Chennai Court February 1997 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.
Comex Co. Vs. Collector of Customs, Madras-i
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: 1997(96)ELT526(Mad); (1998)IMLJ581
Raju, J.1. The above reference came to be made under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 at the instance of the applicant - Company to refer to following question for our consideration : 'Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that no mens rea was required for levying personal penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 ?' 2. The relevant facts to be noticed in appreciating the question referred for our consideration are that the applicant imported palmolein by m.v. Tai Tung which arrived at Madras Port on 6-1-1979 and got them cleared under 'Open General Licence' (OGL) appearing against Sl. No. 8 of Appendix 10 of the Import Trade Control Policy for the period April, 1978 to March, 1979. The date of shipment of the consignment was shown by the importer on the bill of entry as 29-11-1978 as found on the relative bill of lading which bore that date. In the light of the above, declaration under Section 46(4) of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whi...
Needle Industries (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: 1997(93)ELT25(Mad)
Raju, J.1. The above reference has been made to this Court under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 at the instance of the applicant Company, which is an importer, to refer the following question for our determination and opinion : 'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the endorsement dated 15-1-1985 of the licensing authority on the licence dated 16-1-1984, made while re-validating the licence, would have the effect of extinguishing the original validity of the licence for the shipment of the goods in terms of the import policy prior to revalidation upto 31-1-1985 ?' 2. The applicant - Company are manufacturers of various types of needles and for this purpose, the applicant imports steel wire of required types and diametres from time to time. They imported a consignment of steel wire valued at Rs. 15,055/- in April, 1985 and produced three import licences issued on 16-1-1984, 11-11-1983 and 3-3-1984 issued by the licensing authority, which were valid for 12 months ...
Arya Engineering Vs. Corporation Bank and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC83
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 20.7.1989 in A.A.O. No. 840 of 1988, whereunder the learned single Judge, while concurring with the order of the learned second Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, dismissing a claim petition filed in E.A. No. 1791 of 1982 in E.P.45 of 1982 in O.S.399 of 1980 has dismissed the appeal on the view that there was no infirmity or illegality in the order of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge.2. Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously argued that the learned first Appellate Judge, as also the learned trial Judge failed to see that the attachment of immovable property had been effected only on 17.3.1982 and that even before the said date, the appellant has purchased the property under a sale deed, dated 25.11.1981 in pursuance of the sale agreement, dated 15.5.1981 and there was no pleading by the creditor that the judgment debtor ha...
G. Anbalagan Vs. Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport Corpora ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: II(1998)ACC103; 1999ACJ1453
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of V. Ratnam, J., as he then was, in C.M.A. No. 330 of 1991 dated 2.9.1993 allowing the appeal and setting aside the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras in M.C.O.P. No. 546 of 1988. The claimant is the appellant herein.2. According to the claimant-appellant, the bus belonging to respondent Corporation was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and due to the same, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 was claimed. The claim was resisted by the respondent Corporation. The Corporation denied the factum of accident itself. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by its order dated 30.7.1990, after considering the evidence adduced on both sides, both oral and documentary, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 40,000 to be shared by the appellant and the respondent in equal moiety, together with interest at...
P.L. Mani Vs. M.M. thenappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ148
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The landlord is the revision petitioner. He filed a petition for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction and wilful default.2. Both the courts below have dismissed the petition holding that there is no bona fide in respect of the request of demolition and reconstruction and also that there is no wilful default. Further the courts below held that the tenant has put up the structure and that consequently the Rent Control Court will have no jurisdiction. Hence, this revision.3. The petitioner claimed in this petition that what was leased to the tenant was land and building. Therefore the Rent Control Court will have jurisdiction. On the other hand, it was the contention of the tenant that the purpose of the lease should be considered as a prime factor. It may be that at the time of the commencement of the lease the dilapidated building was there but the landlord has made it clear according to the tenant that the tenant can demolish the structur...
Comex and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ581
Raju, J.1. The above reference came to be made under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 at the instance of the applicant-Company to refer the following question for our consideration:Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that no mens rea was required for levying personal penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962?'2. The relevant facts to be noticed in appreciating the question referred for our consideration are that the applicant imported palmolein by m. v. Tai Tung which arrived at Madras Port on 6.1.1979 and got them cleared under 'open general licence' (OGL) appearing against Sl. No. 8 of Appendix 10 of the Import Trade control policy for the period April, 1978 to March 1979. The date of shipment of the consignment was shown by the importer on the bill of entry as 29.11.1978 as found on the relative bill of landing which bore that date. In the light of the above, declaration under Section 46(4) of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which pu...
Deva Sugars Ltd. Vs. Sicom Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: [1997]89CompCas504(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The respondent in C.P. No. 170 of 1995 on the file of this court has filed this O.S.A. against the order dated August 23, 1996, in the said company petition, admitting the said petition for winding up of the appellant-company herein and directing advertisement of the petition in two English dailies and posting the petition for hearing on September 25, 1996. 2. The said company petition was filed under sections 433(e), 434(1)(a) and 439(1) of the companies Act, 1956, on the ground that the appellant-company is unable to pay its debts. As per the company petition, as on August 31, 1995, the amount due from the appellant herein was Rs. 3,29,15,282. the principal debtor thereto is one Rajadhiraj Industries Limited and the appellant herein is the guarantor. However, in the guarantee agreement dated January 24, 1995, between the parties it is also stated that the appellant herein would be treated as principal debtor jointly with the said Rajadhiraj Industries Limited. 3. The...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. India Radiators Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR719(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 35,000 being the donation paid to the Polal Panchayat for upgradation of the school into a high school is an admissible deduction under s. 37 of the IT Act, 1961, in the assessment for the asst. yr. 1973-74 ?' 2. The assessee is a company. During the course of the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1973-74 the assessee made a contribution of a sum of Rs. 35,000 to the panchayat, where its factory and its premises are situate. The assessee made the said expenditure for upgrading the elementary school of the panchayat as high school. The assessee claimed the contribution made to the panchayat as a revenue expenditure. T...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Potash Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR532(Mad)
1. Mr. Aravindh Pandian undertakes to file vakalat for the respondent-assessee. 2. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, read with section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the dividends declared subsequent to the first day of the accounting year should not be reduced from the capital base for levy of surtax ?' 3. The question relates to the assessment year 1973-74, the relative previous year ending on March 31, 1973. In computing the capital base as on the first day of the previous year under the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act, the Income-tax Officer had reduced the sum of general reserve by the sum of Rs. 3,25,200 being the dividend paid during the subsequent year out of the general reserve. A similar question came up for consideration be...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Textile Paper Tube Co Ltd. (No. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: (1997)138CTR(Mad)342; [1998]234ITR47(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions of law have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to initial depreciation as claimed by it on the basis that it manufactures articles or things falling under item No. 8 of Ninth Schedule which reads 'industrial and agricultural machinery' 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right law in holding that the subsidy received from SIPCOT by the assessee does not go to reduce the cost of the assets under section 43(1) of the Act for the purpose of depreciation ?' 2. In so far as the second of the abovesaid two questions is concerned, it is agreed by both the rival counsel that the said question is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision in CIT v. P....
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »