Chennai Court January 2012 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-iii Vs. M/S Madras Electrical Conductors Pv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
This tax case appeal, at the instance of the Revenue, was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner was not justified in revising the assessment order under Section 263? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, business expenditure and the business loss can be set off against the income returned by the assessee being only the income from the house property after the closure of the business in the earlier years?” 2. The respondent company, hereinafter referred to as “the assessee”, was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of aluminium conductors. On completion of the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2001-02, it was noticed that the assessee had taken land on sub lease and constructed godowns and getting rental income in which no manufacturing activity was ca...
K.Aruldoss Vs. the Deputy Inspector General of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
1 The petitioner while working as Grade I Police Constable at S.P.Pattinam Police station, Ramanathapuram, was placed under suspension on the allegation that on 07.08.2000 at about 23.30 hours, the petitioner assaulted sentry Police Constable Ramakrishnan in drunken state. The petitioner was issued a charge memo on 12.09.2000 alleging misconduct, and was asked to submit his explanation. 2 An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct domestic enquiry which was held on 16.10.2000 and 23.10.2000. In support of the allegation, the prosecution has examined five witnesses who were cross examined by the petitioner. 3 It is the case of the petitioner that the deposition of the witnesses did not support the prosecution case and request was made to enquiry officer to drop the proceedings. The enquiry officer instead of holding the petitioner not guilty, held the charges proved against the petitioner. He submitted the enquiry report to the appointing authority, viz., the Superintendent of Police...
P.Subramaniam Vs. Thamban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has projected this instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.07.1998 in A.S.No.68 of 1997 passed by the Learned II Additional District Judge, Erode, in modifying the Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.1996 in O.S.No.171 of 1995 passed by the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai. 2.The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned II Additional District Judge, Erode, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.68 of 1997, dated 01.07.1998, has inter alia observed that 'since the earlier Commissioner is not coming to the Court, a new Commissioner has been appointed and as per Ex.C.4, Commissioner's Plan from the Road to proceed to the land of the Appellant/Plaintiff, there is a 18 feet breadth way in between L.B.P. Canal and the temple and further, the said place is convenient for transport where the vehicles can ply easily and apart from the constructions seen in Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.4, no further change in construction is to be made a...
K.Kumaravel Vs. State of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Sub Inspector of Police, for which selections were held during the year 2010. The petitioner was selected in the written test. Subsequently, his antecedents were verified. It was informed by the authorities that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.729 of 2005. The charges levelled against the petitioner relate to offences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 324 and 506(2) IPC and he was assigned as an accused NO.1 in the said case. Though the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Villupuram acquitted the petitioner under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., it was opined the acquittal was not on merits but by giving the benefit of doubt. 2. On the receipt of report from the officer concerned, the petitioner was not selected. When the petitioner made a representation, he was replied with the impugned order dated 10.2.2011 by the Director General of Police, namely the 2nd respondent that not only the acquittal was not on merits but on the...
The Managing Director Vs. V.Santhiya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
Being aggrieved by the award passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.151 of 2006 and 150 of 2006 for the death of R.Vijayakumar and his wife Jagadheeswari, the Transport Corporation has preferred these appeals. 2. On 26.12.2004, deceased Vijayakumar was proceeding in Tata Indica Car bearing Regn.No. KA03/MB 6534 along with his wife Jagadheeswari and three others from Thiruvannamalai to return back to Bangalore. While they were proceeding in Uthangarai to Samalpatti main road near Heritage Dairy, the appellant's Corporation bus bearing Regn.No.TN.32/N1853 was driven by his driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and hit against the Tata Indica Car. Due to the impact, the deceased Vijayakumar and his wife Jagadheeswari sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot itself. Three others, who travelled in the car along with the deceased, sustained severe injuries and they were admitted in the Hospital. The deceased Vijayakumar died on his way to the Hospital. Regarding the accid...
The Management Vs. P.Thangamuthu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
The Petitioner is the Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Limited. In this writ petition, they have challenged the order passed by the Labour Court in C.P.No.497 of 2003 dated 21.6.2006. By the impugned order, the Labour Court computed a sum of Rs.1,77,571/- as due and payable to the first respondent workman. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition came to be filed. The writ petition was admitted on 19.1.2007. Pending the writ petition, this Court directed the Management to deposit 50% of the amount ordered by the Labour Court to the credit of the Claim Petition within four weeks. It is claimed that the said amount has been deposited subsequently. Thereafter, the workman filed M.P.No.2 of 2007 seeking to vacate the interim order. When that petition came up on 11.4.2007, this Court permitted the workman to withdraw the amount already deposited in the Labour Court and the interim order, in other respect, was made absolute and the main writ petition was directed to be listed for...
Mohandas Vs. Authority Under the Minimum and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
1. The petitioner is a Transport company operating transport service in the State of Tamil Nadu. The second respondent, who is the notified Inspector under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has found that the workmen were not receiving minimum wages in terms of the notification issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.47, Labour Employment dated 01.08.2003 and filed a complaint before the first respondent, who is the authority constituted under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the unpaid minimum wages for the period from 01.10.2004 to 31.03.2005. They also demanded the unpaid minimum wages together with penalty that could be levied in terms of Section 20(3)(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The first respondent registered the said application as Minimum Wage Application No.51 of 2005 and issued notice to the petitioner/Management. 2. The petitioner/Management filed a counter statement dated 30.09.2005. In the counter statement, the contention raised by the petitioner was tha...
The Management Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
1. The Petitioner in both the writ petitions is the same, viz., the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, having its headquarters at Salem. In W.P.No.1833 of 2007, challenge is made to the order passed by the first respondent Labour Court, Salem, in Claim Petition in C.P.No.285 of 2005 dated 9.1.2006. In W.P.No.1834 of 2007, challenge is made to the Award made by the first respondent Labour Court, Salem, in I.D.No.196 of 2003 dated 5.1.2004. 2. The petitioner Corporation had not explained as to why they have taken three years time to file the writ petition against the Award, which was admittedly passed on 5.1.2004. The affidavit is silent in this respect. In any event, the facts narrated in the writ petitions are not in dispute. 3. It is seen from the records that the second respondent workman was employed as Driver w.e.f. 13.10.1995. According to the Management, he absented himself from duty w.e.f. 25.3.1996 due to illness. When they issued a charge memo. to the workman on 31.5.1996...
Mangayarkarasi Vs. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
The Appellant/Defendant has filed this instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.10.2006 in A.S.No.171 of 2004 passed by the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Trichirappalli in confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Learned District Munsif, Turaiyur dated 29.07.2004 in O.S.No.198 of 2002. 2.The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Trichirappalli, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.171 of 2004 on 10.10.2006, has, among other things, observed that 'the plea that Ex.A.1-Cheque has been given in an unfilled form is not acceptable and further Ex.A.1-Cheque is a complete one, which is a negotiable instruments'. Further, it opined that no receipts or other documents have been filed to establish that the Appellant/Defendant has paid a principal sum of Rs.10,000/- together with interest to the Respondent/ Plaintiff etc. and consequently, held that the Appellant/ Defendant has received a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the Respondent/ Plaintiff through Ex....
B.Anbalagan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2012
Heard the submissions of Mr.K.Jeyaseelan, learned counsel for the petitioner and also that of Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), representing the respondent. 2. The petitioner figures as an accused in the case which is under investigation in Crime No.48 of 2011 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 I.P.C., registered on the file of the District Crime Branch, Madurai. Pending investigation, the petitioner was arrested by the police and produced before the Judicial Magistrate for remand and accordingly a remand order was passed. Pursuant to the remand, the petitioner filed miscellaneous petition in Cr.M.P.No.7084 of 2011 for his release on bail in the above said case in which he was arrested and remanded. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai by the impugned order dated 05.09.2011, allowed the said petition and directed the release of the petitioner subject to the conditions that the petitioner should produce any deed to the val...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›