Chennai Court July 2009 Judgments
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board Rep. by Its Member Secretary Vs. M. Kirub ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ708
D. Murugesan, J.1. An extent of 96.92 acres of land was notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act vide G.O.Ms. No. 1096, Housing & Urban Development Department dated 17.7.78 for the formation of Besant Nagar Extension Phase-II Scheme. The proposed land was conveniently divided into five blocks. After the conduct of Section 5-A enquiry, Section 6 declaration was made and ultimately an award was passed. The land belonging to the respondents 1 to 11 in an extent of 0.77 acres registered in the name of one Thiru K. Munusamy was also notified and ultimately an award was passed in respect of the said land also. The possession of the land was also taken and was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 30.10.86 for the purpose of the proposed housing scheme. There is no dispute that the acquisition proceedings have become final.2. We are concerned only with an extent of 0.77 acres in Survey No. 87/1 belonging to the respondents 1 to 11. It appears that some ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank Rep. by Authorised Officer Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ659; (2009)25VST187(Mad)
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Indian Bank (for brevity 'Bank'), which is a secured creditor under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'SARFAESI Act, 2002') has preferred this writ appeal against the judgment dated 17.9.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 18975 of 2007.2. The said writ petition was preferred by the Bank against the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No. 01 dated 5.1.2007 and consequential order bearing No. NK.A3.2310/2002 dated 16.3.2007, so far as it relates to the property situated at Plot No. 97, SIDCO Industrial Estate, SIPCOT, Ranipet. By the aforesaid proceedings, the auction conducted by the Bank in regard to the property in question was held to be void on the ground that the State Government has priority over the property for the owner having not paid the arrears of tax due to the Government, which is outstanding and the said action has been initiated under Revenue Recovery Act f...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Jewellers and Yogesh Palke Alias Yogesh Achar (Decd. by Lrs) Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Mad)79; [2009]315ITR328(Mad); [2009]184TAXMAN491(Mad)
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In both the writ appeals, one filed by the firm and the other by the partner of the firm, as a common question of law is involved, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The appellant in W.A. No. 970 of 2001, viz., M/s. Canara Jewellers is a partnership firm. It is an individual assessee of income-tax. The appellant in W.A. No. 971 of 2001, viz., Sri Yogesh Achar, is the partner of the firm and he is also an individual income-tax assessee. Both the appellants were assessed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. The Assessing Officer subsequently reopened the assessment of the firm with regard to the assessment year 1991-92 so as to bring for assessment the value of the undisclosed stock of gold, etc. During the course of the assessment proceeding for the assessment year 1992-93, the Assessing Officer found from the ornaments register that the opening balance of gold as per the register as...
Tag this Judgment!Ordinance Clothing Factory Workers Union Rep. by Its Secretary, N.J. R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ269
ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. 'Whether the employees of the Ordinance Clothing Factory and Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai, the defence establishments under the Ministry of Defence, are subject to the Army Act so as to get exemption from paying Profession Tax under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act' is the question posed for resolution in these writ petitions.2. The members of the petitioner Unions are all employed in various cadres in the second respondent factories which are the defence establishments under the Ministry of Defence, serving the needs of the defence forces. It is the contention of the petitioners that these employees are working in tandem with the defence persons for the security of the country. These establishments are in and around Avadi falling within the limits of the third respondent Municipality governed by the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. The third respondent has initiated proceedings to collect Profession Tax under Section 124-D of the Tami...
Tag this Judgment!Bsa-regal Group Ltd. Vs. Tube Investments of India Ltd. Rep. by Its Vi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: LC2009(1)25
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. Application No. 1391 of 2009 is filed praying to reject the plaint. Interim reliefs are sought in O.A. Nos. 31 and 32 of 2009 seeking to restrain the respondents from infringing the applicant's trade marks and from passing off the motorcycles, motorcycle parts, components and accessories by use of the applicant's trade marks.2. For the sake of clarity, the applicants in O.A. Nos. 31 and 32 of 2009 are referred as plaintiffs and the applicants in Application No. 1391 of 2009 is referred as defendants.3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:The plaintiff carries on an established business as manufacturers and marketers of various goods including bicycles and components thereof. One of the plaintiffs divisions M/s. T.I. Cycles has been engaged in manufacturing and marketing bicycles under the leading brand names BSA and Hercules. The plaintiff has been using the trade mark BSA for cycles and its related goods for the past five decades. The plaintiff is...
Tag this Judgment!Operating Lease and Hire Purchase Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: [2010]186TAXMAN491(Mad)
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The assessee has come forward with this appeal, raising the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to deduction in respect of reversal of income which was offered to tax on the basis of Hire Purchase transaction which did not materialize?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not appreciating that the amount of income offered in the earlier year has become irrecoverable and hence the same is allowable as bad debt or business loss?(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to deduction in respect of interest on Inter Corporate Deposit availed in the earlier assessment year but crystallized for payment only in the current assessment year?2. As far as the first two questions a...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Manager and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mr. T. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: 2010ACJ382
N. Kirubakaran, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award of a sum of Rs. 5,85,000/- as against the claim of Rs. 10,00,000/- by the respondents 1 to 3/claimants.FACTUAL MATRIX2. The case of the respondents/claimants before the Tribunal was that one Mr. Ragavendran, a final year B.E., (Automobile Engineering) student, met with an accident on 13.04.2006 and died on the spot due to multiple injuries.3. According to the claimants, the deceased died when he was riding the motor cycle from the East to West in Melur-Trichy N.H. Main road and the fourth respondent driver drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner from West to East and came to the wrong side and dashed against the motor cycle in the southern side of the road and then went off the road and dashed against the Tamarind tree in the southern side of the road and thereby the deceased C.Ragavendran thrown out from the motor cycle and died on the way to Hospital. According to the claimants, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P and C Constructions (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2009
Reported in: [2009]318ITR113(Mad)
B. Rajendran, J.1. The Revenue filed these appeals against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'D', made in I.T.A. Nos. 2557 and 2558/Mds/05, dated October 31, 2007.2. The Assessing Officer, while completing the proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147, brought to tax the retention money and additional security deposit in the account of the assessee. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee omitted to admit the entire contract receipts that had been shown in the TDS certificate and in the profit and loss account. Aggrieved against the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer in relation to the retention money as well as the additional security deposit. Aggrieved against the said order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the decisions rendered by th...
Tag this Judgment!Indiabulls Finance Services Limited and Vs. Jubilee Plots and Housing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ365
ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.6.2009 in I.A. No. 8567 of 2009 in O.S. No. 4553 of 2009 on the file of the learned XV Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, whereby and whereunder an order of ex parte injunction was granted against the revision petitioners restraining them from dealing with or presenting the cheques and promissory notes issued by the respondents till the petitioners exhaust their rights against the secured properties.Suit Relief:2. The suit in O.S. No. 4553 of 2009 was instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs against the revision petitioners/defendants with the following prayer:(i) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner dealing with or presenting the cheques issued by the plaintiffs morefully described in the 1st schedule hereunder till the defendants exhaust its rights against the secured properties.(ii) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manne...
Tag this Judgment!N. Sthirasundari and N. Jayalakshmi Vs. V. Kalyani,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ227
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard Mr. K.M. Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and Mr. R. Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The Testatrix, who served as an high ranking Civil servant in the Central Government and the wife of a freedom fighter Late N. Krishnaswamy, (who was incarcerated along with the freedom fighter like Sri. Jamanlal Bajaj), left a Will on her own accord and bequeathed substantial portion of the properties to the Cancer Institute at Chennai. The executors of the Will filed a Original Petition before this Court for the grant of probate as soon as the death of the testatrix on 15.9.2005. The O.P. which was presented before this Court on 7.12.2005 was admitted on 24.3.2006. On notice, the respondents 1, 4 and 5 have filed consent affidavits, expressing no objection to the grant.3. Insofar as the applicants are concerned, they were served on 11.04.2006. Thereafter, when the matter came up on 10.07.2007, this Court directed to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »