Chennai Court December 2000 Judgments
Mathuraivelan Pillai Vs. the District Collector Dindigul Mannar Thirum ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ645
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The writ appeal is against the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single judge by which the petitioner had challenged the proceedings of acquisition under Section.4 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act (Act XXXI of 1978). The learned single Judge has held that all the necessary steps as required by law were taken before the acquisition and, therefore, the acquisition was in order. 2. The learned counsel Mr. Srinivas, however, raises a noval point. He contends that in this case, notice under Section 4(2) was given by the Special Tahsildar but, there is no evidence to suggest that the Collector was satisfied in the beginning in respect of the land which was to be acquired and had recorded his satisfaction somewhere. According to the learned counsel unless the process of the acquisition is initiated by the Collector, who is the exclusive authority to do so, the further exercise taken by the Special Tahsildar on his aut...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.i. Paripushpam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR550(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal held that levy of penally under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was wholly unwarranted as there had been no fraud and wilful neglect anil the assessce had, only with a view to co-operate with the Department, agreed to the addition of the sum of Rs. 24,000 in the assessment of his income for the assessment year 1974-75. The assessing authorities had no material, apart from the fact that the assessee had agreed to the addition of that sum to his income for the purpose of assessment, to hold that there had been any wilful neglect on the part of the assessee in not having included such sum in his income earlier.2. The Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT : [1987]168ITR705(SC) pointed out that every addition to the income of the assessee does not warrant such addition being treated as concealment of income. To quote the words of the judgment (page 713) : 'There may be a hundred and one reasons for s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Engineering Co. (Madras) Pvt. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: [2001]251ITR764(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Counsel for the assessee contends that there was liability to refund and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal holding that the amount collected towards customs duty and sales tax in the years prior to the assessment year 1973-74 retained by the assessee pending final determination of the question as to whether the agricultural machinery and accessories manufactured by the assessee are subject to the customs duty, is not to be treated as trading receipt and is not to be subjected to tax in that year.2. Counsel contended that the Supreme Court in the case of K.C.P. Ltd. v. CIT : [2000]245ITR421(SC) has made certain observations in support of the contention of the assessee. Counsel relied on the passage in the judgment, wherein the apex court, after noticing the judgment of some of the High Courts held that the decision rendered by those courts to the effect that the price of sugar realised by the sugar manufacturers in excess of the levy price included in the rec...
Tag this Judgment!State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu, Represented by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ469
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J1. An order, allowing the writ petition filed by M/s.Thiru Arooran Sugars Limited, passed by the learned single Judge is the subject matter of consideration in this appeal, which has been filed by the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu. For the sake of convenience, we would refer to the parties by their original status in the writ petition. The petitioner shall be referred to as 'the petitioner company' whereas the appellant shall be referred to as 'SIPCOT' in the judgment. The original respondents 2, 3 and 4 represent the Government Departments, viz. Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai; Industries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, and Office of the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Central Assessment Circle IV, Chennai.2. By their writ petition, the petitioner company claimed an 'Eligibility Certificate' under G.O.Ms.No. 500, Industries (MIG-II) Department, dated 14.5.1990, which certificate entitled them for a 'full waiver of sales tax...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ponnusamy Vs. Returning Officer and Special Grade Executive Officer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ649
ORDER1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected with the judgment and decree dated 23.9.1998 made in Election Original Petition No.67 of 1996 on the file of the tenth respondent and quash the same and grant the reliefs as prayed in the Election Original Petition No.67 of 1996 on the file of the tenth respondent. 2. When the matter came up for hearing on 17.4.2000, learned counsel Mr.S.R. Raghunathan who has entered appearance for the second respondent has submitted that as there was no instruction from the second respondent in spite of repeated reminders to the second respondent through post with acknowledgment due, he is withdrawing the vakalat to appear on behalf of the second respondent. He has also made an endorsement to that effect on the case bundle. On the basis of his submission, this Court by order dated 17.4.2000, directed the Registry to send notice to the second respondent returnable by6.6.2000 and private noti...
Tag this Judgment!Karumuthu C. Sundaram and 5 Others Vs. Ind Bank Merchant Banking Servi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: [2002]110CompCas598(Mad)
ORDER1. Both these applications i.e. Crl.O.P.Nos.9298 and 9304 of 1998 are being disposed of in this common order as the issues in both these petitions are same.2. The petitioners are accused in a private complaint filed by the respondent for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. These proceedings are sought to be quashed in these petitions filled by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are merely Directors of the company on whose behalf the cheque in question was issued and they do not take part in the running of the company and as such, they are not in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and the mere mentioning that the petitioners were in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company would not be sufficient to make them liable for the offences alleged, in the absence of anything more set out to substantiate the same.3. Mr. K. Ashokan, the learned senior counsel appearing for ...
Tag this Judgment!Cholan Pokkuvarathu Kazhaga Uzhiyargal Sangam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ362Mad; (2001)1MLJ718
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is Cholan Pokkuvarathu Kazhaga Uzhiyargal Sangam and the said Sangam is espousing the cause of 191 workers of whom 132 belong to the category of drivers and the rest of them belong to the category of conductors. In W.P. No. 16926 of 1999 the same Sangam is fighting the cause of the other 49 workmen of whom 24 belong to the category of drivers and the rest of them belong to the category of conductors. The prayer in both the writ petitions is similar and for the disposal of both the writ petitions, it would suffice to notice the facts averred in W.P. No. 15447 of 1999.2. It is necessary to mention here when several writ miscellaneous petitions filed in both the writ petitions came up for consideration and with the consent of the counsel for both the parties, the main writ petitions themselves were taken up for hearing.3. The case of the petitioner union is that the second respondent is a Government of Tamil Nadu un...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Varsha S. Metha and anr. Vs. Day Mar Apparels Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2000
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas936(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Mrs. Varsha S. Metha, proprietrix, Vam Exports and Michael B. Goldman, the defendants in C S. No. 558 of 1995 have filed this application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for transfer of the suit in O. A. No. 222 of 1997 now pending on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Chennai to this court and try the same jointly along with the suit in C. S. No. 558 of 1995 pending on the file of this court. 2. The short facts leading to the filing of this transfer application are these : '(a) Day Mar Apparels Pvt. Ltd. represented by its managing director Mr. Dayanidhi Maran availed of a loan from Canara Bank, Mount Road, Chennai, for the purpose of exporting their leather garments. However, after export of goods, the buyer in the foreign country refused to take delivery. Due to that, there was a loss caused to the leather company. Mrs. Varsha S. Metha, proprietrix of Vam Exports and Michael B. Goldman, the applicants herein were the a...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Muthanna Managing Director M/S Fidelity Industries Ltd. and 3 Ot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)498; [2001]105CompCas203(Madras)
ORDER1. Wipro Finance Limited, Chennai filed two complaints against M/s. Fidelity Industries Ltd. Chennai and its Directors and Authorised Signatory arraying them as A1 to A6 for the offences under Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. On receipt of summons the petitioners 1 to 4, who are accused 2 to 5, have filed these two petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in those two complaints, on the following grounds:- (i) Mr. V.G. Subbaraman, the second petitioner (A3), retired on 28.3.1998 itself, as evidenced by Form No. 32 issued by the Registrar of Companies. Hence, he is not responsible for the issuance of the cheque on 23.1.1999 and the non-payment of the cheque amount after its dishonour and as such, the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act are not valid in law in so far as he is concerned. (ii) Though in the complaint, there is allegation against the petitioners that they are incharge of and responsible for the conduct ...
Tag this Judgment!Christian Medical College and Hospital Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1727Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. This writ petition has been preferred against the order of the first respondent, dated April 18, 2000, declining to go in to the question about the validity of the enquiry in the first instance before going into the merits of the charges levelled against the second respondent.2. The short facts are: The second respondent who was employed as an attender in the petitioner-institution was dismissed from service for certain acts of misconduct by order, dated August 1, 1986. Before the issuance of the order of dismissal, according to the petitioner, an ex-parte enquiry was held. When the second respondent raised the dispute before the first respondent, the petitioner filed a counter stating inter alia contending that the order of dismissal was fully justified and that in the event of first respondent holding that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was not fair and proper or that...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »