Chennai Court October 2002 Judgments
L. Sundaram and Ravichandran Vs. Lakshmanan (Died),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ95
K. Sampath, J. 1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.407/76 on the file of the District Munsif, Vellore, are the appellants in the second appeal. They filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their 34/96 share in suit items 1 to 7, for a declaration of their right to their share of Rs.270.19 in the sale proceeds lying in deposit in O.S.No.612/64 on the file of the same Court and directing them to draw the same from Court deposit.2. It will be easier to narrate the facts leading to the second appeal with a genealogy.GENEALORYTHOTTI SAPPANI||--------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | Thotti Chinna Foreman Lakshmanan Govindasamy Periasamy Babu Periasamy D-2 = DW1 (P.W.5) D-1 = DW2 | | ----------------------------------- | | | L. Sundaram L. Sadagopan Ravichandran D-1 = PW1 D-3 P-2 ============================================================3. The case in the plaint is as follows:The plaintiffs and the third defendant are the sons of the second defendant. The ...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Venkatesan Vs. Appropriate Authority
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN979(Mad)
ORDERIn W.P. No. 9793 of 1999, the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the transferor, owner of premises bearing Door No. 3, Krishnamachari Avenue, Adyar, Chennai-20 has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the proceedings of the first respondent-appropriate authority, Chennai-34, bearing No. A.A/MDS/No. 2(243) 5/98-99, dated 28-5-1999 passed under section 269 (UD) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and quash the same.2. W.P. No. 9956 of 1999 has been filed by the two petitioners, who are the transferees who have entered into an agreement to purchase, hereinafter referred to as transferees to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent-appropriate authority, Chennai-34, bearing No. A.A/MDS/No. 2(243) 5/98-99, dated 28-5-1999 passed under section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Pending the writ petitions, in WMP No. 13920 of 1999 in W.P. No. 9793 of 1999 the petitioner has prayed for an order of injunction and only notice was ordered. In WMP No. 13...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Venkatesan and K.T. Srinivasa Raja Vs. the Appropriate Authority ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)584; [2003]261ITR202(Mad)
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. In W.P.No. 9793 of 1999, the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the transferor, owner of premises bearing Door No.3, Krishmanachari Avenue, Adyar, Chennai-20 has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the proceedings of the first respondent-Appropriate Authority, Chennai-34, bearing No.A.A/MDS/No.2(243) 5/98-99, dated 28.5.1999 passed under section 269(UD) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and quash the same.2. W.P.No:9956 of 1999 has been filed by the two petitioners, who are the transferees who have entered into an agreement to purchase, hereinafter referred to as transferees to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent-Appropriate Authority, Chennai-34, bearing No.A.A/MDS/No.2(243) 5/98-99, dated 28.5.1999 passed under section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Pending the writ petitions, in WMP No:13920 of 1999 in W.P.No.9793 of 1999 the petitioner has prayed for an order of injunction and only notice was ordered. In W...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kaliya Pillai,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC447; 2003ACJ1021; [2003(96)FLR399]; (2003)ILLJ536Mad; (2002)3MLJ777
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kallakurichi dated 12-12-2000 made in O.P. No. 171 of 1998, the Oriental Insurance Company, Pondicherry has filed the above appeal. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein/claimants therein have filed the said claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs for the death of their son Pavulkumar alias Kumar in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 25-2-98. According to them, on 25-2-98 at about 14.00 Hours when the deceased Pavulkumar alias Kumar was driving a Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No. TAY 6838 and TCF 3683 from Sankarapuram to Moongilthuraipattu, near Ilayankanni, he fell down from the tractor and died. The claimants were fully depending upon the income of the deceased and they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant, father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Kalaichelvan as P.W.2, and Exs. P-1 to P-6 were marked in support ...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Officer, Thirupattur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. S. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ231Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the order dated 25.11.1998 made in I.A.No.196 of 1998 in O.S.No.91 of 1998 by the Court of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi.2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that the respondent herein was appointed temporarily in a seasonal post with the petitioner herein as early as on 12.12.1979 and on completion of his probation period, he was re-designated from the Post of Temporary Transport Clerk to that of a Junior Clerk (Seasonal) with effects from 3.10.1980 and thereafter he was designated as Junior Clerk (Regular) with effects from 20.2.1988. 3. It further comes to be known that on grounds of dereliction and negligence in duty and for dishonesty, which amounts to a grave misconduct as per clauses 17(3) and 17(9) of the petitioner's standing order, the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Granites (P) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: [2006]146STC642(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. Mr. T. Ayyasamy, learned Government Pleader (Taxes) takes notice for the respondents.2. W.P. No. 13428 of 2002 is filed challenging the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai, dated March 28, 2002 made in O.P. No. 167 of 2002 for the assessment year 1997-98. W.P. No. 39403 of 2002 is filed challenging the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai, dated September 19, 2002 made in O.P. No. 795 of 2002 for the assessment year 1998-99.3. It is not necessary to go into the larger question as we see from the records that the premises of the dealer was inspected by the Enforcement Wing of the Commercial Tax Department, and on the basis of the material collected during the said operation, the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Enforcement, Salem, has forwarded D-3 proposal and the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Enforcement, Salem, has approved the said proposal and forwarded the same to the assessing officer with a direction to implement th...
Tag this Judgment!Peria Karamalai Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu Taxation Speci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-2002
Reported in: [2004]138STC186(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above writ petition is filed against the judgment of the Taxation Special Tribunal made in Tax Case (Revision) No.2060 of 1997 dated 28.3.2000, whereby the claim of exemption of a turnover of Rs.17,55,135.20ps being the sales turnover of 'cardamom' on the ground that the 'cardamom' as sold by the petitioner was agricultural produce has been rejected by the Special Tribunal and thereby confirmed the orders of the authorities below.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and regularly dealing in tea, rice, wheat and sugar. For the assessment year 1989-90, the petitioner reported a taxable turnover of Rs.11,06,360/- under the Act. The Assessing Officer during the check of accounts had found that the petitioner had sold cardamom grown in their own estate and claimed exemption in respect of the sales turnover of the 'cardamom' under...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Sree Annapoorna Gowrishankar Metals (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-2002
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN404(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.The Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law at the instance of the revenue :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is a non-trading company and hence the rate of taxation is 55 ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1986-87. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business of running a chain of hotels in Coimbatore and the Income Tax Officer in the original assessment made on the assessee for the assessment year 1986-87, treated the company as a non-trading company and levied the tax at the rate of 55 per cent. Thereafter, he resorted to rectification proceedings under section 154 of the Income Tax Act and treated the company as a trading company and levied the tax at the rate of 60 per cent. The assessee challenged the order of rectification by filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld th...
Tag this Judgment!Tvl. V.M.V.K. Ramasamy Nadar Represented by Its Partner R. Viswanathan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-2002
Reported in: [2003]132STC109(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian,J. 1. The Writ Petition is filed against the order of the Special Tribunal in O.P.No.681 of 2002 dated 4.9.2002. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the dealer and the assessee in the books of the 2nd respondent-Additional Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. He was paying the tax under Section 7(E) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in compounding method provided. Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, which has been introduced from 2.6.2000 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) of Section 3, every dealer other than a casual trader or agent of a non-resident dealer, whose total turnover for a year exceeds three lakhs of rupees, but does not exceed ten lakhs of rupees, shall not be liable to pay tax on the first three lakhs of rupees of his total turnover provided that no amount by way of tax or purporting to be by way of tax has been collected by him under th...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sree Annapoorna Gowrishankar Metals ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Mad)466; [2003]262ITR497(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law at the instance of the Revenue: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is a non-trading company and hence the rate of taxation is 55%?' 2. The assessment year involved is 1986-87. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business of running a chain of hotels in Coimbatore and the Income Tax Officer in the original assessment made on the assessee for the assessment year 1986-87, treated the company as a non-trading company and levied the tax at the rate of 55%. Thereafter, he resorted to rectification proceedings under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act and treated the company as a trading company and levied the tax at the rate of 60%. The assessee challenged the order of rectification by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (A...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »