Chennai Court February 2009 Judgments
Tvs Finance and Services Ltd., Jayalakshmi Estates Vs. the Joint Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Mad)546; [2009]318ITR435(Mad)
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The appeals have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:In T.C.(A). No. 107 of 2002:(i) Whether order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting the Appellant's method of accounting income from discounting of bills and holding that the whole of the income from bill discounting accrues at the time of discounting bill and not over the period of discount is correct in law?(ii) Whether the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in allowing the claim for 100% depreciation in respect of asset leased to M/s. Lord Furnace and restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer is correct in law?In T.C.(A) No. 108 of 2002:(i) Whether the provision of Rs. 27,41,000/- made pursuant to the prudential norms towards Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) prescribed by the directions of Reserve Bank of India is an allowable deduction under the Income Tax Act?(ii) Whether the Tribunal o...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sundaram, Vs. Icici Bank Limited Rep. by Its Chairman and Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1119
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The petitioners were originally employees of the Bank of Madura which has since been amalgamated with ICICI Bank, the respondent herein, and they prayed for a writ of mandamus that they should be granted pension in accordance with the Bank of Madura Employees' Pension Regulations. The prayer was not granted both on the ground of maintainability and on merits. Hence the employees have filed this appeal.2. The facts are as follows:On 30.01.1996, the Bank of Madura introduced for the first time the Bank of Madura Employees' Pension Regulations (BoMPR). This was modified in 1999, incorporating provisions relating to the optees of Bank of Madura Employees' Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS in short). Then on 10-03-2001, the Scheme of amalgamation of BoM with ICICI came into effect with the sanction of RBI as per the Banking Regulations Act.3. On 29-06-2001, the representatives of BoM Association and ICICI Bank worked out an agreement to facilitate the integration proces...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ220Mad
S. Palanivelu, J.1. In the petition filed under section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, the following are alleged:The petitioner (first respondent) was working in Carding Department under the second respondent herein and his Ticket number is 1098. The E.S.I. Insurance number is 083938. On 07.01.1995, when he was working in the Carding department, he met with an accident in which his right hand was crushed and the entire finger was cut off. He was admitted to E.S.I. Hospital and was discharged on 06.07.1995. During the said period he was receiving the sickness benefits from the Corporation. At the time of accident, the petitioner's salary was exceeding Rs. 3,000/- and it exceeded only in October 1994. He was within the corresponding benefit period, so that only the other benefits are paid to him. After the discharge from the hospital, the petitioner approached the E.S.I. authorities to pay the disablement benefit, but, they refused by stating that he is not the worker as per E...
Tag this Judgment!Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Van Melle Confectionery I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(243)ELT654(Mad)
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 29.10.2004 and direct the 1st Respondent and other officers to refund a sum of Rs. 23,53,275.96 in terms of Section 74 of Customs Act on the 5 consignments of confectionery re-exported by the Petitioner.2. Facts in brief is that M/s. Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai had re-exported confectionery under 18 shipping bills. The exporter had claimed drawback amount of Rs. 63,84,097/- under Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962. Case of the Petitioner is that goods were re-exported due to the reason that the super confectionery were not able to withstand the Indian climatic conditions and at the time of export, the Officers who examined the cargo have opined that the identity of the goods cannot be established or the market value was less than the drawback claimed in respect of 5 shipping bills and identity was established but market value less than the drawback claimed in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!The University of Madras Represented by Its Registrar and the Institut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ871Mad
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the award of the second respondent Labour Court, dated 6.5.2003, made in I.D. No. 514 of 1995.3. It has been stated that the first respondent and 14 others had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P. No. 8431 of 1986, praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents therein, including the petitioners in the present writ petition, to continue to employ the petitioners in service. After hearing the petitioners, as well as the respondents therein, this Court was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition by an order, dated 2.7.91, on a specific finding that the petitioners, except one K.Balakrishnan, had not worked for the statutory period of 240 days and therefore, the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would not be applicable to them. Ag...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Jaya Vs. the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Tami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ357
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Inasmuch as the issue involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, a common order is being passed.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.3. It has been stated that late N.S. Ramaswami, brother of the petitioner, was the owner of the vacant land in Thiruvanmiyur Revenue Village, Chennai, in S. No. 214/2, measuring 5 grounds and 498 Sq.Ft. The Government of Tamilnadu had acquired 2 grounds and 2298 Sq.Ft., 650 Sq.Mts. or 7080 Sq.Ft., under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. As he was a bachelor, he was allowed to retain 2 grounds and 600 sq.ft. He had died, on 21.2.87, and thereafter, the petitioner had succeeded to his estate, as his sole legal heir.4. It has been stated that the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had been repealed by the State Government by the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulatio...
Tag this Judgment!R. Palanisubramanian Vs. Trans Medica (India) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Mad110
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. These applications are filed seeking interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the applicant/tenant of the applicant and also from alienating the suit property to third parties.2. The applicant would contend that he had entered into an agreement of sale dated 29.9.2005 with the first respondent who was the owner of the flat bearing door No. 20, Vasan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 12,00,000/-. A sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was paid as sale advance by the applicant to the first respondent so as to enable the first respondent to obtain the original title deeds of the suit property from Indian Overseas Bank by clearing the equitable mortgage by them. The first respondent also put the applicant in possession of the property. The agreement also permits the applicant either to use the property for his own purpose or to lease out the same to any third ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sankaran Vs. Sivasubramanian @ M.S.S. Manian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2009
Reported in: (2009)2MLJ657
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.C.R.P. (NPD)(MD) No. 139 of 20041. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/land lord challenging the Order dated 08.04.2004 made in RCA. No. 12 of 2003, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tirunelveli, reversing the Fair and Decreetal Order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 48 of 2001, dated 07.02.2003, on the file of the Rent Controller (Second Additional District Munsif Court), Tirunelveli.2. The petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions is the owner of the scheduled building situated at Block No. 3, Keelapputhu Street @ Bharathirar Street, T.S. Ward. No. 4 in Tirunelveli District. According to the petitioner, the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner on 26.10.1998 and the respondent was allowed to enjoy the building in lieu of interest. When the petitioner issued a notice on 25.04.2001, calling upon the respondent to receive a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and surrender possession of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Technology Development Board by Its Constitutued Attorney, Itcot Consu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2009
Reported in: [2009]152CompCas690(Mad)
P. Jyothimani, J.1. This company petition is filed under Sections 433(e), (f), 434(1)(a) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of the respondent-company and consequently for appointing the official liquidator as liquidator of the said company.2. The respondent is a private limited company having authorised capital of Rs. 175 lakhs consisting of 1,75,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each as on March 31, 1999. The issued, subscribed and paid-up capital of the respondent as on the said date was Rs. 95,20,000 divided into 95,200 equity shares of Rs. 100 each. The petitioner-board is formed for providing financial and other facilities to entrepreneurial start-ups and technology based industries for developing and commercialising their products and M/s. ICICI Venture Funds Management Co. Ltd. (subsequently changed, as M/s. ITCOT Consultancy and Services Ltd.) is the asset manager in respect of several loan accounts. On the respondent approaching the petitioner to part finance the te...
Tag this Judgment!The Committee Representing Rbf Nidhi Limited and ors. Vs. Vipanchi Inv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2009
Reported in: [2009]90SCL217(Mad); (2009)2CTC1
D. Murugesan, J.1. As the issues raised for consideration in all the appeals are common, they are taken up together and disposed of by this order. For convenience, we refer to the facts as put forth by the appellants in O.S.A. Nos. 130 to 132 of 2008 in their Company Applications.2. In a pending Company Petition No. 230 of 2004, the appellants in O.S.A. Nos. 130 to 132 of 2008 filed three Company Applications in C.A. Nos. 1191 to 1193 of 2007 seeking for return of the title deeds morefully described and pertaining to the schedule properties owned by the appellants to an extent of 16.97 acres, 7.14 acres and 20.42 acres respectively in various Survey Numbers in Begapalli Villge, Hosur Taluk, Dharmapuri District and lying within the limits of Begapalli Panchayat and Hosur Panchayat Union, which were pledged by one Mr. Jamsheed M. Panday, Chairman of Zen Global Finance Limited and who happened to be the friend of Mr. S.R. Eshwaran, the Director of the appellants- companies.3. On 25.3.98, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »