Chennai Court January 2009 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.
J. Jayalalithaa Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3114; (2009)222CTR(Mad)470; [2009]309ITR277(Mad); [2009]179TAXMAN212(Mad)
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. Since common questions arise for consideration in the above Criminal Original Petition and in the above Criminal Revision Case both the cases are disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the above cases are set-out below:(i) The petitioner is the accused in E.O.C.C. No. 263 of 1997 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Economic Offence-I), Egmore, Chennai - 8. The respondent filed a complaint for the alleged offence under Section 35(B) of The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of non-filing of the Wealth Tax Return for the assessment year 1993-1994. The gist of the allegations are as under:(ii) The petitioner is the General Secretary of the political party-All India Anna Dravidar Munnetra Kazhagam (A.I.A.D.M.K.). Earlier she was a Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha). She was also the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu during the period 199...
Kaliyambal and Nagaraj Vs. Padmini @ Gandhimathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1300
ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. Animadverting upon the order dated 20.02.2008 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Puducherry in I.A. No. 723 of 2007 in O.S. No. 271 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent.3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the case of the revision petitioners as stood exposited from the record could be portrayed thus:The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 271 of 2005 before the Sub Court seeking the following reliefs:- declaring the petitioner/plaintiff as an indigent person- for declaration that the petitioner/plaintiff is the absolute owner of 'C' Schedule property which forms the eastern half of I item of 'B' schedule property and item 2 of 'B' schedule properties, i.e. 5 items of lands described in the 'B' Schedule.- for directing the respondents/defendant 9 and 10 to vacate and give vacant possession of 'C'...
Krishnammal and B. Sakthi Balan Vs. Venkatrayalu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: (2009)2MLJ587
ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed seeking to strike off of the plaint in O.S. No. 414 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Cheyyar.2. The nutshell facts giving rise to the filing of this revision petition, as stood exposited from the records as well as the submissions made on both sides, could succinctly and precisely, tersely and briefly be set out thus:According to the learned Counsel for the first revision petitioner/defendant-Krishnammal, she filed the suit O.S. No. 615 of 1967 before the District Munsif Court, Arni, for declaration, possession and injunction relating to the same suit property involved in the present suit O.S. No. 414 of 2008 pending before the District Munsif Court, Cheyyar. The District Munsif Court, Arni, decreed the suit as prayed for. Whereupon the respondents/plaintiffs' father preferred an appeal and the said appeal was dismissed, as against which there was no second appeal. The said Krishnammal executed the decre...
Arya Vysya Samajam Rep. by Its President A.K. Pownraj Chettiyar, Vs. R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Mad108; (2009)6MLJ885
ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. Anim-adverting upon the order dated 19.6.2008 passed in I.A. No. 392 of 2008 in O.S. No. 251 of 2005 by the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.2. The epitome and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the revision petition, would run thus:The respondent, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S. No. 251 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Krishnagiri, seeking the following reliefs:a. to declare the title of the plaintiff into the suit propertyb. to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 and their men from in any manner trespassing into the suit property or occupying the same or putting up any construction thereon or creating any documents in respect of the same;c. to grant permanent injunction restraining the 5th defendant from registering any document that be presented by defendants 1 to 4 or others, other than plaintiff, for registration;d. to direct the defendants 1 to 4 to pay...
The Management, Seyadu Beedi Company Vs. the Appellate Authority Under ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ35Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner, which is the Management of a Beedi Company and owns the trade mark 'Seyadu Beedi', aggrieved by the common order passed by the first respondent in P.G. Appeal Nos. 31/97, 33/97 and 30/97, have filed the present writ petitions.2. By the impugned order dated 20.1.1998, the Appellate Authority had rejected the appeals filed by the petitioner-Management under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'PG Act') and confirmed the order passed by the second respondent-controlling Authority. The contesting respondents were working as beedi workers under one Shahul Hameed, who was originally had a branch at Ambasamudram and subsequently at Brammadesam. He was supplying raw materials such as tobacco, beedi leaves and labels to the contesting 3rd respondents. Since their services were no longer required, they claimed gratuity in respect of the service rendered by them. Therefore, they filed an application before the controlling Authority, ...
Mohammed Abdur Raheem @ Ramuvel Vs. State Bank of India Rep. by Its Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: (2009)2MLJ589
K. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner's services were dispensed with by the order of the second respondent dated 07.6.1999 by exercising the power under Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 read with Paragraph 521 (2)(b) of the Shastri Award. It was stated in the order that the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 498A, IPC and imposed with a penalty of six months imprisonment and also convicted for an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and imposed with a punishment of imprisonment for a period of six months together with a fine of Rs. 500/- by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. This was on account of the complaint given by petitioner's wife Mrs. Rajeswari before the All Women Police Station at Ramanathapuram and the same was registered in Crime No. 12 of 1999. Subsequently, the case was tried as C.C. No. 4 of 1996 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. After the trial, the petitioner was found guilty and was impose...
Mrf Limited Rep. by Its General Manager Vs. the Deputy Chief Inspector ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: (2009)2MLJ571
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The writ petitioner is a public limited company. In this writ petition, the challenge is to the order made by the first respondent Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Vellore, dated 19.11.1998. By the aforesaid order, the first respondent informed the petitioner management that by an order dated 21.7.1997, the approval sent by the department in Form III read with Rule 3(1) and (4)(4) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Rules, 1959 (for short 'NAFH Rules') framed under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 (for short 'NAFH Act') stood cancelled.2. The writ petition was admitted on 18.12.1998 and an interim-stay was granted on the same day. Due to the default on the part of the respondents, the interim order was also made absolute on 27.12.2002. The obligation of the employer was to send a form of list of holidays year after year for approval by the competent author...
R.i. Jebaraj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Its Secretary, Ministry ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Mad127; (2009)2MLJ396
ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. The petitioner is a citizen of India residing at Madras. His brother by name Mr. Rajiah John Premkumar was born and brought up in India. Later, he acquired citizenship of France and admittedly, he is no more a citizen of India. He resides in France. He holds French Passport bearing No. 03TF 750 95. Most of his relatives and family members reside in India. He has got a valid multiple entry visa dated 03.11.2003 issued by Indian High Commission in London, which expired on 02.11.2008.2. Mr. Rajiah John Premkumar came to India by flight No. LH 758 on 19.02.2008. But his landing at Chennai Airport was refused by the second respondent. He was served with an order of the second respondent directing the airport authorities to remove him by the same flight. Accordingly, he was deported to France by the same flight. The petitioner came to know that the first respondent had earlier issued an order restricting the petitioner's brother's entry into India without prior permis...
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: (2009)23VST151(Mad)
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J.1. The petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings dated 18.7.2008 in ROC-2192/99 A3 from the Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai, in respect of the tax dues from a defaulter for the period 1993-1994 to 1997-1998.2. It is seen that in respect of the tax arrears of a defaulter assessee, the respondent herein issued notice in Form IV on 26.8.1999 under the Revenue Recovery Act and attached the property of the assessee. The attachment was published in the District Gazette on 8.12.2000 and notice as to bring the property for sale was published in the newspaper on 4.3.2001. placing reliance on the decision reported in [1999] 115 STC 545 (E.T. & T.D. Corporation Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan) that the State Government's dues have the first charge over any other arrears, the respondent issued notice to the petitioner in Form B6 and called upon the petitioner to remit within fifteen days the amount realised by the Bank towards its dues by au...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jeyabharath Textiles P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: [2009]310ITR301(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated June 29, 2004, in I.T.A. No. 2489/Mds/1996 raising the following questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that replacement of one carding machinery was revenue expenditure ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing a deduction of Rs. 10,10,728 being the amount spent on replacement of one carding machinery deductible as current repairs under Section 31 of the Income-tax Act?2. The facts of the case are as follows:3. The assessee is engaged in manufacture and sale of cotton yarn. For the assessment year 1995-96, a total income of Rs. 9,64,360 was admitted by the assessee whereas the Assessing Of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »