Chennai Court October 2003 Judgments
K. Dhandapani Vs. the Superintending Engineer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad66; (2003)3MLJ751
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner is a tenant with respect to the property, viz., No. 99-100, Sri Venkateswara Complex, 2nd Floor, South Car street, Chidambaram, under one Ramalingam, the owner of the premises. Since the petitioner is running an institute in the name of 'Amutham Computing Technology', based on the certificate issued by the Director of Industries, Government of Tamil Nadu, bearing Certificate No. 180211106, dated 31.7.1996 certifying that he is entitled for the tariff concession, namely for tariff under category IIIA, he applied for the tariff concession under Category IIIA and accordingly, the petitioner was given the tariff concession under category IIIA, viz., at Rs. 1.70 per unit. However, the said tariff concession was withdrawn by the respondents based on certain audit objections and the tariff rate was changed from category IIIA to V and the petitioner was required to pay tariff at Rs. 4.40 per unit and settle the arrears to the tune of Rs. 43, 960/- from ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Muthukrishnan Vs. the Income Tax Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)55; (2004)1MLJ41
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The petitioner in the above writ petitions, claiming himself as a partner of M/s. Rajendra Silks, a partnership firm registered before the Registrar of Partnership Firm, Erode, sought for the certified copies of the Profit and Loss account of the said firm, filed by the Managing Partner before the respondent Income Tax authorities, for three assessment years, viz. 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 respectively, to substantiate his right in O.S. No. 454 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Erode, for declaration of the partnership firm. As the respondents refused to furnish the same, the petitioner has preferred the above writ petitions for issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue him the certified copies of the Profit and Loss Account of M/s. Rajendra Silks which forms an integral part of the balance sheet for the assessment year 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 respectively. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents conte...
Tag this Judgment!Cc (Sea Port) Vs. S.R.F. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2003
Reported in: 2004(113)LC218(Madras)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of both parties main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. Aggrieved by the final order No. 2/2002, dated 28.5.2002 : 2003 (158) ELT 788 (Sett. Comm.) passed by the Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Office of the Customs and Central Excise-first respondent herein, the Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port), Chennai-I has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:The second respondent herein has filed and application under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, seeking to settle the matter on the basis that he needs certain consideration in regard to benefits of exoneration of the prosecution etc. The second respondent-company, registered for manufacture and export of plastic ophthalmic lenses, had also obtained two advance licences bearing Nos. 2040439, dated 30.3.1995 and 3491572, dated 17.3.1995 from Joint Director of Foreign Trade (JDGFT), Bangalore for ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Muthukrishnan Vs. Ito and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2003
Reported in: [2003]264ITR766(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran J.The petitioner in the above writ petitions, claiming himself as a partner of Rajendra Silks, a partnership firm registered before the Registrar of Firms, Erode, sought for the certified copies of the profit and loss account of the said firm, filed by the managing partner before the respondent income-tax authorities, for three assessment years, viz., 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000, respectively, to substantiate his right in O.S. No. 454 of 2002 on the file of the Sub-Court, Erode, for declaration of the partnership firm. As the respondents refused to furnish the same, the petitioner has preferred the above writ petitions for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue him the certified copies of the profit and loss account of Rajendra Silks which forms an integral part of the balance-sheet for the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000, respectively.2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that; (a) the petitioner is not an e...
Tag this Judgment!G. Gopi Vs. G. Thiyagarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2003
Reported in: [2004]266ITR378(Mad)
N. Dhinakar, J.1. The petitioner is the accused in C. C. No. 109 of 2001 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Metturdam, and the proceedings against him were initiated by the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1996-97. 2. In the complaint filed by the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner is a salaried employee and is assessed to income-tax and that for the assessment year 1996-97, he filed his return of income on May 16, 1997, declaring an income of Rs. 85,812, after showing a loss of Rs. 15,550 under the head 'House property'. This loss of Rs. 15,550 is computed by the petitioner by claiming payment of interest on borrowals for construction of house property. The return of the petitioner was processed under Section 143(1) and a refund of Rs. 4,587 was granted on June 20, 1997. The complainant has further averred that on subsequent enquiry, it was found that the accused/petitioner d...
Tag this Judgment!Puratchi Tahalaivar Mgr Transport Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its Managi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ876Mad
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the award dated 02.09.1996 in I.D. No. 591 of 1994 on the file of the first respondent, the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Madras and to quash the same.2. The brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of disposal of this case are as follows:(i) The petitioner is the Managing Director of the Transport Corporation. The second respondent was previously working as conductor in Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation; later he was transferred to the petitioner's Corporation; he was a chronic absentee and used to absent himself very often causing dislocation of work and loss to the corporation; Earlier he stopped from work for more than 9 months that is from 28.08.1992 to 30.05.1993; Though his absence then was in violation of the standing order of the Transport Corporation, he was then admitted into service with severe warning; On account...
Tag this Judgment!Abi International, Rep. by Its Proprietor Madhu Valluri Vs. Additional ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2003
Reported in: 2004(164)ELT18(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents at length.2. In brief, an adjudication proceedings was initiated by the Commissioner of Customs - second respondent herein against the petitioner with respect to the alleged import of 248 numbers of used/second hand computer systems, 3 used colour monitors, 2 key boards and a mouse from Goodwill Electronics, Singapore, and as to whether the goods imported were covered by para 5.3 of the EXIM Policy 1997-2002 as per which, all the second hand/used goods shall be restricted for import and may be allowed only in accordance with provisions of the Policy, Public Notice or license issued in this behalf. In other words, inasmuch as the importers do not possess any valid license, the import is in violation of the EXIM policy and Customs Act, 1962.3. The Adjudicating Authority, viz., the Commissioner of ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Balaji Vs. Smt. Savithiri and Sub Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2818
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Criminal Revision Case has been filed praying to call for records relating to the order dated 13.12.2002 made in Crl.M.P. No. 4095 of 2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Dindigul and to quash the same as void and without jurisdiction.2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the first respondent as well and the learned Government Advocate on the Criminal Side appearing for the second respondent.3. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that the revision petitioner had married one O.K. Praia, the daughter of the first respondent herein on 21.11.2002 by registering their marriage before the competent authority. Transfer certificate of the said P.K. Priya, has been produced before the registering authority to satisfy that P.K. Priya has become a major. The revision petitioner and P.K. Priya, had also admittedly lived as husband and...
Tag this Judgment!B. Pari and anr. Vs. R. Murali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2003
Reported in: I(2005)BC170; 2004CriLJ2211
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1.The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 152 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Cuddalore.2. The allegation of the complainant/respondent is that the first petitioner, who is the partner of the second petitioner, had issued three cheques for a total sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the respondent; that the cheques presented in the bank by the respondent were returned with an endorsement 'Exceeds arrangement'; that further they were re-presented on 4-3-2002 in the Indian overseas Bank, Manjakuppam Branch, Cuddalore-1, but in vain; and hence the complaint.3. On the other hand, the petitioners submit that the respondent issued a legal notice to the petitioners, who in turn, questioned that having paid Rs. 2,00,000/- out of Rs. 2,50,000/- the legal notice should not have been issued to them; that the respondent asked the petitioner to take it easy since i...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kumar Vs. Saptagiri Investments
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2003
Reported in: [2005]123CompCas737(Mad); 2004CriLJ2150
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. All the above criminal revision cases have been directed against the orders dated 29-7-2003 made in C.M.P. Nos. 3297, 3298 and 3296 of 2003 respectively in C. C. Nos. 19, 20 and 21 of 2003 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.2. Tracing the history of the case, it comes to be seen that these are the cases registered against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, based on the complaint of the respondent on the cheques issued for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 38,000/-respectively by the petitioner in favour of the respondent, which had bounced. It further comes to be seen that the petitioner filed petitions in C.M.P. Nos. 3297, 3298 and 3296 of 2003 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham seeking to discharge him from the cases in C. C. Nos. 19, 20 and 21 of 2003 on the ground that the respondent has not given separate notice to the Company and its partners and that the responden...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »