Chennai Court June 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 Vs. Shri P.L. Gandhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2009
Reported in: [2009]315ITR110(Mad)
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The common question of law involved in these appeals are,Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued after expiry of 12 months at the end of the month in which a return of income was filed and consequently, the assessment made came to be annulled?2. Admittedly, the returns were all filed on 23.03.1998, 17.03.1998 and 23.03.1998 for the assessment year 1997-98 whereas the notice under Section 143(2) came to be issued on 17.08.1999 in respect of all the three returns.3. Having regard to the specific provision contained in Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, the notices ought to have been issued on or before 31.03.1999. Any attempt made at the instance of the assessment officer to explain away the delay involved will be of no avail. In such circumstances, though this statutory discrepancy, which strikes at the very root of the issue came to be...
Dr. Lodd Surendardas Vs. Lodd Narendradas and Lodd Jayendradas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ747
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The correctness of the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge granting probate of the last Will and testament of Lodd Balamukundas to the respondents herein, is canvassed in this appeal.2. The respondents herein along with their mother Yashoda Bai filed a probate application before this Court in respect of the last Will and testament of Lodd Balamukundas for grant of probate. As the appellant herein filed caveat. the probate application has been converted into TOS and numbered as 25 of 1997. It is the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the second and third plaintiffs one Lodd Balamukundas executed his last Will on 02.03.1975 at Madras. One of the sons of the testator Dr. Lodd Surendradas has contested the suit by contending that the said Will was not true, valid and binding on him; that the same was not executed by his father in a sound and disposing state of mind; that there was no valid execu...
Sri Mangilal JaIn Vs. the Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2009
Reported in: [2009]315ITR105(Mad)
B. Rajendran, J.1. The assessee is the appellant. The assessee is an individual deriving income from business as a dealer in radio and spare parts. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1992-93, the Assessing Authority found that there was a total sum of Rs. 90,000/- appearing as credit in the assessee's books of account in the name of R. Subramanian and the assessing authority did not accept the claim that this was a genuine credit from the said person and he treated the said sum as assessee's income from undisclosed source Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee also claimed deduction of Rs. 14,580/- as interest on such credit and as it represented the interest on the alleged debt, the same was disallowed by the assessing authority.2. Against the said order of the assessing authority, the assessee filed appeal before the C.I.T (Appeals) and the Commissioner after enquiry and on production of the alleged letter of confirmation from a th...
Parvathammal, Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supply Corporation Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ751
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The only question that we have to decide in this Letters Patent Appeal is the question of limitation and whether the suit filed by the respondent Corporation is time barred.2. The Civil Supplies Corporation filed O.S. No. 49 of 1983, the date of institution being 2.12.1982, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,73,794/-. As per the averments in the plaint, the cause of action arose on 26.9.1974 when the defendant executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff for procurement and hulling of Kuruvai paddy, for which the defendant/appellant had deposited Rs. 25,000/- as security. There was a quality cut in respect of the rice supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff and the defendant did not return the gunny bags. As per the cause of action paragraph, the plaintiff fixed the date on which the cause of action arose as 3.10.1980, when the District Collector was directed to invoke the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. However, the plaintiff was aware of the difficult...
Sumitra Menon Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2009
Reported in: [2009]315ITR111(Mad)
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The assessee has come forward with this appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 19.11.2008, in I.T.A. No. 79/MDS/2008, for the assessment year 2004-05.2. The grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with that part of the order of the C.I.T.(Appeals), in and by which, the assessment order was set aside and the assessing authority was directed to rehear and re-determine the issue afresh.3. According to the appellant, without serving proper notice on the appellant and above all by effecting service on a total stranger, the assessing officer had passed the impugned order of assessment dated 29.11.2006 and that the said order was set aside by the C.I.T. (Appeals), for the said irregularity in the service of notice to the appellant, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of C.I.T.(Appeals).4. However forceful the contention of the appellant may be, we do not find any scope to entertain this appeal, ...
Krishnamoorthy Vs. Sivakumar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ1255
ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner herein was elected as the President of Thekkampatti Panchayat, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District, in the elections held on 13.10.2006. Challenging his election on the sole ground that he filed a false declaration suppressing details of the criminal cases pending trial against him and that therefore his nomination ought to have been rejected by the Returning Officer, the first respondent herein filed Election O.P. No. 296 of 2006 on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore. It was allowed by the learned District Judge, declaring the election of the petitioner herein as null and void and directing a fresh election to be conducted. Challenging the said order upsetting his election, the petitioner has come up with the present Civil Revision Petition.2. I have heard Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent, Mr. Srinath Sridevan, le...
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Saravanan (infirmity) Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ715
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The irresponsibility on the part of owners who allow their vehicles to be driven by persons who do not possess a valid driving license and the tragic consequences that visit an innocent third party on account of this irresponsibility is the subject of this appeal.2. The claimant, who is indisputably in a vegetative condition because of the accident, is represented by his next friend, his wife. He was 33 years at the time of the accident, which occurred on 26.10.2002. He was a Lecturer in the Physics Department in Kaveri Polytechnic. His injuries are of such nature that he has to take continuous medical treatment. This misfortune fell on him because the second respondent allowed one of his relatives, who did not have a license, to drive his motorcycle. Because of his lack of expertise, the driver of the insured vehicle drove the motorcycle at an uncontrollable speed and hit the claimant, who was going to his house. After the accident, the claimant was admitted in S...
M. Nagarajan Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and State of Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2009
Reported in: (2009)25VST175(Mad)
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the auction notice Na. Ka. No. A3/626/01 dated 5th Feb., 2007, issued by the respondent for auction sale of the land in question. While the petitioner has questioned the auction sale on the ground that the land has already been sold and transferred in his favour, the stand taken by the respondents is that the respondents having first charge over the property, they have the right to sell the property.2. One Jay Flash Ceramics Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'company'), borrowed huge amounts from a consortium headed by the Indian Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') in the year 1990 and mortgaged the property measuring 12.92 acres on 1st Aug., 1990 in Ongur village and Kambur village, Tindivanam, in favour of the Bank. The mortgage was created by the company along with its Directors giving personal guarantee. The company, having failed to discharge its liability, the bank proceeded against it for recovery of debt in...
Central Bank of India, Mount Road Branch Rep. by Its Senior Manager Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ499
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The main plea taken by the appellant-Bank is that the 1st respondent borrower cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong having failed to utilise the opportunity to make counter claim Under Section 19(8) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRT Act'). The claim as was made by the Bank before the DRT and the damages as claimed by the 1st respondent, the two claims being interlinked, after decision of DRT the Banking Ombudsman cannot give an independent finding.2. For disposal of the case it is necessary to notice relevant facts as mentioned hereunder:In Feb., 1997, the Bank filed O.A. No. 156/97 against the 1st respondent Under Section 19 of the DRT Act before the Tribunal for recovery of dues from the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent had no knowledge of the same, who filed a complaint Under Section 16 of the Scheme claiming damages as mentioned above. After getting reply from the ...
N. Rajachandrasekaran Vs. the Secretary to Government, Public (Special ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ701
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. As all the writ petitions relate to selection and appointment to the post of District Judge by direct recruitment and common order of selection and appointment of contesting respondents 3 to 11 are under challenge, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.The petitioner, N. Rajachandrasekaran of W.P. No. 3102/05 has sought for declaration that selection of respondents 3 to 11 as District Judges by direct recruitment in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service as illegal and ultra vires Articles 223 and 233 of the Constitution of India.Petitioner, D.Parisuthanathan of W.P. No. 7588/06 has challenged the appointment of the aforesaid respondents.The same very petitioner, D.Parisuthanathan has preferred the other writ petition, W.P. No. 1285/09 against the order contained in letter R.O.C. No. 575/2007 RTI dated 23rd June, 2008, whereby the 2nd respondent, Deputy Registrar - Right to Information, has shown inability to provide information wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »