Chennai Court July 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.
Ms.Builtec Engineers and Builders. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
APPEAL under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 28th July, 2005 in I.T.A.No.625/Mds/1999 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'A' for the assessment year 1994-95.J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. This Tax Case (Appeal) filed by the assessee as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1994-95, was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.7,35,475/- under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in rejecting the explanation offered by the appellant that the amount was received from M.T.Nair by way of gift and consequently, the provisions of Section 271 D would not apply to the transaction?3. Whether on th...
S.Rajamanickam. Vs. K.P.Muthusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 19.7.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Bhavani, Erode District.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 19.7.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Bhavani, Erode District, this civil revision petition is filed.2. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts, which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:(i) The respondent herein filed the E.P.2 of 2010 for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,17,800.00.(ii) The revision petitioner herein being the judgement debtor filed the counter to the effect that he is a retired VAO getting only a meagre pension of Rs.6000/- per month. From out of that amount, he could not pay the E.P. amount in one lump sum. He also stated that he was not owning any immovable property as alleged by the decree holder.(iii) The Executing Court passed the following order in the E.P., after hearing both sides.3. Bei...
The Managing Director. Vs. Sekar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
PRAYER:- Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2005 made in M.C.O.P. No.621 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Judge), Cuddalore.J U D G M E N T1. The State Transport Corporation disputes the award of the Tribunal on two grounds, namely, liability and quantum.2. The road accident had taken place on 09.11.2002. The respondent was awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,37,500/-.3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that as per the evidence on record the respondent was negligent, he alone is responsible for the accident. Further, the Tribunal had awarded him Rs.75,000/- towards 40% disability, again, he was awarded Rs.1,25,000/-. This is double compensation. It has no basis.4. However, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the evidence clearly shows that the appellant's bus driver came driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner. The respondent has been a driver. Because of the disability, now, he cannot ...
K. Jude Yaswack. Vs. the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Writ Petition (MD)No.6443 of 2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Ceritorarified Mandamus to all for the records pertaining to the first respondent's G.O.Ms.No.32, Industries (MMC2) Department, dated 11.2.2011 and quash the same and direct the respondents, their agents, officers, and men not to cause any interference to the sale of sand duly purchased from the PWD from the stockyard of the petitioner consists of 16,400 cents situated in Re-survey No.106/1B2 of Colachel Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.COMMON ORDER(Order of the Court was made by R.BANUMATHI, J)1. These Writ Petitions have been filed for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.32, Industries (MMC2) Department, dated 11.2.2011 and quash the same and to direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's right to carry on the business from the petitioner's stockyard situated in various places in the State of Tamil Nadu. S...
M.Loganathan. Vs. the Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
PRAYER: Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.361, 362 and 363 of 2006 are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 19.10.2005 in I.T.A.Nos.180, 181 and 182/MDS/2001.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. The following are the substantial questions of law raised in these Tax Case Appeals raised by the assessee:(i) Whether the order of First Appellate Authority dated 30.3.2000 dismissing the appeal as infructuous relying upon the letter of the authorized representative seeking permission to withdraw on the ground that the matter is pending before the Settlement Commission is sustainable in law?(ii) On a proper reading of Section 246A and Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, is not the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is bound to consider the appeal on merits?(iii) Is not the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 30.3.2000 is vitiated by non-application of mind?2. These appeals relate to the assessment year 1992-93, 1993-94 and 199...
C.Anantha Raj. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondent No.1 to provide sufficient doctors, technical, non-technical staff, sanitary workers and other infrastructure to the Thirumangalam Government Hospital within a time limit.ORDER(Order of the Court was made by R.BANUMATHI, J)1. In this Public Interest Litigation, the writ petitioner seeks for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to provide sufficient Doctors, Technical and Non-Technical Staff, Sanitary Workers and other infrastructure facilities to Thirumangalam Government Hospital by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 8.2.2012.2. In this regard, we had directed the District Collector to inspect the Thirumangalam Government Hospital and file a report. The District Collector has filed a detailed Status Report dated 17.7.2012 referring to the vacancy position and also condition of the Hospital in Paragraph 13 of the Report. The District Co...
The Superintending Engineer. Vs. Appellate Authority
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent relating to its proceedings dated 29.09.2007 passed the award in AGA No.52 of 2006 and to quash the same.O R D E R1. The writ petition is filed by the Superintending Engineer, Purchase and Administration, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam, challenging the order passed by the appellate authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, namely, the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, in AGA No.52 of 2006, dated 29.09.2007, confirming the order passed by the Controlling Authority / Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Salem, in P.G. Case No.6 of 2005, dated 02.05.2006. By the impugned order, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the controlling authority in favour of the second respondent.2. The writ petition was admitted on 18.03.2008. Pending the w...
S.Arul. Vs. Venkataraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, as against the fair and decreetal order dated 09.09.2011 passed in RCA No.1 of 2011 on the file of the learned Appellate authority/Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai confirming that of the learned Rent Controller, Thiruvannamalai made in RCOP No.13 of 2003 dated 19.04.2010.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 09.09.2011 passed in RCA No.1 of 2011 by the learned Appellate authority/Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller, Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai passed in RCOP No.13 of 2003 dated 19.04.2010, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision in a few broad strokes, could be encapsulated thus:(i) The first respondent/landlord filed the RCOP as against the original tenant, deceased Sundaramurt...
The Managing Director. Vs. Shameem Alias Shameer Munisa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.07.2006 made in M.C.O.P.No.61 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram.JUDGMENT1. The State Transport Corporation disputes the liability as well as the quantum of compensation.2. First, we shall see the negligence aspect. The claimant's husband on 03.07.2003 travelled in the Corporation bus as a Conductor. He was sitting near the driver's (R.W.1) seat. Near the Serkadu Junction Road, the accident took place involving the Corporation bus and a lorry.3. The Tribunal appreciating the evidence of the eye-witness P.W.2, who travelled in the bus as well as R.W.1 fixed the negligence on R.W.1 and quantified the compensation at Rs.7,85,000/-.4. The evidence of P.W.1 is that at the time of the accident, the bus driver was trying to overtake a lorry, however, R.W,1 would say that he was carefully driving the bus, at about that time, the l...
Rajkiren Thirumurthy. Vs. Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 4 and 5 to return the passport of the petitioner bearing No.J4709789 and the respondents 1 and 3 to take appropriate disciplinary action against respondents 4 and 5.O R D E R1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction particularly to respondents 4 and 5 to return the passport bearing Registration No.J4709789 and respondents 1 to 3 to take disciplinary action against respondents 4 and 5.2. When the matter came up on 27.06.2012, this Court ordered notice of admission and directed the learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions from the respondents.3. Accordingly it is brought to the notice of this Court that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner in First Information Report No.04 of 2012, dated 09.05.2012, under Section 420 IPC. This was on the basis of the complaint given by one R.Govindasamy...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »