Chennai Court December 2001 Judgments
Raghunathan Vs. Selvarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3848
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Raghunathan, the appellant herein, aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the appellate Court, has filed this appeal.2. The appellant herein filed a private complaint against Selvarajan, accused/respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. The trial Court, after trial, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 6,000/-.4. Challenging the same, the respondent filed an appeal before the appellate Court, which, in turn, allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal.5. The learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the said judgment of acquittal, would contend that the appellate Court wrongly acquitted the accused by setting aside the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court, holding that the complainant did not prove that the cheque was issued towards the liability, and accepted the ease of the accused that the said cheque...
Tag this Judgment!Subramaniya Konar Vs. Palani Pillai and 5 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ549
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 341 of 1982 and the first defendant in O.S.No. 354 of 1982, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gingee has preferred the present second appeals, aggrieved against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No. 7 of 1987 and A.S.No. 10 of 1987 on the file of Subordinate Court, Tindivanam, made on 22.9.1988, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 9.12.1986.2. The case in brief is as follows:The plaintiff in O.S.No.341 of 1982 filed the suit for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff's father purchased among otherThe plaintiff in O.S.No. 341 of 1982 filed the suit for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs father purchased among other properties 2.88 acres in Dry R.S.No. 14/2, 16 cents in Dry Re.S.No. 14/3 and 13 cents in Dry R.S.No. 14/4 all in Kanjjor Village, Gingee Taluk under the registered sale deed dated 14.4.1937. Pursuant to the purchase his father took possession of t...
Tag this Judgment!Management, Christian Mission Hospital Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR329]; (2002)IILLJ923Mad
ORDERV.S. Sirpukar, J.1. The employer is coming up against the award passed by the Labour Court whereby the Labour Court has directed the payment of back wages to the employee who was working as a workman. The said employee, Ekambaram, was working as an attendee in the Christian Mission Hospital, Madurai from the year 1973. His last pay drawn was Rs. 350. He was served with a charge memo on January 12, 1983 on the ground that he had sold some old newspapers for a sum of Rs. 20 and misappropriated the said amount. An explanation was immediately given by the employee on January 14, 1983 but he was suspended from service with effect from Februarys, 1983. It is an admitted position that against this suspension, the respondent employee had gone to the Civil Court and the Civil Court ultimately dismissed the said suit by its judgment dated January 29, 1987. Since the subsistence allowance was not paid to the employee after this suspension, he went before the concerned authority under the Pay...
Tag this Judgment!Nagammal Cotton Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: [2001]258ITR390(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee-company had been on September 1, 1980, admitted as a partner in a firm whose other two partners were the only two shareholders and directors of the company. That firm was dissolved with effect from October 18, 1981, and as per the terms of the dissolution the asses-see took over all the assets and liabilities of the firm. According to the asses-see, the assets were taken over at the market value. The value so adopted by it was very much more than the written down value of the assets as depreciation and extra shift allowance had been claimed, and had been allowed with respect to those machineries in earlier years. The assessment years are 1979-80 to 1983-84.2. The Assessing Officer invoked Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which reads thus :'43(1). Expln. 3.--Where, before the date of acquisition by the assessee, the assets were at any time used by any other person for the purposes of his business or profession and the Asses...
Tag this Judgment!Agasthiyar Trust Vs. Cwt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2001
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN497(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.The question that is referred for our consideration is, 'Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case in the absence of definition of charitable purpose (in Wealth Tax Act), the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act ?'The assessment year is 1973-74.2. The Tribunal declined to accept the contention that the assessee-Trust is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act on the ground that the assessee's claim for such exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act on identical facts had been negatived by this court earlier. The decision of this court on which the Tribunal relied was subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court in the decision rendered in Civil Appeal Nos. 1846-63 of 1988 decided on 5-2-1998.3. Having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court holding that the assessee- Trust is entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income T...
Tag this Judgment!V.J. Sharmi Vs. the Secretary, Selection Committee, Kilpauk, Chennai a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad269; (2002)1MLJ597
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 1.10.2001, passed in W.P.No. 15948 of 2001. The appellant appeared for the Higher Secondary Examinations for the academic year2000-2001, with Registration No.674167. She is an aspirant to join Medical Course. In the Biology subject, she has secured 190 out of 200. According to her, she is a bright student, and having obtained 195 and 198 marks out of 200 in the disciplines of Physics and Chemistry respectively, her case is that the Biology paper written by her had not been evaluated properly, and she ought to have got more marks. She applied for the re-valuation, and on re-valuation, she was awarded 3 marks more in the said discipline of Biology, making the total 193 out of 200. Her aggregate marks which counts for medical admission, and which were 288.16, before re-valuation, shot up to 289.66 after re-valuation. But still she was unsatisfied, and was of the opinion that...
Tag this Judgment!All India Skins and Hides Tanners and Merchant Association, Chennai Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2001
Reported in: [2002]127STC491(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1.The petitioner had imported wattle extract in bulk and after collecting the value thereof from such of it's members who had desired the import to be made, made over to them the wattle extract in the quantity desired by the member. The orders on the foreign buyer was placed by the petitioner, and all documentation concerning the import were in the name of the petitioner. The payment to the foreign supplier was made by the petitioner. The delivery made by it to it's members was made after collecting from them the consideration. The petitioner contends that the allotment and delivery so made by it to it's participating members for consideration does not result in a taxable sale. 2. Petitioner had contended before the Tribunal to which the writ petition that had been filed before this Court was transferred, that Section 2(n)(v) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for levy of tax on supply of goods on unincorporated association to it's members...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Kalimuthu Vs. V.K. Arumugham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2001
Reported in: 2004(28)PTC339(Mad)
P. Thangavel, J.1. The Original Side Appeal has been filed by the petitioner as appellant against the order and decretal order dated 24.11.1993 and made in O.A. No. 118 of 1993 in O.P. No. 89 of 1993 on the file of the High Court, Madras.2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this Original Side Appeal are as follows:-V.K. Kaliappa Gounder and his sons V.K. Subramani, V.K. Arumugham, V.K. Sivaprakasam and V.K. Shanmugham, the father of the minor appellant represented by guardian were carrying on beedi business jointly under the name and style of 'Sun Beedi Traders' under the partnership firm name 'V.K. Kaliappa Gounder and Sons'. V.K. Subramani retired from the partnership from 31.3. 1978. V.K. Kaliappa Gounder in the original owner of all the Trade Marks and he had his sons became joint owners of the above said Trade Marks in view of the application made to the Registrar of Trade Marks and under Section 24 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. V.K. Shanmugham, the fath...
Tag this Judgment!The West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., Cuddalore Vs. the Commercial Tax Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: [2002]127STC53(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Petitioner is a manufacturer of paper. It has its paper mill in the State of Karnataka. It had, during the years 1984 to 1992 purchased `Casuarina Wood' in dimension of 0.6 metres length and 5 cms. width at the thin end, from farmers in Tamil Nadu in circumstances in which no sales tax was payable by reason of the farmers not being dealers and not being liable to pay tax, even though firewood is taxable under the residuary entry in the first schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The rate of tax during that period ranged between 3% to 5%.2. The petitioner was assessed to purchase tax by invoking Section 7A of the Act. The dealers' objection that casuarina was firewood in respect of which the Government had by its notification of 4th March 1974, issued under Section 17(1) of the Act granted exemption, and therefore no purchase tax could be levied, was overruled by the assessing officer, whose order was upheld in...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sakthi Finance Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR488(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred relates to the assessment year 1985-86.2. The assessee, even though it had not extended any industrial undertaking or set up any new industrial unit, and even though it had commenced its business long prior to March 31, 1970, claimed benefit under Section 35D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and sought to claim the expenditure it had incurred in connection with the increase in its paid up capital from Rs. 25 lakhs to Rs. 60.70 lakhs. The aggregate expenditure in that connection was determined by the assessee at Rs. 11,22,289. It sought to spread the same over a period of ten years and also sought to write off 1/10th of that sum and invoked Section 35D for the relevant previous year. Such a claim was negatived by the Assessing Officer, as also by the appellate authority but was allowed by the Tribunal.3. The Tribunal has held that Section 35D in terms was not applicable. It nevertheless went on to extend the benefit under Section 35D on what it...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »