Chennai Court October 2002 Judgments
O. Mohammed Raffi and M.M. Alaudeen Vs. the Commissioner of Customs (S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(151)ELT285(Mad)
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. Both the writ petitions were heard together since it was represented that they complement each other literally and figuratively. Each of the petitioners had imported the components of VCD players. But it was found that the spare parts imported by one when assembled with the spare parts imported by the other resulted in a Samsung VCD player what is called complete in a knocked-down condition. Therefore, the goods imported by the petitioners when assembled constitute 3600 pieces of Samsung 3CD/VCD/MP3 players complete in a knocked down condition. The petitioner in W.P.No.33381 of 2002 has paid the admitted duty. The petitioner in W.P.No.33003 of 2002 has not paid the duty. 2. The question is whether the Customs Authority can refuse to provisionally assess duty or to club the two imports to arrive at a conclusion that there has been mis-declaration or whether they are allowed to seize the goods. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the re...
Tag this Judgment!Wipro Limited, Vs. the Assistant Collector of Customs,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(146)ELT526(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.W.A.No. 1079 of 2000: 1. The petitioner in writ petition No. 7693 of 1993 sought for the relief of declaration or any other appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring that the proviso (ii) to Rule 9(2) inserted by Notification No. 39/90 dated 5.7.1990 issued by the third respondent, the Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi as invalid, arbitrary and ultra vires Sections 14(1) and 14(1A) of the Customs Act, 1962 and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner engaged in the manufacture and marketing of Mini and Micro Computer systems and peripheral devises like printer, drivers, etc., inter alia imported various components including software from time to time. The petitioner presented a bill of entry No. 15020 dated 15.4.1993. The chargeable weight of the consignment was 315 kgs and the actual loading, unloadi...
Tag this Judgment!S. Palaniappan and ors. Vs. Tirupur Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]114CompCas288(Mad); [2004]50SCL293(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. This company petition has been filed by the petitioners for winding up of the respondent-company, namely, Tirupur Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., Tirupur, under Section 433(c) and (f) read with Section 439(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The case of the petitioners as set out in the petition is briefly stated here-under :3. The respondent M/s. Tirupur Cotton and Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. was incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, on February 9, 1954. The authorised capital of the company as on the date of filing of this petition is Rs. 1,00,00,000 consisting of 6,30,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each; 20,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each; 3,000 cumulative preference shares of Rs. 100 each ; 14,000 redeemable non-cumulative preference sharesof Rs. 100 each redeemable at 14 per cent. The issued capital of the company is Rs. 69,00,000 consisting of 3,000 cumulative preference shares of Rs. 100 each; 10,000 equity shares of ...
Tag this Judgment!Escorts Finance Ltd. Vs. Fidelity Industries Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]117CompCas282(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. In Company Application No. 403 of 2002, the applicant First Leasing Company of India Ltd., has prayed for an order to declare that the charge created by the second respondent-company (Fidelity Industries Ltd.--in liquidation) in favour of the applicant herein and registered with the Registrar of Companies on August 16, 2000, is the only valid and exclusive charge in respect of the immovable properties of the second respondent-company measuring to an extent of 42 acres and 50 cents located at Ulandai and Kilai villages in Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chengalpattu District, further, the charge in favour of the applicant has priority and will prevail over the unregistered charge in favour of the third respondent herein (IDBI), which is effectually void against the liquidator and any creditor of the second respondent-company and consequently direct the third respondent to hand over the title deeds of the said property to the applicant.2. In Company Application No. 404 of 2002, ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Chandrasekar Vs. Inspector of Police, Fair Land Police Station Sale ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: I(2005)BC208; [2004]118CompCas108(Mad); 2003CriLJ294
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the above petition seeking for a direction to direct the 2nd respondent to revoke the instructions given to the bank authorities for freezing the account of the petitioner herein and his firms and to permit the petitioner to operate the accounts of the petitioner.2. The petitioner/third party has filed this petition against the order of the 2nd respondent directing the banks to freeze his four accounts in connection with crime No. 32 of 2002 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Fair land police station, Salem.3. The above petition came up before me for admission on 04-10-2002 and on that day, on behalf of the prosecution, Mr. Thambidurai, learned government advocate has taken notice and the matter was posted today. I heard both sides.4. Mr. Suthanthiram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as follows;-The petitioner is a resident of salem and carrying on business of mining, purchase, sales and conversion of miner...
Tag this Judgment!Deivasigamani and S. Mahalingam Vs. the State Rep. by the Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1788
ORDER1. Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the orders dated 23.08.2002 made in C.M.P. No. 2509 of 2002 in C.C. No. 218 of 1993 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.15.2. It is the case of the petitioner that on a complaint preferred by the defacto complainant, the respondent herein has registered a case in Crime No. 736/1991 for alleged offence under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 I.P.C. against the petitioners and four others. The said case has been posted on 13.08.2002. On the date, the petitioners herein could not appear before the Court as they were employed in the Public Works Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu and were entrusted the work of removal of encroachment. Unfortunately, the abovesaid fact was not brought to the notice of the Trial Court. Hence, the Trial Court ordered Non-Bailable Warrant on that date against the petitioners. On 23.08.2002, the petitioners have filed a petition under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. to recall the warran...
Tag this Judgment!Sical-cwt Distriparks Ltd. Vs. Besser Concrete Systems Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]113CompCas383(Mad); [2003]46SCL196(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This company petition is filed under Sections 433(e) and 433(c) of the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for winding up of the respondent-company, which was incorporated under the provisions of the Act.2. The respondent-company was established with the objects mentioned in the memorandum of association with the authorised share capital of Rs. 20 crores divided into two crore equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The paid up share capital of the respondent-company is Rs. 11,000. The respondent-company is manufacturing and dealing in decorating articles such as block wall patterns, lawn edging, landscaping blocks etc.3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-company has placed a work order dated August 2, 1996 with M/s Vibrant Investment and Properties Limited (hereinafter referred to as ('the VIPL') and also referred to as 'the said company') for laying and paving heavy duty pavement for 4.50 lakh sq. ft. using heavy duty pavers as pe...
Tag this Judgment!Yokogawa Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Soffia Software Ltd. (Formerly Soffia Info ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: [2004]119CompCas929(Mad); [2004]55SCL340(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioning creditor has filed the above company petition under Sections 433(e), 434(1)(a) and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of the respondent-company.2. In the company petition, it is stated that the respondent-Soffia Software Ltd. was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The authorised share capital of the respondent-company is Rs. 2,99,50,500 divided into 29,95,050 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The issued, subscribed and paid-up capital is Rs. 2,99,50,500 divided into 29,95,050 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The main objects for which the respondent-company was incorporated are to carry on business in computer software development. The respondent is presently engaged in the business of software development. The petitioner is in the business of software consulting. The petitioner specializes in software design and development, computer consulting and contract programming services, etc. The respondent was carrying ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Saraswathi Gopalakrishnan Vs. Surana Textile Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: [2004]119CompCas917(Mad); [2004]55SCL669(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above company petition under Section 433(f) read with Section 439 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, to wind up the respondent-company, namely, Surana Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore.2. The case of the petitioner as set out in the company petition is briefly stated hereunder :3. The petitioner was a director in the respondent-company from August 16, 1993. The respondent is a spinning mill. The petitioner holds 2,000 shares in the respondent-company. The respondent is a public limited company. Though she was a director of the respondent, they (respondent) were not sending her any information relating to the working of the company. She was not consulted, hence she sent a letter dated October 5, 2001, to the company for which the respondent sent a reply enclosing the annual report of the company for the year ending March 31, 2001. In the letter dated November 10, 2001, it is strangely stated that the respondent has chosen to retire the ...
Tag this Judgment!Tamilnadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: [2003]129STC420(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Petitioner is an assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner availed the benefit of waiver of Sales-tax on the newsprint, printing and writing papers made by it from it's new Mill, which it established as part of the expansion programme at a cost of Rs.427.21 crores. The production in that mill commenced on 01.01.1996. The waiver was for a period of seven years from the date of commencement of production. Petitioner obtained such waiver under the scheme of waiver/deferral for mega projects under G.O. Ms. No.323 dated 18.07.1991 read with G.O. Ms.No.43 dated 13.12.1992.2. G.O.Ms.No.43 in paragraph 2(d) provided that, 'Industry set up anywhere in Tamil Nadu having an investment of Rs.300.00 crores and above will be eligible for a subsidy of Rs.1.00 crore and a sales tax waiver upto seven years or deferral for 14 years upto full value of investment'. That G.O. as also G.O.Ms.No.323 set out that 'existing norms and guidelines for sanctio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »