Chennai Court February 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.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ms New Ambadi Estates P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
Appeal filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai dated 28.10.2002 made in ITA No.2041/Mds/1997 for the assessment year 1993-1994.JUDGMENTP.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA,J.1. The above Tax Case Appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 28.10.2002 made in ITA No.2041/Mds/1997 for the assessment year 1993-1994.2. This Court, by order dated 13.06.2005, admitted the appeal on the following questions of law.1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the loss incurred by the assessee in the alleged sale of partly convertible debenture is a capital loss?2.Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there was delivery of share within the meaning of Section 43 (5) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961?3. The erstwhile company viz.,M/s New Ambadi In...
Purnima Distributors Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the files of the Respondent in G.D.No.4039/2011-12 dated 02.02.2012.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. In view of the similar orders passed by this Court, in a number of writ petitions, including the order, dated 21.12.2010, made in W.P.No.29050 of 2010, the following order is passed:i) The petitioner shall pay Rs.74,025/-, which is the amount of tax demanded by the authority concerned, while passing the detention order. However, if the said amount had already been paid the goods in question may be released, without the petitioner being asked to pay any further amount, as tax.ii) The release of the goods and the payment of the tax, as stated above, shall be subject to the final adjudication order, which ...
Thavittu Ponnu Vs. Devaki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
This petition is filed under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 28.07.2009 made in I.A.699/2008 in O.S.No.245/2005 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Mannargudi and to set aside the same.ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.245 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Mannarkudi. The revision petitioner filed the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession in respect of two items of properties and after commencement of trial, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.699 of 2008 under Order 6 Rule 17 to amend the extent of second item of property as 0.89 cents instead of 0.44 = cents and also the boundaries of the suit properties. That application was rejected by the Trial Court and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.2. Mr.Bhiman, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below without properly appreciating the fact that pre-trial amendment are to be allowed liberally, erroneously dismissed the appl...
Mr.P.Manikavasagam Vs. the Secretary to Govt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent in letter No.AC/1(3)/13006/2007, dated 20.08.2007, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to issue orders to the petitioner to rejoin in the II year MBBS degree course, arising out of the circumstances of the case.O R D E R1. The petitioner has come forward to file this Writ Petition, seeking to challenge the order passed by the third respondent, viz., the Tamil Nadu MGR Medical University, dated 20.08.2007.2. By the impugned communication, the third respondent-University informed the Director of Medical Education that the petitioner's request to rejoin the course cannot be considered, as it is contrary to the requirements framed by the University, more particularly, Rule 17 (a), relating to the MBBS Course (Semester Pattern).3. The Writ Petition was admitted on 2.1.2008. Pending the Writ Petition, the petit...
M/S. Srf Ltd Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
1. Heard both sides in respect of both these appeals. A.No. E/129/2007 2. The Ld. Advocate Shri M. Karthikeyan, appearing for the appellants states that in this case the appellants took 100% credit in respect of capital goods in the first year, whereas under the Rules they were eligible to take only 50% of the credit. On this being pointed out, the appellants have reversed 50% of the credit before issue of Show Cause Notice and it is a fact that the appellants have not utilized the credit. He states that the dispute in this appeal is whether interest and penalty is payable in respect of the credit wrongly taken initially but reversed subsequently. He states that the issue stands settled by the decision of the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of the Commissioner (LTU), Bangalore Vs. M/s. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. 2011-TIOL-799-HC-KAR-CX. 3. Heard the Ld. DR who states that interest and penalty are leviable in a case of wrong availment of credit following the decis...
A.T.Maideen Vs. the Senior Intelligent Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent herein relating to the summons in DRI F.No.34/09/2011-DZU dated 30.11.2011 and DRI F.No.34/09/2011-DZU/12310 dated 9.12.2011 and quash the same.O R D E R1. The petitioner has stated that he is carrying on business in purchase of Red Sander Wood in the auctions conducted by the various Departments of the State Governments. The Red Sander Wood purchased by the petitioner had been sold to various persons, who purchase the same, process it for its utilisation within the country or for the purpose of export. While so, on 26.11.2011, when the petitioner was waiting at the Chennai Airport to board a flight to Pune, he had been apprehended by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Unit. Thereafter, he had been taken to Delhi and handed over to the respondent herein. On 27.11.2011, a statement had been rec...
A.Sankaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
Writ Appeal Nos.2652 and 2653 of 2010 filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the common order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.Nos.19937 of 2004 and 24585 of 2007, dated 03.03.2010.COMMON JUDGMENTM. DURAISWAMY,J1. The above Writ Appeals arises against the common order dated 03.03.2010 passed by the learned single judge made in W.P.Nos.19937 of 2004 and 24585 of 20072. The appellant filed writ petition in W.P.No.19937 of 2004 to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the respondent in G.O.(2D) No.136, Home (Courts-VI) Department, dated 23.3.2004 and to quash the same. The appellant also filed another writ petition in W.P.No.24585 of 2007 to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the respondent in G.O.(2D) No.233, Home (Courts-VI) Department, dated 28.6.2005 and to quash the same.3. It is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed as Grade-II Assistant Public Prosecutor on 16....
K.Srinivasan Pothi Vs. the Collector of the Nilgiris
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry and to take appropriate action against the 3rd respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 07.06.2011.O R D E R1. Petitioner prays for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent, i.e. Registrar of the Societies to take action against the 3rd respondent the president of Coonoor club.2. The 3rd respondent has not been impleaded as party in individual name but by designation only. It is not known how the enquiry against a President of a club who is a legal person can be conducted as prayed for in this writ petition, in absence of person holding the post is made party to rebut the allegations.3. The facts pleaded in support of the petition read that 3rd respondent club has the membership of 731 including temporary members. If the 3rd respondent is to pass a special resolution as per the Bye-law...
Thirugnanasambandam Vs. Lalitha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 04.11.1998 made in A.S.No.26 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Nagapattinam confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 25.09.1997 made in O.S.No.751 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruvaur.J U D G M E N T1. The Appellant/Second Defendant has projected this instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 04.11.1998 in A.S.No.26 of 1998 passed by the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Nagapattinam in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 25.09.1997 in O.S.No.751 of 1994 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Tiruvarur.2.The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Nagapattinam, while delivering the Judgment in A.S.No.26 of 1998 dated 04.11.1998 has among other things observed that the Respondent/Plaintiff as per Ex.A1-Sale deed dated 21.09.1979 has used the lane as suit lane, measuring an extent of East West 2 = feet and South ...
The Secretary Vs. Rajamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari calling for the records comprised in CMA No.66/2001 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge at Erode dated 29.12.2003 and quash the same.ORDER1. The petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition challenging the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 29.12.2003 made in CMA.No.66/2001 with a prayer to quash the same. 2The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an Agricultural Co-operative Bank established and maintained as per the terms of the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 [hereinafter referred to as the Act]. It is contended that the 1st respondent being a registered member of the petitioner Bank has availed a loan to the tune of Rs.1 lakh from the Bank on 02.07.1998 and as the said dues were not cleared by the 1st respondent, the petitioner / Bank resorted to the remedy u/s.90 of the Act by referring...