Court : Chennai
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 30.03.2016 reopening the assessment for the year 2009-2010 and the order dated 16.11.2016 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner on the reasons for reopening. 2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company stated to be engaged in the business of Corporate Advisory, Commission and Real Estate. The return of income for the assessment year 2009-2010 was filed on 26.09.2009 disclosing a loss of Rs.25,81,247/-. The petitioner during the said assessment year had issued 1,40,000 shares which according to the petitioner were compulsory convertible cumulative preference shares at a premium of Rs.240/- per share. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and an intimation was issued to the petitioner on 29.03.2011. Subsequently, the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was rectified and an order u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the writ court dated 28.09.2011 made in W.P.No.25493 of 2009.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Challenge in this writ appeal is to an order dated 28.09.2011 made in W.P.No.15896 of 2011, by which, the writ court, dismissed the writ petition filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, against the respondent herein, to quash the proceedings in Letter No.22610/E.IV/2009-1 Public (Estt.IV) Department dated 13.11.2009 and consequently, declined to issue a direction to the respondent to regularise the services of the appellant, in the post of Assistant Section Officer (Strictly Confidential) with effect from 29.12.1997, as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.772, Public (Establishment-IV) Department, dated 04.09.2002. 2. Appellant (since deceased), had stated that he was a Junior Assistant, in City Police Office, Chennai. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.No.1412, Public (Establishment - IV) Departmnet dated 10.11.1997, he was appointed as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
S. Manikumar, J. 1. Pending writ appeal, Mr.K.Nagarajan, sole respondent died. Vide order dated 20.11.2013 in M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2013, respondents 2 to 8 have been brought on record as legal representatives of sole respondent. 2. Challenge in this writ appeal is to an order made in W.P.No.8695 of 2006 (T) (O.A.No.5732 of 2002) dated 15.10.2009, by which, the writ Court, while setting aside the proceedings dated 30.09.2002 of the District Forest Officer, Dharmapuri and the order dated 20.02.2003 passed by the Secretary to Government for Environment and Forest Department Chennai, appellants 3 and 4 respectively, has directed the appellants/respondents to regularise the services of Mr.K.Nagarajan (since deceased) as Forest Guard, from 01.08.1977 to 16.04.1995 and to grant him notional benefits for the said period and also to promote him notionally to higher posts from the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted and to grant him notional benefits thereon. 3. Short facts leading to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree, dated 12.09.2014 and made in A.S.No.28 of 2014 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2013 and made in O.S.No.629 of 2008 on the file of VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. This memorandum of Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2014 and made in the appeal in A.S.No.28 of 2014 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2013 and made in the suit in O.S.No.629 of 2008 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The appellants herein are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.629 of 2008 whereas the respondent is the plaintiff. 3. For easy reference and also for the sake of convenience, the appellants may herein after be referred to as the defendants and the respondents be referre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Revision filed against the fair order and decree dated 1 June 2016, in I.A.No.26 of 2014 in O.S.No.23 of 2010 on the file of the District Judge, Nilgiris.) 1. The petitioners filed an interlocutory application before the District Court, Nilgiris in I.A.No.26 of 2014 to decide the admissibility of the unregistered sale agreements and to impound the power of attorney on account of payment of insufficient stamp duty. The application was dismissed by the Trial Court with an observation that nothing has been mentioned in the power of attorney with regard to consideration and that the sale agreements were not required to be registered. The said order is under challenge in this civil revision petition. Submissions:- 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners executed an agreement dated 12 November 1995, with the second respondent. The vendor, pursuant to the sale agreement dated 12 November 1995, executed a power of attorn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the jdugment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore dated 24.03.2008 in A.S.No.42 of 2006 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore dated 02.03.2005 in O.S.No.1394 of 1993.) 1. The defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. The suit filed for declaration of the absoulte right and title over the suit property and consequential injunction. Further, to declare the alleged right, title and interest of the defendant in the suit property, even if there were to be any, got extinguished in law and permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering the peaceful possession. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the trial court judgment was setaside. Suit was allowed. Aggrieved by the reversal judgment, the present appeal is filed. 2. Background of the case: The suit property was purchased by one Venkatareddy. He died about 16 year...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act r/w Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the order, dated 25.04.2016 passed by this Court in O.P.No.694 of 2007. Original Side Appeal under Order 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules and Clause 15 of the Amended Letters Patent Act to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 25.04.2016 passed by this Court in O.P.No.694 of 2007 dismissing the said Original Petition and consequently, set aside the Arbitral Award dated 12.12.2006 passed by the 2nd to 4th respondents.) 1. These two Original Side Appeals, one by Board of Trustees of Chennai Port Trust and another by Kamarajar Port Limited are directed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 24.04.2016 in O.P.No.694 of 2007, dismissing the Original Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside and reverse the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.107 of 2003, dated 09.03.2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur allowing the appeal granting relief of Pre-emption and remanding the same by set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam in O.S.No.28 of 1994, dated 03.12.2002 and allow the second appeal, thereby dismissing the suit in O.S.No.28 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam with costs through out.) The third defendant and the legal representatives of the 7th defendant in the suit in O.S.No.28 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam, are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The first respondent in this Second Appeal filed a suit in O.S.No.28 of 1994 for declaration of plaintiff's preemptive rights over the suit property and for consequential relief of possession of the suit prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer:- This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Perundurai made in A.S.No.7 of 2011 dated 12.01.2012 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai made in O.S.No.207 of 2007 dated 10.12.2010.) The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale or in the alternative for refund of the advance amount of Rs.57,000/- with accrued interest thereon and for creating a statutory charge over the suit properties under Section 55 (6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, for proper payment of the said amount. 2. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows: On 23.07.2003, the first defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit properties for a total sum of Rs.60,000/-. On the same day, a sum of Rs.57,000/- was paid towards advance. It was agreed between the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer:Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 28.02.2012 made in A.S.No.91 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.137 of 2005 dated 27.06.2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.) 1. The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.137 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur, is the appellant in this second appeal. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the suit properties belongs to the plaintiff and for recovery of possession. 3. The case of the respondent/plaintiff as culled out from the plaint, are as follows: 3.1. The suit properties belonged to the grandfather and grandmother of the plaintiff. The grandparents of the plaintiff had three sons and one daughter. Till 1977, the suit properties were enjoyed in common. By a registered partition, all the family pr...
Tag this Judgment!