Chennai Court July 2000 Judgments
J. Ibrahim, S/O. Jainulabdeen Sembiuarkulam Village, Perungulam Post, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1132; 2000(4)CTC298; 2001(73)ECC448; 2001(127)ELT38(Mad)
ORDER1. Ibrahim, the petitioner herein, has filed this writ petition seeking for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, the respondent herein, to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses as requested by him in his reply to the show-cause notice by issuing necessary summons to the witnesses for their appearance at the time of personal hearing before the adjudicating authority in T-4/28-M/92/SDE.2. The few facts which are necessary to understand the controversy which arises in this petition are as follows:-'A. On 12.8.1991, the officers of the respondent searched a person by name Sheriff who was about to board a flight bound for Singapore, as a result of which, the officers-recovered certain documents. The said Sheriff also gave a statement implicating the petitioner Ibrahim to the effect that those documents were handed over to him by the petitioner for handing over the same to a person at Singapore.B. In a follow up action, ...
Tag this Judgment!Warwick Estate Syndicate and Kesaria Nilgiri Hills Tea Plantations Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: [2000]246ITR319(Mad)
N.K. Jain, Actg. C.J. 1. These cases have been placed before us on a reference made by the Division Bench of this court vide order dated December 3, 1997. The question under reference was as follows : 'Whether it is a pre-requisite or a condition precedent for a firm to own or hold property to get assessed under the Act in the capacity of a registered or unregistered firm ?' 2. The brief facts which gave rise to these tax cases are as follows : Two firms. Warwick Estates Syndicate and Kesaria Nilgiri Hills Tea Plantations are the assessees. The facts and law involved are identical. The impugned order is also a common order passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax. For the convenience, we deal with the facts of the case in T. C. (R.) No. 893 of 1990, Kesaria Nilgiri Hills Tea Plantations' case. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Coonoor, finalised the assessment for the years from 1980-81 to 1983-84 on February 24, 1986, and for the assessment year 1984-85 on August 29, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Christian Medical College Vellore Association Vs. Government of Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR760]; (2000)IILLJ1646Mad
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the Christian Medical College Hospital attached to the Christian Medical College at Vellore is a 'hospital' for the purpose of application of the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, or is it an 'Educational Institution'.2. The appellant is an Association registered under the Societies Registration Act to establish, maintain and develop the Christian Medical College and Hospital in India, where students shall receive education of the higher quality, in the discipline of medicine. The: history of the Medical College and Hospital is the history of what started as a one bed clinic in 1900 by a woman with vision of Dr. Ida Scudder which grew into a forty bed hospital in two years. Since the founder of this Institution wished to train women doctors in 1906, a nurses training course was started and in 1980, a medical school for women was born. Forty two years after the birth of the one bed clini...
Tag this Judgment!Soft Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ309Mad
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the E.S.I. Court, Madurai, in E.S.I. O.P. No. 10 of 1990. The management/opposite party is the appellant before this Court.2. The appeal arises out of an application filed by the management under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 as against the order of the Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation, dated March 14, 1990.3. According to the appellant, the petitioner concern is registered under the Companies Act and was manufacturing and distributing soft drinks under the trade name of Torino. The petitioner's concern was covered under the Factories Act and they have been remitting the Employees' State Insurance contribution to their regular employees. But sometimes for the purpose of loading and unloading sugar, new bottles from the manufacturers, the petitioner engaged some outside loadmen who are independent and self employed. A show-cause notice was issued by the E. S. I. Corporation claiming con...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: 2001(129)ELT580(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is as to whether a claim for refund of duty on account of pilferage is covered by the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. The question arose in the background of the fact that when a survey was taken of the goods which had been imported by the assessee on 1-4-1977 after the order of clearance for home consumption had been obtained by the assessee on 24-3-1977, that survey having been made in the presence of the Customs Officer it was found that there was a shortage in the quantities the packages having been found to be open, the assessee claimed the benefit of Section 23 of the Act on the ground that the shortage which was due to pilferage amounted to loss and therefore, under the provisions of Section 23 of the Act which provides for remission of duty on lost, destroyed or abandoned goods, the assessee was entitled to remission. The claim that so made was rejected...
Tag this Judgment!P. Periyaswamy Alagu Vs. Senior Intelligence Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: 2001(73)ECC373; 2000(122)ELT357(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Alleging that the unaccompanied baggages of the petitioners in the above writ petitions were mis-declared, the respondents have seized the same. Hence, the above writ petitions.2. In W.P. No. 8628 of 2000, the petitioner prays for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondents to release the goods covered under the Unaccompanied Baggages No. 900/2000 and T.R. No. 737/2000 seized by the first respondent on 15.05.2000 and to further direct the first respondent not to proceed further in the matter as the action initiated by the first respondent is arbitrary and against law.3. In W.P. No. 8656 of 2000, the petitioner prays for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to release the goods covered under the Unaccompanied Baggages No. 901/2000 and T.R. No. 738/2000 seized by the first respondent on 15.05.2000 and to further direct the first respondent not to proceed further in the matter as the action initiated by the first respondent i...
Tag this Judgment!Shri. R.S. Pillai Vs. Smt. M.L. Peratchi @ Selvi and 10 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad483; 2000(4)CTC543
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the applicant in I.A.No.770 of 1999 in O.S.No.108 of 1999, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin against the order dated 19.1.2000, dismissing the application filed under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.108 of 1999, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin against the respondents herein praying the Court(i) to pass a preliminary decree directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.12,62,066 With subsequent interest from the date of the plaint on Rs.4,00,000 at the rate of 18 per cent per annum and subsequent interest on the second and third loans at 24 per cent per annum till payment is made, failing which to pass a final decree for sale of the property shown in the schedule to the plaint and to pay the decree amount out of the sale proceeds and if the same is not sufficient to pay the decree amount;(ii)...
Tag this Judgment!Bestnut Corporation Vs. Assistant Collr. of Cus.(Dbk)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(122)ELT11(Mad)
ORDERY. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the third respondent in F. No. 380/3/DBK/91-RA. CUS-Order No. 1258/92, dated 13th August, 1992 and to quash the same.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have also perused the contents of the affidavit and...
Tag this Judgment!D.J. Dhanraj Vs. D. Venkatarathinam and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC11
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in E.A.No.6326 of 1979 inE.P.No.1791 of 1979 in O.S.No.5709 of 1978. The application before the Court below is the appellant before this Court.2. The second respondent herein being the plaintiff in O.S.No.5709 of 1978 on the file of the city Civil Court, Madras, obtained a decree against the first respondent, on a promissory note. An interim order of attachment of the suit property was obtained on 19.7.1978 and made absolute on 15.9.1978. A decree was also granted on 16.4.1979. E.P.No.1791 of 1979 was filed by the decree-holder/second respondent for the sale of the property. It is at that juncture the appellant came forward with a claim petition in E.A.No.6326 of 1979 under Order 21, Rule 58 CPC.3. It was contended by the appellant that he had entered into an agreement with the first respondent (Judgment-Debtor) for the purchase of the property in question for which the firs...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Muthu Zulaikha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR800(Mad)
N.K. Jain, Actg. C.J.1. The matter has been referred to us by a Division Bench of this, court, before which the tax reference came up for hearing, as it was not inclined to agree with the decision rendered by an earlier Division Bench of this court in the case of CWT v. V.T. Ramalingam : [1993]201ITR839(Mad) , and felt that the matter requires reconsideration by the Full Bench. Accordingly, to have an authoritative view of law, the following question of law has been referred for our consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the provision of Section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act even though the assessee was not the owner of an independent residential unit exclusively used by her for residential purposes ?' 2. The necessary facts in brief which give rise to the question are as under: The assessee, an individual, filed the returns for the assessment years 1979-80 and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »