Chennai Court March 2001 Judgments
Seethalakshmi Nagaraj Vs. Chief Commr. of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(139)ELT537(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of foreign currencies that had been seized from respondents 4 and 5. The seizure was on 20-1-1996 and on that ground she seeks the relief of return to her of that foreign currency and also wants the order of 17-7-1996 by which the continued retention was authorised to be quashed.2. There is no dispute about the fact that the foreign currency was confiscated from A.N. Dyaneswaran a member of the Indian Administrative Service and from the one Sampathkumar, a chartered accountant, both of whom are being proceeded against under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The adjudication proceedings are said to be pending before the adjudicating authority. The petitioner has also been examined by the authorities of Enforcement Directorate pursuant to the notice issued to her under Section 40 of the Act and her statement has been recorded.3. Under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 forei...
Tag this Judgment!Sujatha Christiana Vs. C. Thomas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad6
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. C.M. A. No, 778 of 1996 is preferred against the order passed in I. D. O. P. No.36 of 89. C.M.A. No. 779 of 1996 is preferred against the order passed by the Learned District Judge in G.W.O.P. No. 45 of 1991. The respondent in the above O.Ps is the appellant in both the appeals. The respondent herein has filed I.D.O.P. No. 36 of 89 against the appellant herein, who is his wife.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows :--The petitioner and respondent are CSI Christians and their marriage was solemnized on 29-12-1983 in Kanyakumari District. The petitioner is employed as a Assistant Professor in the Government Arts College, Musiri, Tiruchirapalli District. After the marriage, the petitioner and respondent spent some time at the petitioner's family name and thereafter, both went to Musiri on 23-1 -1984 and lived their happily till 22-4-1984. At the commencement of the summar holidays in April 1984, the petitioner and the respondent returned to the petitioner's ho...
Tag this Judgment!ito Vs. A.S. Babu Sah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2001
Reported in: [2003]86ITD283(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri N. Barathvaja Sankar, A.M.As these three appeals by the revenue for the three successive assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 in the case of the assessee M/s. A.S. Babu Sah & Others, Kancheepuram against the respective appellate orders relate to the same assessee and contain similar grounds of appeal, the same were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common and consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue read as follows: 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in cancelling/reducing the interest charged under section 201(1A) for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1987-88.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to note section 194A(3)(i) which reads as follows :'the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the year.' (Emphasis, here italicised in print, supplied)also includes the interest that is likely to be paid in the financial year.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Krishnakumar and ors. Vs. C.D. Suresh Kumar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad279
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. This suit has been filed for issue of a probate is respect of the Last Will and Testament dated 22-5-1986 of Jagadambal.2. Plaint averments are as follows : The deceased Jagadambal died on 30-11-1986 at No, 59, Bazar Road, Villivakkam, Madras 600 049. The last Will and Testament of the said Jagadambala was duly executed by her in the presence of the witnesses on 22-5-1986 and the same was registered, in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Ambattur. The first plaintiff along with his cousin. C.D. Ravikumar were named as executors of the said Will. The said Will was written and registered with the knowledge of the relatives of Jagadambal. The executors have informed the beneficiaries about the contents of the Will through an Advocate letter dated 20-1-1987. There was misunderstanding among family members of the plaintiffs and of the C.D. Ravikunjar. C. D. Ravikumar relinquished his right as executor after making wild allegations against the plaintiffs by legal not...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswathy and anr. Vs. N. Palanisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3538
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The petitioners in MC 49/1995 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore have preferred the revision aggrieved against the order dated 15-10-98.2. The case in brief is as follows : The petitioners filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance from the respondent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs. 300/-per month to the 2nd petitioner. The 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the 2nd petitioner is their daughter. Their marriage took place on 7-11-84 at Vinayagar Koil, Perur, Coimbatore as per Hindu Rites and customs and it was arranged by the elders of both the families. After the marriage they lived at Thoppur, Sathyamangalam in the house of the respondent for one month Later they shifted their residence from Sathyamangalam to Arunthathiyar Colony, B.R. Puram, Coimbatore. The first petitioner came to know that soon after the marriage the respondent has developed illicit intimacy wi...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Vs. Khader Basha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ199
ORDER1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.2393 of 1993 against the respondent herein and one Nazeer, who is now deceased, for vacant possession of the suit property. The petitioner's husband, one Sreenivasagam filed O.S.No.5751 of 1994 for permanent injunction against the respondent herein and the same Nazeer referred to above. The said Nazeer died on 17.11.1994 leaving behind his wife and three children. An application was filed by the petitioner herein for bringing on record, the legal representatives in O.S.No.2393 of 1993. Since the relief in O.S.No.5751 of 1994 was only for bare injunction, restraining the respondents not to interfere with the electricityconnection, the petitioner was advised to give up the case against the Nazeer who was the first defendant in the suit, since he had died. But, by mistake, learned counsel, instead of making the endorsement in O.S.No.5751 of 1994, made the endorsement in O.S. No. 2393 of 1993, which is a suit for delivery ...
Tag this Judgment!Kasi M. Vs. Management of Indian Bank and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ617Mad
P. Shanmugam, J.1. Petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant herein. He had prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari by calling for the records of the General Manager, Indian Bank and quash the order dated July 23, 1984, confirming the order of the disciplinary authority, dated December 30, 1983, removing the petitioner from the services of the bank as Branch Manager at that time at Pondicherry.2. The facts of the case are given below:The appellant joined the services of the bank as clerk-cum-godown keeper in the year 1960. After 12 years of service and after successful completion of examination and interview for promotion as an officer, he was promoted as an officer of the bank on April 15, 1972 to the post of Accountant. He was further promoted to the post of Manager in the month of September as Branch Manager, Pondicherry Branch. After four years of his service in that post, he was placed under suspension on March 24, 1980 on the basis of an enquiry in relation to contrav...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Salem Stainless Steel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(78)ECC43; 2001(131)ELT30(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of W.A. Nos. 2086 and 2087 of 1999. A common judgment by the learned single Judge of this Court is in challenge. By the instant judgment, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the present respondent. Following facts will help to understand the controversy involved.2. Petitioner had purchased two quantity based Advance Licences, bearing Nos. 0325984, dated 16-8-1994 and PK0545079, dated 24-1-1995, issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Bombay and office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi respectively. These licences related to the Policy Year 1994-95. The first licence was issued in the name of Amar Enterprises, Bombay for import of non magnetic stainless steel sheets/coils of AISI 304 specification while the other licence dated 24-1-1995 was issued in favour of M/s. Rajan Overseas Private Limited, Delhi for import, of non magnetic stainless steel sheets/coils made of AISI-...
Tag this Judgment!Soft Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2001
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR968]; (2001)IILLJ701Mad; (2001)2MLJ440
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. This L.P.A. is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge, confirming the order of the E.I. Court in E.S.I.O.P. No. 10 of 1990, holding that the workers concerned were employees of the appellant company.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:According to the appellant company, they are engaged in the manufacture and distribution of soft drinks under the trade name of 'Torino'. The concern is covered under the Factories Act and the appellant have been remitting the Employees' State Insurance contribution in respect of their regular employees. But, occasionally, for the purpose of loading and unloading sugar, new bottles etc. purchased from the manufacturers, the appellant used to engage some outside workmen, who are said to be independent and self-employed. A show-cause notice was issued by the E.S.I. Corporation claiming contribution from the appellant to the tune of Rs. 17,019 for the period from January, 1985...
Tag this Judgment!Vasu Chemicals Vs. Assistant Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(134)ELT24(Mad)
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondent for various offences under the Central Excise Act, the petitioners, who are the accused in C.C. No. 37 of 1999 have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking to quash the said proceedings mainly on the ground that the order of confiscation passed against the petitioners on the basis of the very same charge has been challenged in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would cite a decision in M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and request this Court, at least, to stay the criminal proceedings till the disposal of the appeal, since the appeal and the criminal proceedings are based on identical and similar set of facts.3. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, on the strength of the decision in State of Karnataka v. Sir Janakusa Jeevansa Bakale would submit that the confisc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »