2000-01. The assessee filed a return of income estimating a total income of Rs. 29,93,550. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act. In the return, it was found that the assessee had received enhanced compensation in respect of the land compulsorily acquired from him by the Government. The amount of enhanced compensation received durin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »