Chennai Court September 2001 Judgments
Periasami Vs. Chinnathambi Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ686
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The first defendant in O.S.No. 63 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur is the appellant herein.2. The first respondent and herein filed the said suit for framing of the scheme in respect of the suit temple and for consequential injunction restraining the appellant herein from interfering with his right to perform the poojas on the festive occasions mentioned in the plaint.3. The claim of the plaintiff/first respondent herein is that he along with the appellant and the second respondent herein are entitled to perform the poojas on turn system and however the appellant with his man power, interfered with the right of the respondents and hence the suit was laid.4. The trial court, after considering the evidence on either side, decreed the suit. The appellant herein preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 177 of 1990 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, who confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. A...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Ganeshwar Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Chennai)970
The assessee and the department have filed their appeals aggrieved by the order dated 29-2-2000, of the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore (Commissioner (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant is agitated over the confirmation of the order of assessment to the extent of treating Rs. 2.56 crores as undisclosed income and in not allowing of the claim of bad debts to the tune of Rs. 29,10,778 in the computation to undisclosed income within the meaning of section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The grievance of the department is on the deletion of Rs. 21.70 lakhs from the undisclosed income. Considering the fact both the appeals are instituted from the same order of Commissioner (Appeals), for the same block period and there is a common issue relating to the undisclosed income, the appeals have been grouped and are disposed of by means of this common order.The appellant at the start of the hearing placed a prayer ...
Tag this Judgment!Om Sindhoori Capital Investment Vs. Joint Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(Chennai)697
The assessee, a limited company carrying on the business of leasing and finance has instituted this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Chennai dated 25-11-1999 passed with reference to the income of the assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant- company has raised only one issue of claim of depreciation at hundred per cent on the continuous pusher type hardening furnace that was leased to M/s. Jonas Woodhead & Sons (India) Ltd. (JWSIL hereinafter referred to as). The appellant- company was represented by Mr. Vijayaraghavan and the department was represented by Mr. Venkatesa Gopinath.The brief facts related to the claim of depreciation are that vide invoice dt. 10-8-1995 the assessee claimed that he had purchased the said furnace from JWSIL for a consideration of Rs. 1.05 crores. The consideration for the purchase was made over to the said party. The said furnace is shown as leased to the sa...
Tag this Judgment!K. Rama Naidu and 6 ors. Vs. S.K. Parthasarathy Naidu and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad287; (2002)1MLJ186
ORDER1. 'Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedures nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. ....Even the law bends before justice..... If the Court finds that the order was passed under a mistake..... Mistake is accepted as valid reason to recall an order. Difference lies in the nature of mistake and scope of rectification depending on if it is fact or law. But the root from which the power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustice. ....If the Court is satisfied of the injustice then it is its constitutional and legal obligation to set it right by recalling its order.Rectification of an order thus stems from the fundamental principles that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and not for disturbing finality.'The above is the extract from S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka which was referred to by a Division Bench of this Court in Baskaran v. The Commissioner of College Education, while dealing with the important features ...
Tag this Judgment!Kwality Spinning Mills Ltd., Pollachi-3, Coimbatore and anr. Vs. Elgi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas244(Mad)
ORDER1. Both these petitions are being disposed of through this common order as the issue and the parties are one and the same. 2. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners/accused 1 and 2, namely the company and the Managing Director, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated through two private complaints filed by the respondent/complainant for the offence under Section 133 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The main point urged by Mr. Sairam, the counsel to the petitioners in these quashing petitions is as follows: 'Even according to the complaints, the first, notice was not served on the accused as the postal cover was returned with the reasons 'outstation' and 'not claimed'. Though the notice sent on 29.8.1996 was returned, again it was re-posted on 7.9.1996 and therefore, another cause of action cannot be created by sending the same notice onceagain, Furthermore, the covering letter was sent on 7.9.1996 and the same was received by the first accused alone on 9.9.1996...
Tag this Judgment!Arcot Exports, Amir Mahal, Madras-600 014 Vs. the Director of Enforcem ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(79)ECC539; 2002(139)ELT274(Mad)
ORDERP. Shanmugham, J. 1. 1. The appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 52(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Chairman, Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board. The Board has dismissed the appeal, against the order of the Additional Director of Enforcement, but modified the penalty imposed and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.35,000 by way of penalty for contravention of section 18(2) read with Section 18(3) of the Act. 2. The brief facts are as follows- The appellant has admittedly exported ready-made garments to M/s.Universal Enterprises Ltd., Male in September to November 1980 representing to the value of Rs.2.63,654,50. Since the said amount in Foreign Exchange has not been repatriated, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Special Director of Enforcement and after considering the reply filed by the appellant dated 6.4.1984 the Additional Director of Enforcement passed an order date...
Tag this Judgment!K.K.S. Kader Mohideen Sahib and Sons Vs. Joint Secretary, M.F. (D.R.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(139)ELT558(Mad)
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issue of a writ of certio-rarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent culminating in its Order Nos. 143-157/97 to the Government of India dated 12-2-1997, quash the same and direct the respondents to allow the claim for drawback of Rs. 6,50,238/-2. The petitioner firm was the manufacturers and exporters of finished leathers such as, lining leather, swedes leather and burnish leather. In the year 1993, the petitioner firm exported finished leather to foreign countries. In terms of the notification of the Customs Department, the petitioner firm was entitled to drawback and therefore, it filed 15 drawback claims. These claims were rejected by the third respondent. More than 200 such appeals were filed in respect of drawback for export of finished leather. The appellate authority under the drawback system remanded one set of appeals for fresh consideration and in another set of appeals, confirmed the order of the original...
Tag this Judgment!Vaithyanathan V. and ors. Vs. Deputy Commission of Labour and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ922Mad
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The respondent-company was a sick undertaking and had been closed down in the year 1986, For four years, payments had not been made to the workmen who had been employed therein. In the year 1990, an investor was found to take over the sick undertaking, and the unions having agreed that some sacrifice on the part of the workmen was also necessary to revive the undertaking, they entered into settlement in the year 1990 inter alia scaling down the amount of gratuitypayable to the retired workmen to 85 per cent of the amount. The concerned workmen also entered into such settlement with the management. Thereafter, the amount was paid to the concerned workmen.2. Petitioners are some of those who hadsigned such a settlement. It is the finding of theauthority that they had retired in 1990, or priorthereto, that they were willing parties to thesettlement, that they were bound by it that thatsettlement is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuit...
Tag this Judgment!N. Prabakaran Vs. Manager, Citibank N.A.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas471(Mad)
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The party in person is aggrieved by the order imposing a condition of payment of Rs. 2,00,000 for grant of leave to defend has filed the present civil revision petition. The respondent though served on July 4, 2001, has not entered appearance. Today, the party in person appeared and argued the matter. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the court below without considering the two documents, which clearly shows that his loan account has been settled, had still refused to grant unconditional leave to defend. The respondent has filed O. S. No. 5323 of 1999 under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,95,915.74 with interest. According to the respondents, a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs was granted by way of professional credit on January 6, 1997. Subsequently, since the schedule of repayment could not be adhered to, there was rescheduling of the loan on the request of the petitioner by his letter dated February 25, 1999. Subsequently, the ear...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Palani Dhandayuthabani Devasthanam Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ649; [2001]124STC553(Mad)
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. Sri Palani Dhandayuthapani Devasthanam represented by its Executive Officer filed W.P. No. 5752 of 1991 to 5754 of 1991 praying the Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the assessment orders made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Palani Circle II, Palani, for the year 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 invoking the Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxuries in Hotels and Lodging Houses Act, 1981 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the Act') and imposing a tax and penalty to the tune of Rs. 13,115, Rs. 16,205 and Rs.15,444 respectively and to further direct the respondent to forbear him from invoking the provisions of the said Act in so far as the appellant is concerned.2. The said writ petition was resisted by the respondent on various grounds. The learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the same on the ground that the remedy sought for in the writ petition by way of writ is premature and further the petitioner has an alternate remedy under the Act by w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »