Chennai Court April 2001 Judgments
L.M.S. Gani Mohamed and Company, by Its Managing Partner, G.M. Sheik A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ712
ORDER1. The question in this revision is whether the amendment regarding case of fraud can be introduced and should be allowed. The petitioner is the plaintiff who had filed the suit against the respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,68,536 together with interest. The 1st respondent herein is the Carrier and the 2nd respondent is the Consignee. On 31.7.1987, the consignment of 8 packages was entrusted to the 1st respondent for delivery to the 2nd respondent. Airway bill dated 31.7.1987 was issued by the 1st respondent. Since there was no information about the delivery of the goods, the petitioner made enquiries and they were informed by the 1st respondent that the consignment had been delivered. The petitioners believed this. Subsequently, when they wrote another letter regarding the date of delivery, they were informed by the 1st respondent that the goods were still in the warehouse at Taipei. The petitioners requested the 1st respondent to rebook the consignment at their cost, bu...
Tag this Judgment!Mettur Beardsell Limited, a Public Limited Company by Its Secretary, 4 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad466; (2001)2MLJ432
ORDER1. First defendant in O.S.No.999 of 1984 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, aggrieved by the decree for Rs. 3,37,662.47 with interest thereon against all the defendants, preferred the above appeal before this Court 2. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is briefly stated hereunder:- The plaintiff has been supplying yarn to the first defendant between 21.6.82 and 12.4.83. As on 12.4.83 the sum due to the plaintiff from the first defendant was Rs. 3,74,299.37. After subsequent payments, the ultimate balance due on account of the transaction is Rs. 3,30,258.64. The plaintiff has been repeatedly writing letters to the first defendant to pay the amount and the first defendant has been sending amounts to the plaintiff. They sent a sum of Rs. 86,793.39 on 31.8.82, Rs. 59,451.20 on 24.9.82 and Rs. 1,14,054.93 on 13.10.82 and Rs. 66,987.78 on 16.11.82. On 17.12.82 they had written, a letter to the plaintiff mentioning their requirement for January, 1983. On 1...
Tag this Judgment!The Victoria Edward Hall Rep. by Its Secretary Dr. I. Ismail, No. 32-b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ39
ORDER1. This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/1st defendant as revision petitioner against the order and decretal order dated 12.2.2001 and made in I.A.No.87 of 2001 in O.S.No.37 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town.2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this Civil revision petition are as follows:- The revision petitioner is a registered society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, herein after referred to as the Act. The Secretary and Executive Committee Members of the said Society will be elected for a period of one year by the General Body of the revision petitioner society. There are 1496 members in the revision petitioner society and in the election held on 30.7.2000 one I. Ismail was elected as Secretary of the said society. The respondents 2 to 6 and Thiruvalargal P. Sudalai, Gnanavel and Diraviyam were elected as members of the Executive Committee of the said society. The sub-rule in the bye law o...
Tag this Judgment!V. Shanmughavel and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(131)ELT14(Mad); [2002]254ITR717(Mad); (2001)2MLJ581; 2006[2]STR466; [2007]6STT183
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. W.P. No. 7273 of 1998 has been filed by the Chairman, Institution of Valuers, Tamil Nadu Zone, which institution was constituted in 1968 and is a registered society. The members of the petitioner institute are the estate valuers and most of them are recognised as such under Section 34AB of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. In the instant petition, the petitioner claims a writ of prohibition or any other writ, prohibiting the respondent from invoking the provisions of Section 88, Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 1997, for the purpose of levy and collection of service tax from the members of the petitioner institute on and from July 7, 1997, in respect of the services rendered by the petitioner's members as 'valuers' of the properties, plant and machinery, etc. They also have prayed for quashing of the communication sent by the respondent on May 1, 1998, vide C. No. IV/16/29/97-STC.2. The respondent, Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, by his letter dated May 1, 1998, inf...
Tag this Judgment!Tamilnadu Kalyana Mandapam Owners Association Vs. Union of India and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(133)ELT36(Mad); [2002]253ITR250(Mad); (2001)2MLJ629; 2006[2]STR438
V.S. Sirpukar, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of W. P. Nos. 1617 of 1998, etc., since all the writ petitions involve a common question regarding the 'constitutional validity' of the 'service tax' levied on the 'taxable service' provided to a client by a 'mandap-keeper' in relation to the use of a 'man-dap' for social, official or business functions and also the other allied services. 2. The petitioners herein are the owners of the premises which are rented out for holding various functions like marriage, business conference, etc. In al! these writ petitions, the constitutional validity of and Section 116 of the amendment Act 32 of 1994 is being challenged. 3. By the Finance Act, 1994, the 'service sector' was brought under the taxnet for the first time. The said Act was amended-from time to time to include the various services which were brought under the taxnet. Under the scheme of the Act, the impost of the tax was against the persons who provided the services and they had to coll...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Institute of Architects Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Mad)449; 2002(139)ELT245(Mad); [2002]258ITR209(Mad); 2006[2]STR393; [2007]6STT112
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This judgment will govern the above writ petitions, which are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Out of the above writ petitions, while W.P. No. 8539 of 2000 is filed by the Indian Institute of Architects Association, Tamil Nadu Chapter on behalf of the Architects in general, who are registered under it as the practicing Architects, rest of the writ petitions pertain to the Chartered Accountants and have been filed by the various representative bodies of which the practising Chartered Accountants are the members since the question involved in identical in all these petitions and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Shortly stated, the Architects and Chartered Accountants are challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of Finance Act by which the services offered by the Architects and Chartered Accountants have been brought under the tax-net, which is to be charged at five per cent of the value of the taxable servi...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Nursery Primary Matriculation and Higher Secondary School M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad55
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner is Tamil Nadu Nursery Primary Matriculation and Higher Secondary School Management's Association represented by its General Secretary, Chennai. The petitioner has challenged the order of the 1st respondent made in G.O. Ms. No. 23 School Education (VI) Department dated 24-1-2000. By the said Government Order the 1st respondent directed that the students of the Matriculation Schools/ Anglo Indian Schools appearing for the 10th standard examinations in science subjects during March-April, 2001 should obtain a minimum of 70 marks out of 200 marks in theory examination and a minimum of 35 marks out of 100 marks in practical examination.2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition as could be culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition are that the petitioner association is a registered association and the main aim and object of the association is to provide high standard education to the nursery, primary, matric...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswathi Ammal Vs. Viveka Primary School
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad417
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The appeal has been filed with the delay of 12 days. Notice was served on the respondent. As the counsel for the respondent has no objection, the delay had been condoned, and the appeal was numbered and posted for admission. Since both the counsel are present, the second appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of counsel on either side, as the question for decision falls in a narrow campus.2. The defendant in O.S. No. 166of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Ranipet is the appellant herein.3. The respondent herein, who is the tenant under the appellant herein filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her men and her agents from evicting the plaintiff institution from the schedule mentioned property.4. The averment in the plaint is that the appellant herein is trying to evict the respondent herein in order to lease it out for higher rent and the appellant further attempts to evict the respondent herein witho...
Tag this Judgment!S. Singaram Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad419
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the respondents 3 to 6, who are conducting prize schemes in the media.2. The writ petitioner is a trader in wooden furniture and a Carpenter by profession. The enactment of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and the Rules framed thereunder in the year 1980 also the Prize Competitions Act, 1955 were mentioned. The grievance of the petitioner is that recently the visual media and the press are coming out with prize schemes, announcing fabulous prizes, the highest being a prize of Rs. One Crore. According to the petitioner, these are nothing but violation of the provisions of the Act mentioned above. The petitioner also issued a notice to respondents 1 and 2 on 12-10-2000 requesting them to take action against 3 to 6 for the illegality committed by them. It is further stated that on earlier occasi...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ1107Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. All the above three Writ Petitions have been filed by different individual Petitioners as against the same Respondents No. 1 to 3 seeking for one and the same relief as against a common order dated September 25, 1989. The subject matter, the nature of Writ Petition and the relief sought for in all the three Writ Petitions being one and the same all the three Writ Petitions are heard together and this common order is passed.For easy reference W.P. Nos. 19135 of 1992, 18374 of 1992 and 18375 of 1992 are respectively referred to herein after as the first, the second and the third Writ.2. These Writ Petitions have been filed praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the concerned records from the file of the third respondent in B-1/8972/1988 (concerned with the first Writ Petition above), in B-1/9967/19S8 (concerned with the second Writ Petition above), in B-1 /, 11888/88 (concerned with the third Writ Petition above) and quash the common order ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »