Chennai Court December 2001 Judgments
Salem Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
Reported in: [2003]130STC181(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner is a cooperative society, which is engaged in marketing of agricultural produce of its members. For the assessment years 1992-93, 1994-95 and 1995-96, the assessing officer levied purchase tax on the society, on the groundnut grown by its members and sold at the auctions held by the assessee, even after describing the position of the society as 'agent on behalf of the agriculturist principals for commission'. The assessing authority appears to have entertained the view that after the amendment to the definitions of 'dealer', 'sale', and 'turnover' by the amending Act No. 31 of 1992, which included the 'person through whom the goods are bought, sold, supplied or distributed', in the definition of 'dealer' and such transaction of sale as forming the turnover of such agent, the petitioner-society, which acts as the agent of the agriculturist principals is liable to be taxed on all sales or purchases effected by it as the agent of that member. In...
Tag this Judgment!Fenner (India) Ltd., Peters Road, Royapettah, Chennai Vs. the Commerci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2001
Reported in: [2002]127STC94(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu,J.1. State of Tamil Nadu by a Government Order dated 14.05.90 published a scheme of incentive for industries, the incentive being the grant of interest free sales tax deferral scheme which was liberalized by that order. Paragraph 4 of that order sets out the incentive offered which were offered 'with a view to encourage more industries in Tamil Nadu'. Paragraph 8 of that scheme provided that, that scheme will be applicable to small, medium and major industries as the case may be and that the deferral/waiver will commence from the date of commencement of commercial production after the completion of the envisaged project. Paragraph 7 of the scheme required those starting medium or major industries to file the applications before the State Industries Promotion Corporation of TamilNadu, hereinafter referred to as SIPCOT. Paragraph 9 provided that the General Manager of the District Industries Centre in case of small industries, and SIPCOT in case of medium or major ...
Tag this Judgment!T.D. Dayal Vs. the Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Minis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2001
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ8
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. This pro bono public writ petition seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Union of India, the 1st respondent herein, to take appropriate action on the representation of the petitioner dated 20.10.2000, addressed to the Hon'ble President of India.2. Prosecutions were launched against Ms. J. Jayalalitha, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 3 Special Courts were constituted for trying the said cases. The said Special Courts were constituted by the State Government in its exercise of power under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The validity of the said provision was challenged in a batch of writ petitions before this Court, but unsuccessfully. Even the appeals filed before the Supreme Court were dismissed by judgment dated 14.5.1999.3. According to the petitioner, who has argued in person, the action taken against Ms. J. Jayalalitha, including the judgment of the Supr...
Tag this Judgment!Philip Thomas and anr. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2001
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ1
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. 1. These writ petitions have been filed as pro bono publico by two practising advocates questioning the appointment of the second respondent as the Member of Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission. The second respondent was formerly a District Judge and retired on superannuation with effect from 31.3.2000. On 7.7.2000, he was appointed as a Member of Tamil Nadu State Public Service Commission. He resigned the said post on 29.3.2001 in view of his appointment as a Member of the State Human Rights Commission on 28.3.2001. By resigning his office as a Member of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 29.3.2001, he had assumed the office as a Member of Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission on 30.3.2001. These are the admitted facts.2. The appointment is challenged on the premise that Article 319(d) of the Constitution of India creates a bar on a Chairman or a Member of a PublicService Commission to take up any employment either under the Union Government ...
Tag this Judgment!George J. Mathew Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer, Bodinayakanoor theni ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2001
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas641(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner was a Director in Indian Cardamom Growers Trading Corporation Limited registered under the Indian Companies Act. He resigned from the Directorship in and by letter dated 1.6.1987. The Company had also filed Form-32 with the Registrar of Companies on 1.6.1987 as required under Section 303(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 specifying the changes in the Directorships of the Company. It is the case of the petitioner that he had no connection whatsoever with the said Company after his resignation.2. In or about November, 1995 the petitioner received a notice from the first respondent alleging that a sales tax of Rs. 3,09,165 was due from the Company towards the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax and the Central Sales Tax for the year 1981-82. Since the petitioner had nothing to do with the Company, he did not reply for the same. Now, the petitioner received the impugned notice dated 31.10.2001 from the first respondent to recover the said amount under the Revenue Recovery Act. ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Murugaiyan Vs. K. Ramachandran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ563
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. In a road traffic accident, which took place on 12.4.96 by collision between two vehicles, a 46 years old gentleman, who is a Headmaster by profession in a Government School, suffered serious injuries by way of fracture of shaft of femur of both legs, head injury, etc., resulting in 140 per cent disability (70 per cent orthopaedic, 40 per cent neuro and 30 per cent dental), giving rise to a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras as M.C.O.P. No. 1781 of 1997, in which an award has been passed for a sum of Rs. 5,58,000 with interest as against the sum of Rs. 10,00,000 claimed by the injured. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the injured has filed an appeal before this Court in C.M.A. No. 390 of 2001, which was dismissed by the judgment impugned in the Letters Patent Appeal.2. Having heard learned Counsel and considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant-claimant, we are of the opinion that the amount of compensa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Estee Engineering Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR44(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions referred for our consideration at the instance of the Revenue are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to its claim for investment allowance ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and had valid materials for holding that the assessee had created adequate reserve and debited the same to the profit and loss account and accordingly the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in rejecting the assessee's claim for investment allowance?' The assessment years are 1986-87 and 1987-88.2. It is not clear from the statement of case as also from the orders of the authorities below as to whether the assessee had claimed investment allowance on the machines which it had installed and used for the purpose of manufacturing the tools and dies. The assessee's claim for the investment allowance on tools ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Malhotra and anr. Vs. Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-2001
Reported in: [2002]110CompCas604(Mad)
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioner in Crl. O.Ps. 16531 and 16532 of 1999 is Ashok Malhotra and the petitioner in Crl. O.Ps. 16533 and 16534 of 1999 is S.L. Kumar, who are accused Nos. 8 and 6 in CC No. 9595 and 9596 of 1998, respectively, on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, have filed these petitions for quashing the proceedings, insofar as they are concerned, in both the calendar cases.2. The petitioner, Ashok Malhotra, in his petitions has stated thus : He is a business executive based in Delhi and he is 8th accused in both the cases and no summons or copy of the complaints have been served on him. He was a non-executive and non-functional director on the Board of the first accused company between 1992 and 1994. He had not attended the day-to-day functions of the company, since he was only a non-executive director and he neither had knowledge, nor was he concerned with the day-to-day affairs of the company. He ceased to be a director of the company wi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salem Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-2001
Reported in: [2001]258ITR360(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. There is no merit in this appeal. The Tribunal has rightly held that the amounts paid towards provident fund and E. S. I. dues were amounts which were required to be deducted while computing the taxable income of the assessee. The amounts had been paid within the grace period provided under the relevant statutes. The appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Parveen Travels (P.) Ltd. Vs. Visteon Automative Systems India (P.) Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-2001
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas630(Mad); [2003]44SCL564(Mad)
K. Sampath, J.1. This is an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent, their men, agents, etc., from cancelling the agreement with the applicant dated December 1, 1999, with effect from November 30, 2001, or any subsequent date, pending arbitration.2. The affidavit in support of the application alleges as follows :An agreement was entered into between the applicant and the respondents on December 1, 1999, as per the terms of which the applicant had been providing transport service from the year 1999, that there were 18 buses plying for the respondents, that excepting intermittent delays due to traffic and other congestion en route from Chennai to Maraimalai Nagar, there had been no complaint from the respondents as regards the services of the applicant, that the agreement dated December 1, 1999, provided that the contract was valid for two years effective from December 1, 1999, and renewable ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »