Chennai Court February 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
AshwIn C. Muthiah and ors. Vs. Multipack
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas563(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The petitioners/A-2 to A-4 in STC No. 509 of 1999 on the file of the J. M. No. 5, Coimbatore, have preferred the revision aggrieved against the orders passed in Crl. M. P. No. 5059 of 1999 dated August 23, 1999.2. The case in brief is as follows :The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner as well as others for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant is a proprietary concern. The first accused is a public limited company, in which accused Nos. 2 to 4 are directors and they are in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the first accused-company. A-5 is employed as general manager at the Coimbatore branch of the first accused-company. A-1-company represented by A-5 issued the cheque in question dated October 28, 1998, and the cheque was dishonoured and the factum of dishonour was informed on November 27, 1998. The complainant issued a notice dated December 2, 1998, to all the accused calling upon the accused to pay ...
K.M. Selvaraj Vs. A. Amarlal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3811
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. Petitioner is the complainant in C.C. 2510 of 1997 and aggrieved against the orders passed in Cri. M.P. No. 67 of 1998 by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chornai, the present revision is filed.2. The case in brief is as follows :- The petitioner/complainant filed a complaint under Section 500, IPC before the learned Magistrate against 4 named accused and the learned Magistrate had taken the case on file in C.C. No. 2510 of 1997. Subsequently, the third accused filed Cri. M.P. No. 67 of 1998 under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that he is only a signatory to the letter containing reference to an allegation made by one of the members and calling upon the others to attend a meeting to discuss the issue and, as such, no offence under Section 500, IPC is made out and sought for discharge. The complainant filed a counter and opposed the application and after hearing both the parties the learned Magistrate allowed the appli...
P.L. Chemical Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: [2003]86ITD46(Mad)
ORDERA. Kalyanasundharam, Sr. V. P. The appeal has been filed by the assessee, a limited company, aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XI, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 31-1-2000 for the assessment year 1996-97. The appeal of the assessee is on the issue of taxability of Rs. 2.70 crores that was received by it as non-competitive fee in determining its total income with reference to the provisions of the Indian Income Tax, Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the Act).2. The brief facts concerning the above claim of the assessee is brought hereunder for purposes of facility. The assessee up to assessment year 1995-96 was carrying on the business of manufacture of mosquito repellents, mats and mat heater machines under the name and style of 'Banish mats'. 'Banish mats' was a patent that was owned by M/s. Freight Master Engineering P. Ltd., a sister concern of the assessee. The assessee after manufacturing the said mosquito repellents...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Sakthi Sugars Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2001
Reported in: [2004]137STC218(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Counsel for the State contends that the doctrine of unjust enrichment should be invoked in these cases to sustain the order which had been set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had set aside the order by which penalty had been levied on the dealer, the penalty so levied being due to the fact that the assessee had treated gallonage fee as a part of its turnover and had collected tax from its buyers which it had, admittedly, remitted to the State, although at the time of the collection, by reason of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. [1979] 44 STC 352 galloange fee was not liable to be included. That judgment of this Court was made on November 14, 1978 and is reported in [1979] 44 STC 352 [E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu]. However, an appeal had been preferred against that judgment and that appeal was apparently pending during the assessment years in question, viz., 1979-80 and 1980-81,2. It is the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›