Chennai Court November 2002 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. K. Santhanam Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Mad)582; [2003]263ITR428(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law in relation to the assessment years 1982-83 to 1987-88 of the assessee:-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that since the assessee is to be taxed as an 'Individual' for the purpose of the Wealth Tax Act under Section 21(4), the benefit under Section 5 of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee?2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are that the assessee is a Trust and the individual shares of the beneficiaries of the Trust are indeterminate and unknown. It is a discretionary Trust and all the Authorities have found that the assessee is a discretionary Trust and the question that arises in the Tax Cases is whether the assessee, the Trust is entitled to the benefit of Section 5 of the Wealth Tax Act when the assessment was made invoking Section 21(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957(...
Tag this Judgment!A. Mohan Vs. K. Gunasekaran and the National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC300; (2003)1MLJ406
1. This Appeal is filed by the claimant against the order of the learned Judge passed in C.M.A. No. 511/2001, dated 25.4.2001, confirming the award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 733/1996.2. The claimant while he was travelling in a Scooter TN-04-3950 on 29.9.1995 as a pillion rider, the driver of the autorickshaw bearing Regn. No. TN-01-B 0174 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently on Saidapet 'Aattu Thotti Palam' and came on the wrong side, proceeded from North to South and hit the Scooter and thereby the appellant/claimant sustained injuries. The appellant, under Part I of the claim petition claimed a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards loss of earning, Rs.500/- towards transport to hospital, Rs.6,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.3,500/- towards cost of treatment, Rs.32,000/- towards cost of private treatment, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and Rs.10,000/- towards future treatment. Under Part II of the said Act, the appellant/claimant claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- tow...
Tag this Judgment!Titan Industries Ltd. Vs. Kanishk Jewellery
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC145(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The applicant/plaintiff filed this application to grant interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant firm and their men from directly or indirectly in any manner from making use of the name KANISHK for its goods and/or, as its corporate name of trading style or any other name which is deceptively, phonetically and confusingly similar to the plaintiffs' name TANISHQ and also from passing off its name and goods under the name KANISHK as that of the plaintiffs pending disposal of the suit.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff is a company registered under Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff company is a well known company having its manufacturing unit and registered office at Hosur as well as its branch office and service centres all over the country with its Corporate Office situated in Bangalore. The plaintiff company was incorporated in 1984 as a joint venture of the world famous TATA Industries with Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporati...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. K. Santhanam Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: [2003]126TAXMAN484(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law in relation to the assessment years 1982-83 to 1987-88 of the assessee :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that since the assessee is to be taxed as an 'Individual' for the purpose of the Wealth Tax Act under section 21(4), the benefit under section 5 of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are that the assessee is a Trust and the individual shares of the beneficiaries of the Trust are indeterminate and unknown. It is a discretionary Trust and all the authorities have found that the assessee is a discretionary Trust and the question that arises in the Tax Cases is whether the assessee, the Trust is entitled to the benefit of section 5 of the Wealth Tax Act when the assessment was made invoking section 21(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (h...
Tag this Judgment!The Treasurer, Chennai Devangar Mahajana Sabhai Vs. M. Rajappan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ131
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioner has come forward with this revision as against the order of the Court below rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order 26, Rule 9, CPC, wherein the petitioner sought for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to verify as to the whereabouts of the first respondent of a particular period and also as to whether the first respondent's name was found in the General Assembly Electoral Roll or the Family Ration Card or the Bank Passbook. 2. I am afraid that Order 26, Rule 9, CPC, cannot be invoked for ascertaining such facts, which can always be ascertained by way of letting in evidence, by which process alone the petitioner will have to establish such factors. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1998 LW 112 (Ponnusamy Pandaram v. The Salem Vaiyappamalai Jangamar Sangam), with particular reference to paragraph 5, wherein the law has been well stated as under. '... The ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Baskaran Vs. Secretary, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. and the Ge ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ194
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. P. Baskaran, the appellant herein filed a suit for declaration to declare his date of birth as 17-2-1935 and other consequential reliefs against the respondents, his employer Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited ('NLC') at Neyveli.2. The trial Court, on an appraisal of the materials placed by the parties before the Court, decreed the suit in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. Challenging the same, the NLC, the respondents herein, filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which in turn, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Hence, this second appeal by the appellant/plaintiff. 3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:-'(a) The plaintiff joined NLC as an unskilled labourer on 4-1-1961. The NLC which was at the initial stage, used to give employment to whomsoever willing to join its services. When the plaintiff joined the services of NLC, he gave his age as 26 years. (b) After few months, the appellant was made as a permanent employee. As soon as h...
Tag this Judgment!Jayaraj Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1479
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 75 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, wherein, by judgment dated 13.11.1997, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved by which, the accused has preferred the above appeal. 2.1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that at about 5 am on 7.12.1994, the accused, suspecting the fidelity of his wife Kuppammal, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, when she was sleeping in their house. The said Kuppammal sustained burn injuries over 90 to 95% and she was admitted to the Government Pentland Hospital at Vellore, where she succumbed to injuries on 9.12.1994. 2.2. The deceased Kuppammal had given five dying declarations, viz. (a) the first dying declaration is said to have been made to PW1, who is the cousin b...
Tag this Judgment!Arulmihu Kachapaeswarar Devasthanam, Rep. by Its Executive Officer Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ237
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1992 in A.S. No. 58 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.8.1990 in O.S. No. 464 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif, Kanchipuram. 2. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and the third respondent, the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department is the second defendant in the suit. According to the plaint, the plaintiffs have filed the suit in a representative capacity representing all the residents of Sri Kachapeswararsamy Nagar Colony and they are about 176 in number and the said Sri Kachapeswararsamy Nagar Colony is situate in T.S. Nos. 1274/1 and 1274/2 in two parts. The area, according to the plaint, is about 8.86 acres which has been subdivided into 170 plots measuring 20' x 66' each and six plots measuring 20' x 66' each. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Gandhimathi Ramayya Vs. Syed Mohideen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ363
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1 The above S.A.SR.Nos.91854 and 91858/2002 are posted to decide the maintainability on the basis of the objections raised by the Registry.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.Nos.1568 of 1986 and 1215 of 1990, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli, which was decreed in the judgment and decree dated 26.6.1998, and the same was confirmed in A.S.No.194/1998 on the file of the I Additional Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli, in the common judgment and decree dated 26.7.2002. Aggrieved against the said judgment an decree, the defendant has filed the above Second Appeal. 3. The said objection was raised by the Registry on the basis of Sec. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 2002, hereinafter called as the Act 22 of 2002, under which new Provision for Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure is substituted. The said Act came into force with effect from 1.7.2002. 4. In the present case, admittedly, the value of the sui...
Tag this Judgment!J.G. Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(154)ELT57(Mad)
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to extend time limit for furnishing the comments to the communication of the respondent dated 28-10-2002 by another 30 days from 5-11-2002. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication which was sent by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, in terms of Rule 16 of the Indian Anti-Dumping Rules, hereinafter called 'the Rules'. In the last paragraph of that order, the respondent has stated that interested parties may comment on the issue dealt with thereunder at the latest by 15.00 hours on Tuesday 5-11-2002, It is also further stated that the investigations are time bound, and request for extension of time shall not be entertained. As the said communication dated 28-10-2002 was received by the petitioner only on 1-11-2002 and there was hardly any time for him to respond to the information called for by the respondent, by letter dated 5-11-2002 he has intimated stating...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »