Chennai Court June 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 Vs. Ms. Real Image Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Prayer:- Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench, dated 19.1.2007 in ITA.No.1561/Mds/2005 for the assessment year 2001-2002.ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J1. The Revenue has come forward with the present Tax Case Appeal against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench, dated 19.1.2007 in ITA.No.1561/Mds/2005 for the assessment year 2001-2002.2. The facts in brief are as follows :-The respondent / assessee company, namely, M/s. Real Image Private Limited, which was involved in the business of Technology Marking, Trading of Computers, Audit, Visual and Audio Visual equipments. By agreement dated 20.4.2000, M/s. Real Image Media Technologies Private Ltd., (formerly known as Media Artists Pvt. Ltd.,) took over the entire business of the assessee company for an agreed consideration of Rs.68,75,250/-, to be paid in the form of Rs.6,87,525/- fully paid up equity shares of Rs.10/- each. As ...
T.K.Kuppammal Vs. T.E.Ansar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC. as against the judgment and decree, dated 30.07.2004, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District, in A.S. No.1 of 2004, partly reversing the judgment and decree, dated 05.08.2003, passed in O.S.No.344 of 1992, by the District Munsiff Court, Arakonam.J U D G M E N T1. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendants as against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District, in A.S.No.1 of 2004, dated 30.07.2004, partly reversing the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsiff Court, Arakonam, in O.S.No.344 of 1992, dated 05.08.2003.2. This Court, at the time of entertaining the second appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law;-i. When any amount of admission will not confer title regarding an immovable property without documents of title deeds, as per the decision reported in 1997 (3) LW 888 is not the Appellate Court committed error in decreeing the relief of ...
K.Shanmugam Vs. the Director, the Employment and Training
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Original Applications filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to quash the proceedings of the respondent in Se.Mu.Aa.No.A.Pa.2/119436/94 dated 06.11.2001, has been transferred to this Court on the abolition of the Administrative Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.No. 4505 of 2007.O R D E R1. The petitioner, while working as Workshop Assistant was arrested on 14.9.1994, in connection with Crime No.442/1994, for the offence under Section 342 and 302 of IPC.2. In view of the arrest and detention, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 30.1.1995.3. It is not disputed that the petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC; but was convicted for an offence under Section 343 of IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-.4. The appeal filed by the petitioner against conviction and sentence of fine also stands dismissed.5. In view of the conviction and sentence, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice under Rule 17(c)(1)(i)of Tamil Nadu Civil Services Rules...
A.Hilal Ahmed Assistant Engineer Vs. the Engineer in Chief Wro, and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Prayer:W.P.No.22368 of 2006:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the panel of Assistant Engineers fit for promotion in the post of Assistant Executive Engineers for the year 2004-2005 in appropriate place and promote him as an Assistant Executive Engineer on par with his juniors immediate with consequential service benefit.W.P.No.27952 of 2006:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the first respondent's proceedings made in G.O.(D) No.537, Public Works (A1) Department, dated 30.08.2004 and quash the same.C O M M O N O R D E R1. The petitioner in W.P.No.22368 of 2006 has filed this petition for a mandamus directing the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the panel of Assistant Engineers fit for promotion in the post of Assistant Executive Engineers ...
Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Smt.P.Shanthi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
APPEALs under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 06.10.2004 in I.T.(SS) A.No.72/Mds/2001 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench for the block period 1988-89 to 1997-98.C O M M O N J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee in T.C.A.No.1257 of 2005 has filed a memo dated 6th June, 2012 stating that the minor P.Balaji has now become major. The said memo is recorded.2. The Revenue and the assessee have filed the above Tax Case (Appeals) challenging the order of the Tribunal. The assessment herein relates to block assessment for the block period 1988-89 to 1997-98.3. This Court, by order dated 12.12.2005, admitted T.C.(A)No.1257 of 2005, filed by the Revenue, on the following substantial questions of law:"1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of calculation of limitation to complete block a...
V.Ramsamy Vs. R.Muthusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of CPC against the fair and decreetal order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode, dated 05.08.2009 made in I.A.No.130 of 2008 in A.S.No.40 of 2006.ORDERAnimadverting upon the order dated 05.08.2009 passed in I.A.No.130 of 2008 in A.S.No.40 of 2006 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. For convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. The long and short of the germane facts in a few broad strokes could be encapsulated thus:The revision petitioner filed the suit and obtained money decree as against the defendant who preferred appeal A.S.No.247 of 2005 in the Sub Court, Namakkal. It so happened that, from the said Court, the appeal was erroneously transferred to the District Court, Namakkal and renumbered as A.S.No.40 of 2006 and there it was dismissed for default. It is also a fact...
K.V.Krishnasamy Vs. Mr.M.Sridharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 11 of contempt of courts Act, 70/71, to punish the respondents for the willful disobedience of the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.5086 of 2012 and W.P.No.5087 of 2012 dated 19.3.2012.C O M M O N O R D E R1. The respondent is present in Court today, pursuant to the statutory notice issued to him.2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent has once again attached the properties belonging to the petitioners, in spite of an order having been passed, by this Court, on 19.3.2012, in W.P.Nos.5235 of 2012, 5086 of 2012, 5087 of 2012 and W.P.No.26474 of 2011, without referring to the said order.3. The learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that he had not done anything contrary to the order passed by this Court, on 19.3.2012, as alleged by the petitioners. In its order passed, on 19.3.2012, this Court had said that the original attachment of the property in question shall stand raised, automatical...
Mr.K.Lourdusamy Vs. the Collector, Thiruvannamalai,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Original Applications filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.Pa.Oo1/1513/2001, dated 09.11.2001, and to direct the respondents to reinstate the Applicant in service with all attendant benefits, has been transferred to this Court on the abolition of the Administrative Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.No. 4506 of 2007.O R D E R1. The petitioner while working as Noon Meal Organizer at RC Middle School, Thathanur, Chetpet Range, Thiruvannamalai District, was served with a charge memo by the Commissioner of Chetpet Panchayat Union. Eight charges were framed against the petitioner.2. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo, and to meet the Audit Objection, deposited the amount in two instalments, without admitting the allegations.3. In view of the deposit of amount by the petitioner to meet the Audit Objection, the Commissioner of Panchayat Union, sent a report to the Collector, Thiruvannamalai D...
K.G.Vasudevar Vs. the Commissioner, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein to process petitioners application for planning permission submitted to the 1st respondent on 5.8.2011 for the property situated in survey No.484/2 of Mogappair Village, Thiruvallur District without insisting upon No Objection Certificate from the 2nd respondent in the circumstances of the case.O R D E R1. Today, when this writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had sought the permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition. She has also made an endorsement to that effect.2. Based on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and in view of the endorsement made, this writ petition is dismissed, as withdrawn. No costs. ...
Durai Mudaliar Vs. the Project Director,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order dated 12.2.2012 in Na.Ka.A/TNA//LA/NH/133/2010 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same.O R D E R1. This writ petition was listed under the caption `for withdrawal', based on the letter submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also sought the permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition.2. Based on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and in view of the letter submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed, as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »