Chennai Court January 2003 Judgments
Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. Rep. by Its Vice President (Finance) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)567
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. R. Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner and Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman for the respondents.2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order bearing No. G.I. No. 4-S/95-96 & 96-97 dated 27.11.2002, issued under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the second respondent i.e., The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II (1), Chennai.3. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company, registered under the Companies Act, engaged in the business of manufacture of paper and leasing of equipment. For the financial year 1994-1995 (Assessment year 1995-1996), the petitioner company had filed its return under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act on 22.11.1995 and for the subsequent financial year 1995-1996 (Assessment Year 1996-1997), it had filed return on 28.11.1996. The Department initiated proceedings under Section 132 of the Act and the Assessing Officer had passed an order under Section 158(B)(C) of the Act. The said order was ap...
Tag this Judgment!The Madurai Kamaraj University Administrative Staff Welfare Associatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC54
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner-associations have filed this Writ petition seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to implement the Memorandum of Agreement dated 20.10.1999.2. The 1st respondent raised certain demands and the respondents called the 1st petitioner-association in their letter dated 26.3.1999 for negotiations. Both the petitioner-unions for the purpose of negotiation formed a Joint Action Committee. The respondents called the joint Action committee for negotiations on 13.10.1999 and 20.10.1999. After negotiations, the respondents prepared a Memorandum of Agreement which was signed by both sides on 20.10.1999. Some of the clauses in the agreement under which benefits were given to the members of the petitioners were implemented by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioners that some of the demands which were approved by the Syndicate were not implemented. Stating that refusal to implement the Memorandum of Agreement on the part of t...
Tag this Judgment!Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs. Cit and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: [2003]261ITR63(Mad)
P.K. Misra J.Heard Mr. V. Ramachandran, learned senior counsel, for the petitioner, and Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman for the respondents.2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order bearing G. I. No. 4-S of 1995-96 and 1996-97, dated 27-11-2002, issued under section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the second respondent, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II(1), Chennai.3. The petitioner is a public limited company, registered under the Companies Act, engaged in the business of manufacture of paper and leasing of equipment. For the financial year 1994-95 (assessment year 1995-96), the petitioner-company had filed its return under section 139 of the Income Tax Act on 22-11-1995, and for the subsequent financial year 1995-96 (assessment year 1996-97), it had filed return on 28-11-1996. The department initiated proceedings under section 132 of the Act and the assessing officer had passed an order under section 158BC of th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Nagarajan Vs. R. Radha and K.S. Ramasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC454; (2003)1MLJ474
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. NO. 430 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Karur, has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved against the order dated 11.10.2002 passed in I.A.307 of 2002.2. The case in brief for disposal of this Civil Revision Petition is as follows :The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. NO. 307 of 2002 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 to pass an order of temporary injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants and their men from, in any manner, interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property till the disposal of the suit. The suit property originally belongs to one Sembayee Ammal and on 19.09.1990, she entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the property for a price of Rs.3,500/- per cent with the petitioner. On the date of agreement itself, Sembayee Ammal received a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs as advance and she agreed to convey the property within...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayalakshmi Leather Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. K. Narayanan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad203; (2003)1MLJ530
S. Jagadeesan, J. 1. The appeal is against the order dated 16.8.2002 in E.P.78 of 1997 in M.H.C.S.73 of 1981 on the file of Sub Court, Poonamallee. The first respondent filed the suit C.S. No. 73 of 1981 on the file of this court for partition of the suit property and for allotment of half of his share. A preliminary decree was passed on 7.11.1985.2. Subsequent to the preliminary decree, the first respondent filed an application 5412 of 1988 in C.S.73 of 1981 for passing final decree. An Advocate-Commissioner was appointed to suggest the mode of division. Subsequently this court passed the final decree on 25.4.1989. On the basis of the final decree, the first respondent also filed E.P.78 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, praying for delivery of vacant possession of the disputed item herein. 3. The appellants got themselves impleaded in the said execution petition as sixth respondent and disputed the claim of the first respondent in the E.P. Overruling the objections ra...
Tag this Judgment!Basha Sahib Vs. Valikandapuram Village, Kasi Visvanathaswamy Koil, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC19; (2003)1MLJ563
A.K. Rajan, J.1. Second Appeal is filed by the third defendant. The respondents-1 and 2 herein and one Sellamuthu (since deceased) filed the suit in representative capacity praying for declaration that the suit property belonged to Kasiviswanathasamy Temple and also for permanent injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to Kasiviswanathasamy Temple. First plaintiff's father Appavu Padaiyachi was managing the properties as well as the temple. In order to establish a high school in Valikandapuram village, the Village Committee requested the father of the second plaintiff/second respondent herein to hand over the property to the Village Committee; Committee also promised that some other property would be purchased in name of the temple by the Committee. Therefore, on 2.6.1966, the suit property was transferred in the name of the second plaintiff. But, no property was purchased in the name of the temple, as promised; no high school was establis...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Alias Elumalai Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2262
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Mani alias Elumalai was convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 506(i), I.P.C. on 3 counts. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:'(a) The deceased Balasubramanian was an Advocate practising at Gingee. There was a land dispute between the accused Mani and one Raji, P.W. 6. The deceased Balasubramanian being a relative of P.W. 6 appeared for him in all the proceedings. To resolve the dispute between these persons, there was a panchayat convened on 17-5-1998. The decision of the panchayat was not accepted by the accused. There was a quarrel in the panchayat itself. Therefore, the accused lodged a complaint, Ex. P-7 against the deceased, Balasubramanian and P.W. 6 Raji and other persons before the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District. Apart from this case, yet another case was registered by the police against both accused and P.W. 6 for the offence under Section 160, I.P.C. The deceased,...
Tag this Judgment!Sulochana, Vs. M. Kulasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC218; [2004]118CompCas201(Mad); 2003CriLJ4373
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J.1. This revision has been filed by accused 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 in CC No.91 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal, against the order made in Crl.M.P.No.1865 of 2001 in CC No.91 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners to drop proceedings against them.2.The gist of the complaint is as follows :-a)The first accused is Kongu Spinning Mills, represented by its Managing Partner, C. Rajendran. The second accused is C. Rajendran, Managing Partner, Kongu Spinning Mills, while the other accused 3 to 11 are alleged to be the partners, who are in-charge of the conduct of the business and responsible for the day to day affairs of the firm. b)The further case of the complainant is that the accused had borrowed money on behalf of the above said firm, from the complainant on various dates and in order to discharge the above said debt, the second accused, on behalf of the first accused and...
Tag this Judgment!State of Mizoram, Rep. by Its Director, Mizoram State Lotteries, Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: [2003]131STC56(Mad)
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. These matters emanate from the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998, which is hereinafter referred to as the Lotteries Act. The Lotteries Act is a Central piece of Legislation. The Lotteries Act confers rule making powers both on the Central Government as also the State Government under Section 11 and 12 respectively. State of Tamil Nadu framed Rules in exercise of Powers under Section 12 of the Act, titled Tamil Nadu State Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2002. Lotteries were being conducted not only by the State of Tamil Nadu, but by other States too. Rules 3 to 19 relate to the lotteries conducted by the State of Tamil Nadu while Rule 20 pertains to the lotteries conducted by other States, Union Territory or any country having bilateral treaty with India. Rule 20 was the subject matter of writ petitions of the year 2002, on the ground that the restrictions imposed on the conducting of lotteries other than State of Tamil Nadu were not only unreasonable, but also d...
Tag this Judgment!Ar. Narayanan Vs. Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) and the Sub Regist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad266; (2003)1MLJ539
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Virudhunagar/first respondent herein in T.D. Nos. 401/95, 402/95, 467/95, and 403/95 dated 16-9-2002 and 10-10-2002 determining the market value of the properties in question and claiming difference in the amount of stamp duty, the petitioner has filed the above writ petitions to quash the same on various grounds. Since similar and identical order has been passed by the first respondent, they are being disposed of by the following common order.2. Heard Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. G. Kavitha, learned Government Advocate for respondents.3. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: According to him, his wife-N. Valliyammai Achi had purchased lands of an extent of 31,076 sq.ft. in survey No. 447; 15,328 sq.ft. in survey No. 448/1; 18,540 sq.ft. in survey No. 448/2; and 421 sq.ft in survey No. 449 in all measuring 65,365 sq.ft., in Senjam village in K...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »