Chennai Court October 2001 Judgments
K.S. Mothilal Vs. K.S. Kasimaris Ceramique (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2001
Reported in: [2004]50SCL116(Mad)
1. C.P. No. 60 of 1996 has been filed by K.S. Mothilal under Sections 433(f), 439(1)(c) and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying for appropriate orders or direction under the Companies Act, 1956, as amended and with reference to the memorandum and articles of association to safeguard the assets of the first respondent-company from destruction by respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 by winding up of the first respondent-company to safeguard the petitioner's genuine share in the assets of the first respondent-company.2. C.P. No. 199 of 1998 has been instituted by K.S. Damodaran claiming to be the contributory chairman under Sections 433(f), 439(1)(c) and 439(4)(h) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying this honourable court to order winding up of the first respondent-company, namely, K.S. Kasimari Ceramique Pvt. Ltd. appoint the official liquidator and distribute its assets and share value to the contributors and creditors and as a partner to allot 60 per cent share to the petitioner by way ...
Tag this Judgment!Gentlemen Exports and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2001
Reported in: [2006]146STC298(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The issue raised in these petitions is one which is similar to the one considered in W.A. No. 458 of 1997 decided on October 3, 2001. It was held therein that mere filing of form alone to claim exemption Under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 would not suffice and that, it was open to the assessing officer, to conduct a detailed enquiry to find out whether particulars contained in form are true or not.2. In these cases, in the order of assessments, the assessing officer declined to accept the assessees' claim based solely on form H. It was observed by him that in the absence of bill of lading, the agreement, or an order of foreign buyer and the certificate of export as claimed, claim for exemption would not be granted.3. Counsel says that he now has with him all those documents, but those documents were not available for production at the time of the assessment, and that the assessees had been under the bona fide belief that the production of...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayaka Mission's Sankarachariar Dental College, represented by Its r ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ707
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. At issue, is whether a letter by Dental Council of India can be relied upon for recognising a particular course as equivalent, per se, without it being issued as a Regulation under Section 20 of Dentists Act, 1948. Few facts are necessary to be stated leading to the filing of this writ appeal.2. The first respondent has passed the Vocational Higher Secondary Examination (VHSE) conducted by the Board of Vocational Higher Secondary Examinations of the Government of Kerala with Food Processing Technology as the Vocational Subject. The course comprised of 3 Parts, Part I with English and General Foundation course; Part II with Vocational Subjects, both theory and practical and Part III with Optional Subjects consisting of Physics, Chemistry and Biology etc. While the disciplines Part I and Part II are compulsory, Part III is optional and choice is given to the students to opt the subjects having regard to their aptitude and also to undergo the degree courses or p...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Cements Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR243(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The principal question requiring our consideration in this reference which concerns the assessment year 1986-87 in respect of a cement company which carries on business of manufacturing cement, is as to whether the sum of Rs. 5,31,55,319 invested by it in installing a new cement mill known as 'Combidan Cement Mill' during the year 1985, which mill was technologically superior to the four cement mills which it had installed in the years 1961 and 1963 and which four old mills were subsequently sold for Rs. 8,40,024, Rs. 8,75,223, Rs. 11,00,000 and Rs. 20,00,000, respectively, in the years 1987-88 can be regarded as an amount spent on 'repairs' and claimed as a deduction under section 31(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. 2. Section 31(i) of the Act reads thus : '31. In respect of repairs and insurance of machinery, plant or furniture used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions shall be allowed-(...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of Cus. (Air), Chennai Vs. Cus. and C. Ex. Settlement Commissio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2001
Reported in: 2003(85)ECC215; 2002(139)ELT512(Mad)
ORDERD. Murugesan, J. 1. The petitioner is the Commissioner of Customs (Air), Customs House, Chennai. He has filed this writ petition, challenging the Admission Order No. 3 of 2001 (Cus.), dated 15-2-2001 of the first respondent. By the said order, the application filed under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by Respondents 2 to 4 was entertained by the first respondent and the proceedings were allowed to be proceeded with under Section 127C(1) of the Act. The writ petition has been filed on the ground that the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission/first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 127B of the Act.2. The brief facts, leading to the riling of the writ petition are as follows :-One M/s. Goutham Enterprises, 32-A Strotten Muthiah Mudali St., Chennai submitted a letter to the petitioner herein stating that they have received cargo arrival-cum-invoice notice from M/s. Emery World Wide, asking...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Ganapathy Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR657(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The tax case arises out of the assessment, for the year 1985-86. The amendment effected to Section 32(l)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, providing that initial depreciation was not to be deducted from the cost of the assets for the purpose of computing the written down value was not on the statute book then. The first appellate authority, as also the Tribunal has, therefore, rightly held that that amendment does not come in the way of the assessee not deducting the initial depreciation from the cost of the assets for the purpose of computing the written down value.2. The question referred to us regarding the correctness of the order of the Tribunal is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue....
Tag this Judgment!Lawn Hosiery Mills and ors. Vs. Durga Fashions
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2001
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas568(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Both these revisions are being disposed of through this common order, as they would involve the same issue between the same parties.2. The respondent-complainant filed complaints against the petitioners for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. During the course of trial, on noticing the misdescription of the cause title in relation to the particulars of the complainant, the respondent-complainant filed petitions for amendment to rectify the error. The same were allowed by the trial court. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners-accused have come before this court through these revisions.3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also gone through the records.4. When the complaints were filed, in the cause title, the complainant was shown as M/s. Sri Durga Fashions, a proprietary concern, represented by its proprietor P. Subramaniam. On noticing that the proprietary concern is not a juridical entity, the complainant fil...
Tag this Judgment!Sivananda Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Thirumalai Traders and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas889(Mad)
C. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioners in all these petitions are one and the same and they are accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in C.C. Nos. 63 to 66 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 111, Coimbatore. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the records in the respective cases in these petitions.2. The respondent in Crl.O.P. Nos. 17263 and 17264 of 2000 is M/s. Thirumalai Traders and the respondent in Crl.O.P. Nos. 17265 and 17266 of 2000 is M/s. M.C.S. Kumaran Combines and they had supplied cotton to the first petitioner-company. Towards the sale proceeds, the cheques were issued by the first petitioner-company and signed by the second petitioner. When those cheques were presented for collection, they were returned unpaid with an endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer'. Legal notices, dated August 18, 1994, were sent in all the four cases and intimation of notice was delivered on August 24, 1994, on the petitioners. No payment was made and hence four complaints were ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Jayaprakash
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR619(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Three questions are referred to us, but in the light of the answer given by us to the first question, providing answers to others, is unnecessary.2. The assessment years are 1976-77 to 1980-81. The assessee was a partner of a firm, Thirumagal and Company in Tiruppur. He had 65 per cent, share in the firm. On March 5, 1976, he created a trust, 'Sukumar Enterprises' by a registered document for the benefit of ten beneficiaries of whom nine were minors. The assessee's share in that firm was constituted as the trust property under the deed. That firm was dissolved with effect from April 1, 1979.3. It was the case of the assessee that the trust took over the business that was run by the erstwhile firm and became the sole proprietor of the same.4. On March 22, 1980, a deed of rectification was executed by four persons in which it was stated that the trust deed of March 5, 1976, would stand rectified, by incorporating therein a clause to the effect that the share of l...
Tag this Judgment!Sumangalam Steels Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2001
Reported in: [2003]129STC82(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Counsel contends that reduction in the rate effected by a notification issued under Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 will have the effect of relieving the dealer who can claim the benefit of that notification from any liability for payment of tax under the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970.2. The notification on which the petitioner relies makes no reference at all to the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970. All that it does say ia that the tax payable by a dealer on the sale of raw materials falling under item 4 of the Second Schedule to the Act to steel re-rolling mills, or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, shall be limited to 2 per cent subject to certain other conditions stipulated in that notification being complied with. The notification there, clearly does not contemplate any immunity being conferred on the dealer from liability under the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act.3. The Tamil Nadu Additio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »