Chennai Court December 2002 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.
Cit Vs. A.R.A.S.P.V. and Pv.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN391(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business as a dealer of M/s. Hindustan Motors Limited. The assessment year involved is 1985-86 for which the relevant previous year ended on 16-8-1984. The assessing officer while framing the assessment for the assessment year 1985-86 has found from the sale bills of the assessee that the assessee-firm had been collecting excise duty deposits from the buyers of motor cars and did not bring the amount collected by way of excise duty deposits in the relevant books of account. He found that the assessee had totally collected an amount of Rs. 12,62,438.08 as excise duty deposits during the relevant previous year and remitted a sum of Rs. 9,83,500 to the Hindustan Motors Limited and retained a sum of Rs. 2,78,938. He also found that excise duty deposits were collected at the time of booking of the motor cars by the purchaser and the amounts so collected were used for the purpose of day to day business by the assessee. Acc...
inspector/Fit Person, H.R. and C.E. Vs. Amirthammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ435
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The appellant was appointed as a fit person of the suit property by the authorities under the Hindu Religious and Endowments Act (H.R. & C.E. Act)-respondents 2 and 3, according to whom, it was a public temple. Thereupon the first respondent filed the suit against the respondents 2 and 3 and the appellant for a declaration that the suit properties are private and family properties and not a public temple and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interference. . In the plaint the suit property was referred to as 'Sundareswarar Swami Samadhi'. The question of maintainability of the suit was raised by the defendant in view of Section 108 of the H.R. & C.E. Act. The Trial Court decided this issue in favour of the first respondent. The learned Single Judge also held that since the suit property is a 'samadhi' ,the suit was maintainable. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant made his submissions with regard to the maintainability o...
Suriya Moorthy and Vs. Mrs. B. Chandradevi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: II(2004)BC73; [2003]116CompCas234(Mad)
ORDERMalai Subramanian, J. 1. The petitioners who are accused 4 and 5 in C.C.No. 313/2000 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate NO.I, Madurai seek to quash the complaint pending against them for offence punishable under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners are admittedly partners of the 1st accused firm. The 1st accused firm issued two cheques signed by its Managing partner, the 2nd accused and the cheques bounced and hence the complainant lodged a complaint against other partners also along with the firm.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no material in the complaint to hold that the petitioners were also responsible to the firm for the day today conduct of the business of the firm. He would further submit that the complaint does not even say that the petitioners are responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sec.141 Negotiable Instruments Act i...
Anbu Textiles Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)646; [2003]262ITR684(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T. (SS) A. No. 88/Mds of 1997 dated September 1, 1999.2. The appeal was admitted and the following substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admission:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal is right in holding that the appellant is not eligible for relief under Section 80HHC in respect of the income of Rs. 14,35,756 claimed by the appellant as eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that in an assessment under Chapter XIV-B, relief under Section 80HHC cannot be allowed ?' The appellant herein claimed relief under Section 80HHC in the block assessment made under Chapter XIV-B of the Act. The Tribunal, when it decided the matter on September 1, 1999, relied upon Section 158BB of the Act as it stood then, and held that the assessee was not e...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. S. Viswanathan and P. Kuppu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC359; 2003ACJ1734
A.K. Rajan, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ariyalur. 2. The claimant filed a claim petition in connection with an accident that took place on 23.2.1992 in which the claimant sustained injuries. The claimant made a claim for Rs. 1 lakh and to prove his claim, the claimant has examined himself as P.W.1 and two other witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. On the side of the respondents, two witnesses were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.5 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal found that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle and awarded a compensation of Rs. 90000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The Tribunal has also held that the vehicle was insured with the second respondent and directed the second respondent to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the se...
Thavaraj Pandian, Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2642
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Latha, an young house wife was alone in her house in the morning hours of 23-6-1992, after sending her husband to his shop for attending his business. The appellants/A-1 to A-4 gained entry into her house knowing that she was alone, threatened her to part with her jewels and when she refused, the accused stabbed her causing death and took away the jewels including mangalya sutra from her body and sped away with the booty. 2. With the above said allegations, the first appellant/A-1 and the third appellant/A-3 were convicted for the offences under Sections 120B I.P.C., 302 read with 34 and 394 I.P.C. and each sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offences under Sections 120B and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 394 I.P.C., the second appellant/A-2 was convicted for the offences under Sections 120B, 302 and 394 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offences under Sections 1...
Official Liquidator Vs. T. Sudarsan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: [2003]116CompCas88(Mad); [2004]49SCL694(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Company Application Nos. 888 of 1995 is by the official liquidator appointed by this court as liquidator of Messrs. Dhanalakshmi Funds (India) Ltd., praying for certain directions. Company Application No. 1321 of 1995 is by B. Rajagopal and B. Muralidhar, ex-directors of the company in liquidation seeking for an order to discharge them from the proceedings under Sections 542 and 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, initiated by the official liquidator in Company Application No. 888 of 1995 in Company Petition No. 88 of 1989.2. The case of the official liquidator as set out in his report dated November 14, 1995, is briefly stated hereunder.3. Messrs. Dhanalakshmi Funds (India) Ltd., was ordered to be wound up by an order of this court dated November 16, 1990, in Company Petition No. 88 of 1989 and the official liquidator became the liquidator of the said company. The company in liquidation was incorporated on August 9, 1985, by the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu. It w...
Ethiraja Naicker Vs. Krishnan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ173
C. Nagappan, J.1. This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 17.1.1989, rendered in A.S. No. 58 of 1988 on the file of District Judge, Chengalpattu. The plaintiff is the appellant herein.2. The case of the plaintiff is briefly as follows. The plaintiff is the eldest son of defendant No. 1 and defendants 2 to 4 are his other sons and they constitute a joint Hindu Family. The suit properties are undivided Hindu Joint Family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Pending the suit, the first defendant died leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 as his legal heirs. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share and the defendants 2 to 4 are entitled each to 1/4th share in the properties. The joint family owned 60 goats, which multiplied in number and they were sold for good price. Later, rams were purchased by the joint family and they were sold and lands were purchased by defendant No. 1 for the joint family. The plaintiff, who was employed in Fo...
S.N. Shanmugham Vs. Shankarlal JaIn and R. Sundaramoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC52; 2004ACJ1346; AIR2003Mad183; (2003)1MLJ380; 2002(2)LW126
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The claimant in MACT. O.P. No. 251 of 1996 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panrutti is the appellant in the above appeal.2. In respect of grievous injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 26.01.1995, he prayed for a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs. Before the Tribunal, the claimant himself was examined as P.W.1 and Dr. Nandakumar as P.W.2. He also marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 in support of his claim for compensation. On the side of the respondents, first respondent - Sankarlal Jain was examined as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R.1 to R.3 in support of their defence. The Tribunal, after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle, TN-31 A 0397, passed an award for Rs. 42,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and directed the second respondent therein - R. Sundaramoorthy, to pay the said amount. The Tribunal, has dismissed the claim agai...
P. Chandramouli and United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Its B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC49; 2004ACJ98; (2003)1MLJ421
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No. TAN 4334 are the appellants in the above appeal.2. In respect of the death of one Dr. S.K. Chockalingam in a motor vehicle accident that had taken place on 25.01.1992, the respondent herein, who is the mother of the deceased filed a claim petition, praying for compensation of Rs.9,04,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and three more witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 4 and also marked Exs.A.1 to A.29 in support of her claim for compensation. On the side of the respondents therein, neither anyone was examined nor any document marked in support of their defence. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry in question, passed an award for Rs.3,10,000.00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Questioning the said award,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »