Chennai Court March 2014 Judgments
Tube Investments of India Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Sp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :21. .03.2014 Coram The Honourable Mrs.Justice CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM Tax Case (Appeal) No.1 of 2007 --- M/s.Tube Investments of India Ltd., 'Tiam House', 28, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. ... Appellant -vs- The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-I, 121, Nungakambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. ... Respondent Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Bench 'B', dated 21.07.2006, in I.T.A.No.1766/Mds/2000. For petitioner : Dr.Anita Sumanth For Respondent : Mr.T.Ravikumar JUDGMENT T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) in I.T.A.No.1766/Mds/2000, for the assessment year 1996-97 and the appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstan...
Tag this Judgment!P.Rajendran Vs. 1.The Chairman,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.03.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P.(MD)No.8761 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).No.1 & 2 of 2013 P.Rajendran ..Petitioner Vs 1.The Chairman, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 17 J.Tata Road, Mumbai - 400 020. 2.The Executive Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Division, No.8,Soori Vallabhadas Marg, Bellard Estate, Mumbai. 3.The Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., New No.82, Old No.47, TTK Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018. 4.Palaniyammal 5.Manjula ..Respondents (R4 and R5 impleaded as per the order dated 12.03.2014, made in M.P.(MD).No.3 of 2013) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the third respondent in Ref.CHNLRO/RH/RGGLV-1E, dated 14.05.2013 and quash the same and further direct the third respondent to implement the proceeding of t...
Tag this Judgment!S.Kirubakar Vs. Director General of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:21. .03..2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.No.5053 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 and W.P.No.6484 of 2014 S.Kirubakar ... Petitioner in W.P.No.5053 of 2014 - Versus - 1.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. 2.The Chairman, Uniform Services Selection Board, P.T.Lee Chengalvaraya Nayakkar Building, No.907, II Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Nethimedu, Salem District 636 002. ... Respondents in W.P.No.5053 of 2014 Prayer in W.P.No.5053 of 2014:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment for the post of Constable in Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigade without referring to FIR No.529 of 2013 on the file of Deevattipatti Police Station, which was subsequently closed as ".Mistake of Fact".. M.Damodharan ... Pe...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaramoorthy Vs. Chief Conservator Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:21.03.2014 Coram THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.11627 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 1.Sundaramoorthy 2.Chandrammal 3.Balaraman 4.Subramani 5.Krishnamoorthy 6.Thulasiraman 7.Dhanasekaran 8.Anandan 9.Jayachandran 10.Ukkinaidu 11.Vasanthammal 12.Munirathinam 13.Subramani 14.Vaijayanthi 15.Chinnathayammal 16.Kameshwari 17.Murali 18.Nantha 19.Kamalammal 20.Shekar 21.Chakrapani 22.Radhammal 23.Meena 24.Sarojammal 25.Nagaraj 26.Kumar 27.Chinnaraj Naidu 28.Sriramulu Naidu 29.Ramakrishnan 30.Girirajan 31.Anandan 32.Nagarajan ..Petitioners versus 1.The Chief Conservator Officer, Vellore Division Fort, Vellore District, Vellore. 2.The District Forest Officer, Vellore District, Vellore..Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent to grant permission to Petitioners to collect tamarind fruits from Odukathur Range Karuthamali Reserve For...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Select Retreading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, C ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
Pradip Kumar Das, J. 1. After hearing the stay application at length, we find that the appeal may be decided at this stage. Accordingly, the appeal is taken up for hearing after disposing the stay application. 2. The learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue raised a preliminary objection of the maintainability of the appeal. He submits that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order and such order is not appealable before the Tribunal. He submits that this Tribunal in the case of Venus Rubber Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Service Tax), Coimbatore vide Final Order No.40596/2013, dated 22.11.2013 upheld the order of Commissioner (Appeals) as the appeal was rejected for failure of pre-deposit. 3. In this context, the learned Counsel for the appellant placed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Girnar Transformers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur reported in 2014-TIOL-305-CESTAT-DEL. ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Erode Milk Consumer Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
P.K. Das, J. 1. By Stay Order No. 558/2012 dated 17.7.2012, the appellant was directed to make a predeposit of 50% of the service tax amount confirmed against them within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on 18.9.2012. 2. None appears on behalf of the appellant. 3. On perusal of the record, we find that the Honble Madras High Court vide order dated 2.1.2014 modified the Tribunals stay order and directed the appellant to predeposit 25% of the service tax demand and to report compliance within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of order. The learned AR on behalf of Revenue drew the attention of the Bench, wherein the Honble High Court order mentions that the order was delivered on 7.1.2014. Hence the eight weeks time granted by the Honble High Court elapsed on 7.3.2014 and there is no compliance report of the Tribunals stay order on record. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 2.1.2014 of the Honble High Court....
Tag this Judgment!Ayisha Cani Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :20. - 03 - 2014 CORAM: THE HONBLE TMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA A.S. Nos. 568 to 580, 985 to 990 and 1034 to 1037 of 2012 and M.P. Nos. 1 of 2012 (23 Nos.) Ayisha Cani (Deceased) represented by her legal heirs and representatives 1. Rahmath Pathima Natchialle 2. Mohamed Gouse Maraicar 3. Abubacker Siddick Maraicar 4. Ummal Baziria Natchialle 5. Mohamed Udhuman @ Mohamed Udhuman Maricar 6. Mohamed Alia Maraicar 1 to 7 represented by their General Power of Attorney and brother Mohamed Badhusha Maraicar 7. Mohamed Badhusha Maraicar .. Appellants in A.S. No.568 of 2012 Govindasamy .. Appellant in A.S. No.569 of 2012 1. Arumugam 2. Packirisamy .. Appellants in A.S. No.570 of 2012 P. Manoharane .. Appellant in A.S. No.571 of 2012 V.S. Ganesh .. Appellant in A.S. No.572 of 2012 Periyasamy .. Appellant in A.S. No.573 of 2012 1. Visvanathan 2. Rajaram @ Ramaiyan .. Appellants in A.S. No.574 of 2012 Rengaiya Madam rep. by the present Administ...
Tag this Judgment!Senthilselvan Vs. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:20. - 03 2014 Coram The Hon'ble TMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Second Appeal No.965 of 2006 and M.P. No.1 of 2006 1. Senthilselvan 2. Swaminathan 3. Selvakumaran Rep. By Power Agent Selvaraj Pillai .. Appellants vs. Srinivasan rep. by his Power Agent Vijayarengan .. Respondent Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2005 in A.S. No.24 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2004 made in O.S. No.213 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali. For Appellant : Mr. S. Sounthar For Respondents : Mr. V. Subramanian for Mr. A. Tamilvanan JUDGMENT Defendants 2 to 4 in the suit filed by the respondent herein, have filed this Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2005 in A.S. No.24 of 2005 passed by the First Appellate Court / Additional Subordinate Judge...
Tag this Judgment!S.R.Ratheesh Vs. 1)s.Ponnaiyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20. 03.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM C.M.A(MD)No.230 of 2012 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2012 S.R.Ratheesh ... Petitioner Vs. 1)S.Ponnaiyan 2)V.S.Rethinakumari 3)K.Benker Shamlin 4)K.Ascer Shascone 5)Minor K.Helden Gold Rimlet ...Respondent Prayer Petition filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 21.10.2011 passed in unnumbered EASR.No.4901 of 2011 in EP.No.90 of 2010 in O.S.No.21 of 2010 by the Hon'ble District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. !For Petitioner ... Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai ^For Respondents ... Mr.Puhazh Gandhi :ORDER This appeal is filed challenging the order made in unnumbered EASR.No.4901 of 2011 in EP.No.90 of 2010 in O.S.No.21 of 2010 by the District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a third party to the suit in O.S.No.21 of 2010. The 1st respondent herein had instituted the suit on 17.02.2010 for recovery o...
Tag this Judgment!Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited Vs. Nagalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.03.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR C.M.A.No.1221 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited represented by its Managing Director, No.2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002..Appellant versus Nagalingam ..Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and Decree, dated 10.08.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.574 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Judge of Small Causes Court).Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.S.S.Swaminathan JUDGMENT According to the respondent/claimant, that on 06.04.2006, when he was standing near Vasantham Hotel bus stand at Kandhanchavadi, a Metropolitan bus, bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-2272, halted at the bus stop. When the respondent/claimant was attempting to board the bus, without noticing him, the conductor blew the whistle and consequently, the driver started the bus, at a great speed, due to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »