Chennai Court April 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.P. Visalakshi Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR493(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Counsel contends that the amnesty scheme is available only to those who pay tax under that scheme. The scheme is one for 'disclosure' and payment of tax is incidental. Disclosure of income which has the effect of reducing the loss is also a disclosure and that is what has been held by the Tribunal.2. We have not been shown anything in the scheme which makes it mandatory that the benefit of the scheme cannot be granted to an assessee who, as the result of the disclosure, is not obliged to make a payment.3. We do not see any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The petition is dismissed....
Rajamani, Wife and Nominee of S. Rajagopalan (Since Deceased) and 8 Ot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1453Mad
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J.1. Petitioner's in the writ petition are the appellants herein. In the writ petition, they have prayed for issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the order of the first respondent and for a direction to the second respondent to pay the amount of gratuity payable to each of the petitioners as computed by him and deposited with him by the third respondent as per Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The writ petition was dismissed and the appeal is as against that order.2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are asfollows:-The employees of the third respondent management, the appellants herein some of whom are legal representatives of the deceased employees, were illiterate and poorly educated persons and they were serving in the textile, spinning and weaving mill of the third respondent management. After having put in substantial period of service, on their retirement, the management, instead of calculating the gratui...
Mrf Ltd. Vs. Emco Goa Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad346; (2001)2MLJ158
C. Nagappan, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of learned VII-Assistant City Civil Judge at Madras passed in O.S. No. 1046 of 1985, dated 31-8-1987. The plaintiff is the appellant herein. 2. The plaint averments are summarised as follows. The defendant had business dealings with the plaintiff and in respect of the amount due under the goods sold and delivered, the defendant executed as on demand promissory note for Rs. 33,751.75, dated 12-12-1980 in favour of the plaintiff and forwarded the same to the plaintiff at Madras by their covering letter, dated 15-12-1980, promissing to repay the said sum of Rs. 33,751.75 at Madras, on demand, together with interest thereon at 18% per annum. The defendant did not make any payment either towards principal or towards interest and the plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant, dated 3-3-1982 through their Advocate demanding immediate payment of the dues. After the receipt of the said notice, the defendant made a part payment of R...
Rajathi Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas262(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. Petitioners A4 and A6 in C.C. No. 13 of 1998 on the file of the Special Judge under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 1997 ('the Act') Chennai, have preferred the revision aggrieved against the orders passed in Crl. M.P. No. 2 of 1999 dated 1-3-1999.2. The case in brief is as follows :The petitioners filed a petition under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to discharge them from the case. Act No. 44 of 1997 came into force with effect from 7-8-1997. The period of commission of offence alleged in the final report is prior to 29-7-1993, and lasted up to 16-12-1996. There cannot be any retrospective effect to the penal law and as such Act No. 44 of 1997 is not applicable to the case of the petitioners. Offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, could be tried by ordinary criminal courts, while so, trial of such offences by the Special Court will cause prejud...
Commercial Tax Officer and anr. Vs. Larsen and Toubro Limited and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2001
Reported in: [2001]123STC141(Mad)
S. Jagadeesan, J. 1. It is not necessary to go into the facts in detail. The short question arises for consideration is whether the respondents-traders are entitled for the issue of 'C' forms.2. As their claims for supply of 'C' forms had been denied, the writ petitions have been filed. The learned single Judge Reported as Larsen & Toubro Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer [1992] 85 STC 422 (Mad.)had allowed the writ petitions on the ground that the respondents are entitled for the supply of 'C' forms in terms of the respective registration certificates held by them.3. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the Government had issued a Circular No. 20 of 1993 subsequent to the judgment of the learned single Judge which is as follows :'In para 202(x) of the Budget Speech for 1993-94 the honourable Minister (Finance) had announced that works contractors will be permitted to use 'C' forms for the purchase of goods for use in the execution of works contract. In the circumstance...
K. Sadasivam and Another Vs. B. Harikrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ300
ORDER1. The defendant are the appellants. The case of the respondents is as follows:He is a tenant of the land in old No. 77, New No. 128, Gangadeshwar Koil Street, Chennai - 4, which belongs to the Devasthanam. Four shops were constructed by one Vadivelu Mudaliar, who sold those shops to the respondent's father K.P. Radhakrishnan alongwith the leasehold right. Therefore, the respondent's father became a direct tenant under the Devasthanam and he was carrying on the business of Astrology. After his death the respondent became entitled to the shops since his mother had given up her rights in favour of the respondent. The shop in dispute is the second shop where the respondent is carrying on business under the name and style of Malayala Jothida Nilayam. The respondent had earlier filed O.S.No.67 of 1990 for possession. The respondent claimed the right to purchase the land under Section 9 under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. The suit is still pending. After the death of his f...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2001
Reported in: 2002(142)ELT32(Mad)
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. It is represented by both the Counsels appearing on either side that the issue in these writ appeals is covered by that judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5436A of 1992, dated 11-12-1997, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows :'On consideration of the matter we find that this case is covered by Division Bench judgment of this Court in CW 1490 of 1982 (Zupiter Printery and Anr. v. Union of India) decided alongwith three other writs on March 7, 1991 wherein it was held that the outer shells of cigarette packets are not excisable under Entry 17(4) of the First Schedule as introduced by Finance Act, 1982. Learned Counsel for the respondent cited the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as C. Claridge & Company Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune : to plead that the decision of the Division Bench is contrary to the aforesaid decision. Learned Judges of the Division Bench duly considered the said judgment now being cited before us and have come...
P. Gajapathi Vs. Election Commission of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad446
N.K. Jain, C.J. 1. This writ petition is filed for the issue of a Writ of Prohibition forbearing the respondent, the Election Commission, from insisting upon the production of Elector's Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) as a condition precedent for casting their votes in the ensuing elections for the State Legislative Assembly.2. The petitioner is alleged to be the President of the Thinkers' Forum, an association of intellectuals. It is stated in the petition that the respondent is insisting upon the EPICs as a condition precedent for exercising their franchise. It is further submitted that all the voters, whose names are borne out on the electoral rolls should have been issued with EPICs, but due to lack of infrastructural facilities and inherent technical snags, hardly 65% of the voters could be covered by the EPIC programme. Insisting upon the production of EPIC as a condition precedent for casting vote, would deprive nearly 30 to 35% in every constituency, of their right to vote, and wou...
N. Loganathan and ors. Vs. P. Elango and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ113
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. These writ appeals are against the order in W.P.Nos. 15644 to 15646 and 18044 of 2000 dated 3.1.2001 passed by the learned Judge whereby the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petitions.2. The necessary facts for the disposal of these cases are: Indian Oil Corporation, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and the Bharat Petroleum Corporation invited tenders for transport of bulk LPG for two years from various sources to various bottling plants in the four regions vide tenders closing on 14th May, 1999 at 11.00 hours. A lot of tenderers along with the petitioners participated in the tender, which were accepted. The grievance of the petitioners is that the contracts were awarded to respondents 10 to 14 in the writ petitions/ appellants in W.A.Nos. 229 to 232 of 2001, who were not eligible to get the same, as they did not fulfil any of the conditions of the tender and were not owners of any truck. All the four petitioners filed separate writ petitions making all the oi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›