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.
The Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Ttg Industries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2012
Prayer: Appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "B" Bench, dated 29.11.2001 in ITA No.640/Mds/2000, under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1996-97.O R D E R(The Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. )1. The following is the question of law raised in this tax case appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1996-97.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that payment for know-how is deductible under Section 37 as a Revenue expenditure, when there is a specific section i.e., Section 35AB covering the same ?2. The assessee herein is engaged in the manufacture of Pollution Control Equipment, High Pressure Cleaning system and Wind Electric Generators and also undertakes Turn-key Engineering Projects. As seen from the facts narrated, the assessee had an agreement to execute the turn-key project with ...
Saketh India Limited. Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, to forbear the respondents either from withholding the transport permits or in any way interfering with the petitioner's right to transport the quarried mineral on payment of necessary seigniorage from the granite quarry measuring 1.28.5 hectares comprised in survey No.30(Part) situated at Panchapalli village, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District till the disposal of W.P. No.25108 of 2001.O R D E R1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw W.P. No.43799 of 2006, as the matter has become an infructuous one. In view of the fact that the present writ petition has become an infructuous one, recording the said fact, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the connected M.P. is also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs....
Ms.Galaxy Amaze Kingdom Limited. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2012
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in FIR No.I-166/2011 now pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class II Court, Palghar, Maharashtra State and quash the same as illegal and invalid and consequently to direct the first respondent to monitor his subordinates while accompanying that out State police officials for getting transit warrant before the concern magistrates against illegal detentions.ORDER1. The writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the FIR registered in FIR No.I-166/2011 lodged with the Judicial Magistrate First Class II Court, Palghar, Maharashtra State and seeks to quash the same and also to direct the first respondent State of Tamil Nadu to monitor its subordinates while accompanying the police officials for getting transit warrant before the concerned Magistrates against any illegal...
Rajiv Mangal. Vs. Ms.Ritu Mangal, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2012
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the order dated 23.01.2012 in M.C.No.482 of 2008 on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai.ORDER1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The first respondent herein had filed the maintenance case, for her son and herself, in M.C.No.482 of 2008, on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, stating that the revision petitioner herein had married her at Hotel Chola Sheraton, Chennai, on 12.12.1994 as per Hindu Customs and Rites. After marriage, both led their married life at the matrimonial home, Chennai. Out of wedlock, the second respondent herein, viz, Aditya Mangal was born on 06.11.1995. The wife further submitted that right from the inception of the marriage, the revision petitioner / husband ill-treated her. As such, difference of opinion has arisen between both of them. The family members of her husband also ill-treated her. These disputes finally resulted in separation, and...
Ulaganathan. Vs. Kannaiyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2012
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC. as against the judgment and decree, dated 24.02.2006, passed by the Additional Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, in A.S.No.100 of 2005, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 20.12.2004, passed in O.S.No.32 of 2001, by the Additional District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai.J U D G M E N T1. The present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs as against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in A.S.No.100 of 2005, dated 24.02.2006, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Munsif, Mayiladuthura, in O.S.No.32 of 2001, dated 20.12.2004.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the second appeal are given as under:-The suit property was originally belonged to the deceased-first plaintiff. After the death of the first plaintiff, the plaintiffs 2 and 3/appellants herein are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Since both the plaintiffs and the defendant are having ad...
Ruckmani. Vs. Venkataraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2012
Appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (na) of the Code of Civil Procedure) against the fair and decreetal order of the District Judge's Court, Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam, dated 15.9.2004 in O.P.No.4 of 2004 inter-alia.JUDGMENT1. The petitioner/ plaintiff in O.P.No.4 of 2004 on the file of District Court, Ootacamund, whose prayer for leave to sue as an indigent person since has been refused, has directed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.2. In the suit, she sought for delivery of possession of suit property from the defendant/respondent. The Court fee due thereon is Rs.75,000/-. She sought for leave of the Court to sue as an indigent person, now, without paying the Court fee. The District Court refused her leave on two grounds. Firstly, she has not proved that she has no means to pay the Court fee. Secondly, she was convicted in a cheating case.3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, stamping the appellant a criminal, the leave sought for cannot be refused. Actually, she ha...
Ms.J.R.Metal Chennai Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent's impugned Memo.No.CE/Comml./EE/R&C/AEE/F.R.&C/D.No.70-1/12 dated 12.03.2012 and the consequential letter No.SE/CEDC/N/DFC/N/HT/A.1/F.1923/D.1893/2012 dated 04.05.2012 issued by the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent's impugned Memo.No.CE/Comml./EE/R&C/AEE/F.R.&C/D.No.70-1/12 dated 12.03.2012 and the consequential letter No.SE/CEDC/N/DFC/N/HT/A.1/F.1923/D.1893/2012 dated 04.05.2012 issued by the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.2. Thiru K.Seshadri, learned counsel appears for the petitioner. Thiru G.Vasudevan, learned counsel appears for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The writ petition...
N.Pushpavalli and ors. Vs. A.Ganesan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2012
These civil revision petitions are preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the orders and decreetal orders dated 26.03.2012 passed by the learned V Additional Judge, i/c of the I Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in C.M.P.No.24 of 2012 in A.S.No.470 of 2011 and C.M.P.No.394 of 2012 in C.M.P.No.24 of 2012 in A.S.No.470 of 2011 respectively.COMMON ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. These two civil revision petitions have been focussed as against the orders and decreetal orders dated 14.11.2011 passed by the learned V Additional Judge, i/c of the I Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in C.M.P.No.24 of 2012 in A.S.No.470 of 2011 and C.M.P.No.394 of 2012 in C.M.P.No.24 of 2012 in A.S.No.470 of 2011 respectively.3. Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two civil revision petitions would run thus:(i) A.Ganesan -the first respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.8185 of 2005 seeking the following relief...
P.N. Mohammed Hussian Vs. the Manager, Manappuram Finance (P) Ltd. and ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2012
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 26.4.2012, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K. ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The complainant pledged certain jewels with the opposite party and availed a loan of Rs.29,551/- after deduction of interest and charges on 14.02.2007 and thereafter he was paying regularly monthly interest and after some time when the complainant requested for return of Jewels as he was ready to repay the balance of the loan amount the representative asked him to come after a gap of few days and when he approached for the same after some days he was informed that the jewels were stolen and later recovered and handed over to the 1st opposite party and when the complainant requested for return of jewels the 1st opposite partys representative calculated high rate of intere...
Dr. P. S. Nagendran, M.B.B.S., Managing Director and Others Vs. Peter ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2012
(This Review Petition having come for final hearing before us on 24.04.2012 in the presence of both the parties and hearing upon the arguments of both sides, this Commission pronounced the following :-) THIRU.A.K. ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER. This petition to revise the order of the District Forum, Madurai passed in CMP No. 284/2010 in CC No.18/2006 filed by the petitioners against the respondents praying for cross examination of the 1st opposite party/2nd respondent as a witness for the purpose of cross examination. 1. The petitioners have filed a petition before the District Forum, Madurai praying for oral examination of the 1st opposite party relating to the treatment given by them to the complainant on the pending enquiry in CC No.18/2006 which was allowed by the District Forum with the direction to cross examine the 2nd respondent/1st opposite party by way of interrogatories. Since the District Forum allowed the petition to cross examine the party only by way of supply of question...