Chennai Court January 2009 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.i. Property Development Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]313ITR177(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Revenue is on appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated July 10, 2003, in I.T.A. No. 415/Mds/1996 by formulating the following question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 17,31,850 made out of the head office expenses and also the addition of 10 per cent. of Rs. 1,73,185 towards estimated profits on contract receipts is valid in law?2. The assessee-company is engaged in the business of construction of flats, contract and real estates. During the year, the assessee-company was being converted into a public limited company from a company in which public are not substantially interested. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the head office was controlling the project and, therefore, some expenditure of the Madras head office should be allocated ...

K.P. Padmavathy Vs. N. Varadarajan

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ224

ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioner is wife of respondent. Their marriage was solemnised on 5.9.2005 at Bannari Amman Temple. Both of them are registered medical practitioners even at the time of marriage. The petitioner was working at Sathyamangalam Primary Health Centre and also running a private clinic at P.Puliampatti and the respondent was at Chennai and running a clinic at Royapuram. They have no issues.2. In the original petition, the petitioner has graphically narrated the events which took place on the first night itself and on subsequent occasions and as per her version she has been continuously facing much difficulties in having sexual relationship with the respondent and in fact those days during which she lived with him were painful and it constitutes the grounds of cruelty and impotency for seeking the relief of annulling the marriage between them or in the alternative dissolving the same by a decree of divorce.3. In the counter filed in the Original Petition the resp...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kodanadu Tea Estate Company

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]317ITR418(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Revenue is on appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, dated November 20, 2003, in I. T. A. Nos. 1158/Mds/2001. The relevant assessment year is 1988-89.2. The facts of this case are as follows: For the assessment year 1988-89, the assessee filed a return of income on April 20, 1988, declaring a loss of Rs. 4,72,580. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and was reopened by issuance of notice under Section 148, dated March 15, 1999. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee has claimed interest liabilities to the Canara Bank, Bangalore, and the Syndicate Bank, Bangalore, as deductions, that these liabilities were not related to the business of the firm and that they were personal liabilities of the partners. As this was a wrongful claim, the assessment was reopened for disallowance and notice under Section 148 was issued asking the assessee to substantiate its claim of...

Devandran L. Vs. Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribu ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ895Mad

ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. In W.P. No. 24987/2006, the petitioner has challenged a charge memo, dated June 27, 2006, issued by the Executive Engineer (Operation and Maintenance), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai.2. In W.P. No. 26857/2008, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated June 12, 2008 of the Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai, first respondent herein and consequently prayed for a direction to the first respondent to consider and include his name in the panel to the post of Foreman Grade I, dated June 26, 2006 and promote him as Foreman Grade-I with all attendant benefits, placing his name just above his junior and for further orders.3. In the latter writ petition, the petitioner has challenged his non-inclusion in the panel to the post of Foreman Grade I, dated June 26, 2006, due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, which is challenged in the former writ petition. As the petitioner's right to be included in the said panel depends u...

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. C. Kalaiselvi and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ148

R. Sudhakar, J.1. The National Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 01.08.2003 made in O.P No. 372 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court No. 4,) Poonamallee.2. Respondents appeared through counsel. At the request of both sides, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.3. It is a case of fatal. The accident in this case happened on 08.07.2000 at 11.40 hours. The deceased Chandrasekar aged about 43 years a brick works owner and agriculturists was riding a motor cycle and was proceeding near Vadapalani on the 100 ft. road. He was hit by a lorry bearing registration No. TN-28-X-2610 insured with the appellant. In that accident, he died. The wife aged about 35 years, two minor children aged 16 and 14 years respectively and mother aged 70 years are the claimants. They claimed a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation stating that the income of the deceased is Rs. 7,500/- per month.4. In support of the claim, the so...

T.V. Antony Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Governmen ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ339

ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.2. It has been stated that the lands in Survey No. 43/2B-1A of Pulikoradu Village of Tambaram had been purchased by A. Heera, the vendor of the petitioner, on 17.1.62, under Document No. 92/1962, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Tambaram. The lands are agricultural lands. The petitioner had purchased 1 acre and 2 cents of punja lands from a larger extent of the agricultural lands belonging to A. Heera, by a registered sale deed, dated 13.12.80, registered as Document No. 6010 of 1980, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Tambaram.3. It has been further stated that the petitioner's vendor, A. Heera, had filed a return, under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, in respect of her urban lands. The authorities concerned, while considering her claims, had also included the agricultural lands belongi...

R. Elumalai Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, R ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ853

ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner has stated that an extent of about 12 cents of agricultural land, in Survey No. 34/1 of Menambedu Village, Ambattur Taluk, had been purchased by him by means of a sale deed, dated 10.11.1959, vide Document No. 3193/59, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Sembium. The said property had been sold to the petitioner by one Murugappa Reddiar and his son, Munuswamy. From the date of its purchase, the land in question had been in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. However, it was learnt that the land in Survey No. 34/1 of Menambedu Village , had been acquired by the third respondent, without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner had come to know about the acquisition only when the revenue officials inspected the land in the month of September, 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner had contacted the office of t...

S. Pattabhiraman Vs. Registrar of Companies

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]148CompCas705(Mad); [2009]96SCL305(Mad)

P. Jyothimani, J.1. This company petition is filed under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying to relieve the petitioner wholly or partly from the liabilities as shown in the show-cause notice dated July 23, 2005, issued by the respondent-the Registrar of Companies.2. The petitioner was one of the directors of Logix Electronics P. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having the authorised share capital as on March 31, 1999, of Rs. 5 lakhs divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each.3. The main object of the company is to manufacture, assemble, erect, install, purchase, import, export, equip, sell, etc., the micro processor based process control instruments, digital analog systems and industrial automation, apart from designing, developing, engineering, altering, etc., hardware, software, process control instrumentation and also to act as consultant and advisor on process control instrumentation and industrial automation and to render organisation ...

Beml Ltd. Vs. Beml Midwest Ltd.

Court: Company Law Board CLB Chennai

1. The petitioner has invoked the equitable jurisdiction of the Company Law Board under sections 397, 398, 402, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956 (“the Act”) with a view to bringing to an end the matters complained of in the affairs of M/s. BEML MIDWEST LIMITED (“the Company”) and claiming against the respondents 3 to 5 and 7, the following reliefs :- (a) to declare that the acts of the respondents 3 to 5 are prejudicial to the interest of the Company and are oppressive against the petitioner and public at large; (b) to declare that the respondents 3 to 5 have failed in their fiduciary duties towards the Company and direct the respondents 2 to 5 to reimburse a sum of Rs. 11 crore to Company along with interest at the rate of 24 per cent from 1-4-2008 up to date of repayment; (c) to appoint an investigator to enquire into misfeasance and misdemeanours committed by the respondents 3 to 5; (d) to appoint a committee of management in supersession of the B...

T. Selvapandy Vs. the Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Educ ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ1560

V. Dhanapalan, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred one by the individual and the other by the school management aggrieved over the common order passed by a learned single Judge, confirming the orders of respondents 1 and 2 in W.A. No. 1252 of 2008, setting aside the appointment of T. Selvapandy, appellant in W.A. No. 1184 of 2008, as Headmaster by the School Committee in the W.P.A. Soundarapandian Higher Secondary School, in short 'the School'.2. The post of Headmaster fell vacant on the erstwhile Headmaster A. Moses Samuel Chelliah attaining superannuation on 31.05.2004. Pursuant to his retirement, the third respondent, namely, Vajravelu was appointed as In-charge Headmaster. Since the school was run by a Sangam, the management formed a school committee to select the Headmaster from the eligible candidates.3. The claim of the school in the Writ Petition was that interview was conducted by the committee, calling upon all the eligible P.G. Assistant Teachers working at that time ...