Chennai Court August 2008 Judgments

Tamil Nadu Road Development Co. Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu Information Commis ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]145CompCas248(Mad); 2009(243)ELT171(Mad); (2008)6MLJ737

A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated July 17, 2008, passed by a learned judge of the writ court, whereby the learned judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition and inter alia upheld the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission dated May 21, 2008, whereby the State Commission, the first respondent herein, held that the appellant is a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RTI Act') and directed the appellant to furnish the required information to the second respondent.2. The material facts of the case which are not disputed are that the second respondent in her letter dated October 21, 2007, requested the appellant to furnish the following details:(i) Who are the contractors for constructing the IT corridor ?(ii) Copies of contract agreements with the contractors constructing the IT corridor ?(iii) Copies of documents published by TNRDC or other consul...

K.R. Palanisamy and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Mad)323; [2008]306ITR61(Mad); [2009]180TAXMAN253(Mad)

ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. In all these cases, the constitutional validity of Section 50C of the IT Act, 1961 introduced by Finance Act, 2002 with effect from the asst. yr. 2003-04 is questioned.2. The grounds of attack and argument made for and against are one and the same, though the transferred capital asset involved and the consideration received is different in each of the case, which is immaterial to decide the validity of the provision. Hence, Writ Petn. No. 4387 of 2003 is taken up as a typical case for the purpose of narration of facts:The writ petitioner K.R. Palanisamy is an assessee on the file of the ITO, Tirupur. The assessee on 3rd June, 1981 purchased plot Nos. 9 and 10 from one S. Krishnamoorthy and S. Subramani and was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The assessee decided to sell the said property. Plot No. 9 was sold to one E. Vignesh Velavan on 15th July, 2002. He was able to get only a sale consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs due to recession. However, the gui...

The Special Officer, Mandapam, Ramanathapuram District Vs. Muniasamy a ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The above appeal is filed challenging the order of the District Forum, Ramanathapuram, in COP No.27/2003, directing the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- to the complainant / respondents, towards mental agony and further directing to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- to the complainant towards the cost. 2. The respondents/ complainants 1 to 3 have filed the complaint before the District Forum to the effect that they have availed loan for the purchase of fishing boat from the appellant / opposite party during 1995 and during 1997, the boat has met with an accident and sunk in the sea and necessary complaints were given to the local police station and as well to the appellant / Society, which has advanced loan. According to the respondents, the then President of the society, with the malafide intention, has not accepted the fact that the boat was sunk and took a stand that the complainant intended to cheat the society, with a view to avoid payment of the...

Tamilnadu Warehousing Corporation Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Incom ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Mad)392; [2009]309ITR252(Mad); [2009]180TAXMAN95(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 27.09.2007 passed in ITA No. 1487/Mds/2002.2. The appellant is the Tamilnadu Warehousing Corporation established under the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 and is owned by the Government of Tamilnadu. The appellant is an assessee under the respondent. For the assessment year 1998-99, the assessee filed returns and claimed exemption under Section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the income derived from the activities carried on by the assessee, and those are warehousing charges, supervision charges, weigh bridge receipts, DESS receipts, rent receipts (quarters), interest on staff advances, fumigation receipts, interest on bank deposit, etc., The said exemption was claimed on the premise that the appellant is an authority constituted under law for marketing of commodities and any income derived from letting out the godowns and warehouses for s...

Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Board for Indus ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]145CompCas24(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. In this appeal, the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. assailed the order of this Court dated February 20, 2008, made in W. P. No. 8846 of 2007 (Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Board For Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (No. 1) [2008] 145 Comp Cas 9 non-suiting the appellant herein for the relief of setting aside the order of the first respondent-Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'BIFR') dated July 27, 2005, whereby a scheme has been sanctioned for rehabilitation of the third respondent-company and that of the order of the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'AAIFR'), dated October 12, 2006, made in Appeal No. 107 of 2005 confirming the order of the BIFR.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The appellant is 26.06 per cent, equity shareholder of the third respondent-company, a hundred per cent, export-oriented unit ...

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager Vs. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ519

M. Venugopal, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant/second respondent as against the award dated 17.08.2004 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 555 of 2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Principal Sub Court, Dindigul, awarding a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till date of payment.2. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/second respondent Insurance Company has focussed this appeal before this Court.3. The necessary facts of the claim are as follows:The first respondent/claimant sustained fractures on his left hand, left leg thigh, right leg below knee, loss of two teeth and multiple injuries all over the body on account of the motor vehicle accident that took place on 18.05.2002 at about 07.15 p.m on Dindigul - Vedasandur main road near Bharath Petrol Bunk. At the time of the occurrence, the first respondent/claimant was walking from north to sou...

Wescare (India) Limited Vs. Subuthi Finance Limited and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR278(Madras)

A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called 'ACA') was filed on 12.07.2007 by M/s. Wescare (India) Limited, praying for appointment of a sole arbitrator to arbitrate upon the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents arising out of an agreement dated 24.02.2006 and pass an award thereof.2. The material facts are that the petitioner, first respondent and the second respondent are all companies registered under the Companies Act and having their registered offices in Chennai.3. The case of the petitioner is that it is engaged inter alia in the business of setting up of operation and management of wind farms for generation of power from wind electric generators. The first respondent is the promoter of the second respondent and both the first and the second respondents approached the petitioner sometime in the month of January/February 2006 to the effect that they were in the process of developing the busin...