Chennai Court July 2002 Judgments
K.P. Seethalakshmi Vs. Indian Bank, Esplanade Branch, Madras,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ146
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.80 of 1999 against the petitioner herein as second defendant and respondents 2 to 4 herein as defendants 1, 3 and 4 on the file of Subordinate Court, Srivilliputhur, praying the Court to grant a decree directing defendants 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.6,87,818.30 with interest thereon at the rate of 16.5% per annum with quarterly rest and for a preliminary decree for the said amount with the said interest thereon and in default permitting the plaintiff to apply for final decree and to bring the plaint 'B' schedule immovable mortgaged properties to Court auction sale and credit the sale proceeds towards the decree debt and further permit the plaintiff to bring plaint 'A' schedule movables to Court auction sale by way of charge and credit the sale proceeds towards the decree debt and for other reliefs. The plaint 'B' Scheduled property consist of (a) agricultural land measuring 3.56 acres in S.No.337/1 in K...
Tag this Judgment!Norton Intec Rubbers (P) Ltd., Madras Vs. the Collector of Central Exc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 2003LC23(Madras); 2004(164)ELT5(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a Writ of Prohibition forbearing the respondents from proceeding with the show cause notice of the first respondent-Collector of Central Excise, Madras dated 30-8-1993 on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:The petitioner company, registered as a private limited company under the Indian Companies Act are manufacturers of Butyl Rubber Tubes (BRT), Flaps, Curing Bags, etc., which are excisable products attracting tariff classification under Chapter 40 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short 'CETA 1985') in their factory situate in SIPCOT complex, Gummidipoondi. It has its administrative Office at Madras. The factory premises is licensed under the Rules of Central Excise. The physical control of Excise authorities over the removal of goods under Chapter V of Central Excise Rules became operative. According to the rules for physical control of licensed manufacturer of excis...
Tag this Judgment!H. Shahul Hameed Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (investigati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)449
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The appellant (hereinafter called as assessee) has filed this appeal against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal made in I.T.(SS)A No.372/Mds/97 dated 21.11.1996 raising the following questions:1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that an investment in the name of the assessee's wife may be treated as the undisclosed income of the appellant, where admittedly, the property belongs to the wife, if the wife is not in a position to explain the sources of the investment?2) Whether on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, in the absence of a categorical finding that the investment was made by the appellant in the name of the wife, such investment can be deemed to be the undisclosed income of the appellant?3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in so far as any investment the source of which is not explained, can be assessed as an undisclosed income only of the f...
Tag this Judgment!R. Govindhammal, Vs. A. Nirmala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ412
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The tenants having suffered an order of eviction before the Authorities below have filed the above Civil Revision Petition.2. The respondent/landlady filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No.60 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Controller (II Additional District Munsif), Trichy under Section 10(2)(i) of Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the ground that the petitioners/tenants have not paid the rent from the month of December, 1996 onwards. Though the tenants have come forward with the plea in the counter that they paid the rent till August, 1999 and thereafter, the Rent Controller, on the basis of evidence found that the tenants paid rent only till August, 1999 and thereafter, the rent was not paid. On appeal by the tenants, the learned the Appellate authority confirmed the same. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition.3. The above facts are not in dispute. The only reason stated by the tenants is that though the said amount was sent, it was not received. Bu...
Tag this Judgment!Hema Vs. Parthasarathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC562; (2002)3MLJ319
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The respondent herein filed H.M.O.P.60 of 1997 on the file of Sub Court, Kancheepuram praying the Court to grant a decree dissolving the marriage solemnized between him and the petitioner herein.2. The Petitioner herein filed I.A.453 of 1999 praying the court to pass an order granting interim maintenance for herself and minor son and also for litigation expenses. This application was resisted by the respondent. However, the learned Subordinate Judge, by an order dated 21.6.1999 granted interim maintenance from the period August 1997 till June, 1999 at the rate of Rs.600/- per month i.e, to say totally a sum of Rs.13,800/-. A sum of Rs.3,000/- was also granted as litigation expenses. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent herein filed an appeal in C.M.A.4 of 1999 before the Additional District -cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet. The appellate Court by a Judgment dated 5.1.2000, dismissed the appeal.3. As the respondent even therea...
Tag this Judgment!Karuneegar Sangam Rep. by Its Secretary, Tiruvannamalai Vs. the Tahsil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ144
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The above revision petition has been filed against the order in I.A.529 of 2000 in O.S.629 of 1984 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai, dismissing the petition filed under Section 10 and 151 of Code of Civil Procedure rejecting the prayer to stay the trial of the suit O.S.629 of 1984 on its file till disposal of S.A.No.1078 of 2000 on the file of this Court.2. Earlier, plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.160 of 1980 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai praying the Court to grant a decree declaring its title to T.S.No.604/1B2 and for delivery of possession and the same was resisted by the defendants therein. The trial Court dismissed the suit and aggrieved by that, plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.12 of 1999 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai. The appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal and against that petitioner/plaintiff has filed second appeal befo...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. R.R. Pictures
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Mad)316
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.In pursuance of the directions of this court, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for our consideration in relation to the assessment year 1966-67 of the assessee, :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to him to reconsider the penalty imposed under section 27(1)(c) on merits ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the assessee's plea for giving a fresh opportunity to argue its case on merits before the Commissioner (Appeals) especially when it neither filed a regular appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or even cross-objection against the departmental appeal ?'2. The assessee filed the return of income on 18-2-1970, showing the income of Rs. 64.310. Later on, he filed a revised return of income on 26-12-1990, s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.R. Pictures
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR669(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In pursuance of the directions of this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for our consideration in relation to the assessment year 1966-67 of the assessee :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with a direction to him to reconsider the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) on merits? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the assessee's plea for giving a fresh opportunity to argue its case on merits before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) especially when it neither filed a regular appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or even cross-objection against the Departmental appeal?' 2. The assessee filed the return of income on February 18, 1970, showin...
Tag this Judgment!G.A. Vasant Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: [2004]265ITR481a(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of all these tax cases, as the questions are common and can be conveniently disposed of. 2. The questions which are referred to us at the instance of the assessee are as under:-'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that a sum of Rs.1,15,514/-, Rs.6,19,944/- and Rs.2,54,212/- for the assessment years 1979-80, 1981-82 and 1982-83, debited by the assessee under the head 'Business Promotion expenses' expended to run the business smoothly and profitably by way of secret commission payments and other unvoiced non-descript payments, such as tips/mammals/speed money, was not a deductible business expenditure u/s. 37(1) of the Act in computing the business income of the assessee?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not following the binding decisions of the Madras High Court reported in , and ?3. Whether on the facts a...
Tag this Judgment!G.A. Vasant Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Mad)400
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.This judgment shall dispose of all these tax cases, as the questions are common and can be conveniently disposed of.2. The questions which are referred to us at the instance of the assessee are as under :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 1,15,514, Rs. 6,19,944 and Rs. 2,54,212 for the assessment years 1979-80, 1981-82 and 1982-83, debited by the assessee under the head 'Business promotion expenses' expended to run the business smoothly and profitably by way of secret commission payments and other unvouched non-descript payments, such as tips/Mamools/speed money, was not a deductible business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act in computing the business income of the assessee ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not following the binding decisions of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Coimbatore Salem Transport (P)...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »