Chennai Court April 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax-i Vs. S. Sumathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2009
Reported in: [2009]317ITR422(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. These appeals are at the instance of the revenue filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, dated 13.02.2004 made in M.P. No. 156(Mds)/2003 in ITAs Nos. 369 & 370/Mds/2000 for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96.2. The facts of this case are as follows : The assessee filed returns for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 admitting a total loss of Rs. 44,650/- and Rs. 84,531/-. A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued and after hearing the assessee, the assessing officer arrived at the tax due at Rs. 960/- and Rs. 300/- respectively. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved against the order, the revenue carried the matter on appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Without going into the merits of the case, the Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal...
The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Vs. Umayal Ramanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2009
Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Mad)147; [2009]313ITR59(Mad)
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.2002 made in W.P. No. 33925 of 2002 of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, which was filed challenging the order of the third appellant refusing to exercise its power conferred under Section 279(2) of The Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as Act to compound the offence.2. The facts involved in this case is that the respondent herein was prosecuted by the appellants for the offence under Section 120-B, 420 read with Section 109 IPC and Section 278 of the Act before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Egmore, Madras in EO C.C. No. 637 of 1985 and by order dated 30.11.1998, the said Court convicted and sentenced the respondent herein to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under each of the offences under Section 120B, 420 read with 109 of IPC and under Section 278 of the A...
Commissioner of Income Tax-iii Vs. Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2009
Reported in: [2009]313ITR167(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The revenue is on appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 07.11.2003 made in ITA No. 2176/Mds/1996 for the assessment year 1992-93.2. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 1992-93 on 30.12.1992 declaring taxable income of Rs. 35,62,410/-. The assessing officer, while completing the assessment found that the assessee had paid contribution to gratuity fund amounting to Rs. 7,83,495/- beyond the accounting period. The assessing officer held that the extended due date as per the proviso to Section 43B of the Act was not applicable to gratuity and superannuation fund. He, therefore disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 43B of the Act. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the claim and directed the assessing officer to allow the deduction. The revenue on its turn filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessee has pa...
V. Mohan Ambalam Vs. the Tahsildar-cum-executive Magistrate and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ248
ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. The legality and correctness of the successive orders issued under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the core question to be decided in this Writ Petition.Factual Matrix:Petitioner's Version:2. The petitioner is a member of Kallar community residing in Therkutheru Village in Melur Taluk of Madurai District. There is a well known temple in the said village known as 'Arulmigu Manthai Veeranasamy Temple' and the said temple is managed by the members of the five families belonging to the Kallar community. They have been managing the administration of the temple from time immemorial and the temple was treated as a private temple for all these years. There was a proceeding in O.A.No.89 of 1978 before the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. In the said original application preferred by the members of Kallar community (Ambalak...
Nakoda Dairy (P) Ltd. Rep by Its Director Mr. D. Navrathan Vs. Kewal C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(40)PTC428(Mad)
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. O.A. No. 557 of 2008 is filed seeking injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from infringing the applicant's trade mark Nakoda by using it as their trade mark, e-mail id/trading style or corporate name/service mark, letter heads, exhibits or any other stationery material containing the trade mark Nakoda or issuing advertisements under the brand name Nakoda or by using any other trade mark which is in any way visually, phonetically or deceptively similar to the applicant's registered trade mark Nakoda in the course of their trade and business pending disposal of the suit.2. O.A. No. 558 of 2008 is filed seeking an order of injunction restraining the respondents or their agents from passing off the respondents' goods under the trade name, mark Nakoda with any suffix or prefix and in any manner passing off and/or enabling others to pass off the respondents' goods as and for the applicant's goods or doing any act or deed calculated to deceive the con...
Mr. Uamraj Vs. Shah Poosaji Samrathmal Rep. by Its Kartha Champalal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ1187
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This Revision has been directed against the judgment in RCA.No.864 of 2000 on the file of the Court of VIIth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, which had arisen out of the order passed in RCOP. No. 869 of 1998 on the file of the Court of XVth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The landlord/respondent herein had filed the said RCOP under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The brief averments in the petition are that the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner/landlord in the premises bearing Door No. 58, Perumal Mudali Street, Chennai, for a monthly rent of Rs. 655/-. The tenancy is for non-residential purpose. The tenant had committed default in payment of rent from 01.02.1997. The petitioner requires the petition scheduled building for his son who has no other place for conducting or starting new business of fancy items. Hence, the land...
T. Palanisamy and P. Kumaresan Vs. the Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ987
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Petitioners in W.P.Nos.7731 & 7732/2003 seek Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of 4th Respondent dated 24.02.2003 reverting the writ petitioner in (W.P. No. 7731/2003) from Assistant Manager to Senior Assistant/Clerk and writ petitioner in (W.P. No. 7732/2003) from Clerk to Office Assistant and directing for payment of subsistence allowances.2.Brief facts which led to filing of writ petition are as follows:(i) Writ petitioners who have been working as Assistant Manager and Clerk respectively. On allegations of irregularities and dereliction of duties and responsibilities the writ petitioners were reverted to lower post - Assistant Manager to Clerk and Clerk to Office Assistant. Special Officer initiated disciplinary action against them and accordingly charge memo dated 30.09.2002 and 29.08.2002 respectively were issued to the Petitioners and explanations were called for from them. But Petitioners failed and neglected to submit explanation...
Sri Kaliswari Fire Works Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer-i
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)25VST384(Mad)
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of Declaration declaring that the petitioner above named is not liable to pay additional sales tax in respect of the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 when the petitioner is not liable for payment of additional sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, since their taxable turnover is less than Rs. 25 Crores and further to direct the respondent above named to refund to the petitioner the amount of additional sales tax of Rs. 15,79,415/- paid by the petitioner under protest to get the bank attachment raised.2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Local Act') and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'). The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the respondent. The petitioner filed the monthly returns under the Centr...
Arangasamy Vs. Valarmathy and Gunasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ850
G. Rajasuria, J.1. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 27.10.2006 passed in A.S. No. 37 of 2006 by the Sub-Court, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgement and decree dated 12.4.2006 passed by the District Munsif, Nagapattinam, in O.S. No. 12 of 2003, which was filed for mandatory injunction.2. The appellant herein as plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 12 of 2003 seeking mandatory injunction to remove the construction put up by the defendants in the suit pathway and also to restrain the defendants from interfering with the use of the pathway by the plaintiff on the main ground that ever since he acquired the property, to the East of the suit pathway, he has been using it for ingress and egress to his property and that his predecessor in title, namely, his vendor also was using the same.3. Whereas the defendants entered appearance and resisted the suit by filing written statement remonstrating and refuting the allegations in the...
Dennision Paulraj and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ283
ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioners have come forward with the present writ petition for a declaration declaring Sections 12, 18, 19 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Central Act 43 of 2005) as unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.3. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition, are set out here under:3.1. The first petitioner is the husband of the sixth respondent. Petitioners 2 and 3 are his parents. Petitioners 4 to 6 are his brother, sister in law and sister respectively. The first petitioner married the sixth respondent on 05.07.2004 at C.S.I. Trinity Church, Avadi. It is an arranged marriage. After the marriage, the sixth respondent demanded the first petitioner an extravagant and ultra modern life style and made all the other family members as servants for her simple needs and started picking up quarrels with everyone in the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »