Chennai Court November 2003 Judgments
V. Guard Industries Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(158)ELT806(Mad); [2004]136STC562(Mad)
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. Rectification under Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act has been refused on the ground that a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court with regard to taxability of the sale was not required to be taken note of as a ground for rectification. 2. The assessee had purchased voltage stabilizers during the assessment year 1992-93 from a firm which was a charitable organization and was therefore exempt from the payment of sales tax. The point of levy of tax was the first sale. When the assessee resold the goods, it claimed that it was not liable to pay tax as it was a second sale. The assessing officer however proceeded to levy tax rejecting the plea that it was a second sale. The assessment for the year 1992-93 was made on 10-1-1994. 3. The Sales Tax Act was amended with effect from 17-7-1996. The amended Section 3 of the Act provides for levy of sales tax on the second sale, if the first sale has not suffered tax for any reason in cases where the poi...
Tag this Judgment!Uco Bank (Formerly Known as United Commercial Bank) Sowcarpet Branch, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC10
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The decree-holder aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.1992 passed in EANo. 188/1990 in E.P.No. 54/1988 in C.S.No. 58/1975, has filed the above Appeal.2. The appellant filed a suit in C.S.No. 58/1975 to recover the mortgage amount and obtained a preliminary decree. Subsequently, on 13.10.1977 a final decree was passed. To execute the said decree, the appellant filed E.P.No. 54/1988 to sell the property. On 14.3.1990, a Court auction sale was held and the 1st respondent was the successful bidder and he deposited the entire amount on the same day including the poundage amount of Rs. 13,620 on 11.6.1990. The said sale was confirmed and a sale certificate was also issued by the Court to the 1st respondent on 5.7.1990. Subsequently, on the same day, the 1st respondent filed an Application in E.A.No. 174/1990 for delivery of possession of the schedule mentioned property. Though delivery warrant was issued to the bailiff to take possession on 12.7.1990, he was informe...
Tag this Judgment!Palanivelu Vs. Meenakumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad177; 2003(1)CTC26; I(2005)DMC224
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appellant is the husband who laid H.M.O.P.No. 30 of 1999 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Myladuthurai, to divorce the respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty said to have been caused by the wife.2. According to the appellant/husband, the respondent/wife was very aggressive at the nuptial night, was behaving very rudely against the appellant/husband, was questioning his black complexion, and was pleading for a separate residence. The appellant/husband further submits that the respondent/wife attempted to cut his forearm, attempted to murder him by pressing his face with pillows, threatened to commit suicide, and also created an ugly and unpleasant scene in the work spot, which amounts mental cruelty.3. The respondent/wife resisted the petition denying all the abovesaid allegations and expressing that she is ready and willing to join with the appellant/husband to live peacefully.4. The appellant examined his brother (P.W.2) to substantiate his c...
Tag this Judgment!Sekar @ Ottapalayam Sekar, S/O. Natarajan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1279
ORDERP.K. Misra, J. 1. Heard Mr.N. Ramu for the petitioner and Mr.M.K. Subramanian, Government Advocate for the respondents.2. The order of preventive detention dated 30.4.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 is being challenged in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.3. The petitioner has raised two contentions in support of the Habeas Corpus Petition. First contention is to the effect that in the order of preventive detention it has been indicated ' . . . Later he was produced before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and lodged him at Central Prison, Chennai as remand prisoner till 18.4.2003. The remand was further extended till 2.5.2003. The investigation of the case is not yet over...' It has been submitted that factually this statement is incorrect inasmuch as the petitioner was arrested on 18.4.2003 and remanded till 2.5.2003, but before 18.4.2003, he was not a prisoner even though it was so indicated in t...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Education ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ183
ORDERC. Nagappan, J. 1. The state Government has filed this writ petition seeking for quashing the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, dated 3.5.2000, made in O.A.No.1069 of 2000. 2. The first respondent filed the application before the Administrative Tribunal to quash the order, dated 24.12.1999, passed by the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, the third petitioner and consequently to direct the petitioners to appoint him as School Assistant on compassionate ground in his capacity as legal heir of the deceased mother V.Mary, who died on 2.11.1966 while working as Secondary Grade Teacher in the Government School at Ananthamangalam. According to the first respondent, his mother died on 2.11.1966, prior to the promulgation of the Scheme of providing employment to the dependents of the Government Servant, who dies in harness, leaving the family in penury and he was 18 months old child at that time. The first respondent has further stated that his father was self-employed a...
Tag this Judgment!The Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)650; [2004]266ITR166(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred at the instance of the Revenue is as to whether the Tribunal was right in restoring the order of the assessing officer in disallowing the Provident Fund contribution amounting to Rs.1,47,584/- and administrative charges of Rs.12,310/- under section 43B(b) of the Act thereby reversing the order of the first appellate authority. The assessment year is 1988-89.2. It is not in dispute that the amounts referred to in the question were paid before the due date as defined in the explanation below Clause (va) of sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Act.3. The assessing officer denied the deduction claimed, on the sole ground that the payment had not been made in the previous year although the payment had been made before the due date, the actual payment having been made after the close of the previous year. That view of the assessing officer has been affirmed by the Tribunal by reversing the order of the Commissioner, who had accepted the assessee'...
Tag this Judgment!T. Natarajan Vs. Indian Oxygen Limited, Represented by Its Plant Manag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ58Mad
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The appellant workman who was employed as a carpenter for about thirty six years with the first respondent, was served with a charge sheet on 17.06.1983 for the misconduct of wilful insuborindation and disobedience to carry out the orders of the superiors and for idling and wasting time during working hours. The appellant's explanation that he was entitled to a helper and the employer's refusal to provide him with one, justified his disobedience to carry out the work assigned to him, was rejected by the enquiry officer, who found that the employee had been doing work without the helper and that the work that had been assigned to him, did not, in fact, require the assistance of a helper. 2. Based on the report of the enquiry officer, who found the misconduct to be proved, the employer wrote to the appellant on 20.07.1984 expressing it's intention to dismiss him from service. On the same day a petition was filed by the employer before the Industrial Tribunal under...
Tag this Judgment!State by Inspector of Police Vs. Sivakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC695
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. This is an application filed by the State through the Inspector of Police, Erode Town Police Station under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to cancel the bail granted to respondent - Accused No. 5 in Criminal M.P. No. 5440 of 2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2002 dated 9.7.2002.2. Heard, Mr. V.M.R. Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the petitioner and Mr. A. Padmanabhan, learned counsel for respondent -Accused No. 5.3. In the affidavit filed in support of the above application, the Inspector of Police, Erode Town Police Station has stated that the respondent herein was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life for an offence Under Section 302, IPC on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, Against the said conviction, the respondent has filed a petition in Criminal M.P. No. 5440 of 2002, praying for suspension of sentence and also enlarge him on bail pending Criminal Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Pandyan Hotels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Mad)144; [2004]266ITR172(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is a hotelier. As the charges levied for the rooms in the hotel exceed the amount prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxuries in Hotels and Lodging Houses Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the assessee is a person who provides luxury in a hotel as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act, the assessee is required, under the provisions of the Act, to pay tax to the Government at the rates prescribed in the Act on the value of the luxury provided in the room. 2. The assessee is required by Section 6 of the Act to file a monthly return in the prescribed form. It is assessed to tax under Section 7 at the end of the year. Along with the monthly returns, the hotelier is required to pay the tax having regard to the period for which the rooms had been occupied by its customers. Failure to file returns or failure to pay the amounts results in the imposition of penalties.3. Under the scheme of the Act, a person, who occupies a room in a h...
Tag this Judgment!Sadakathullah Appa College, Represented by Its Secretary, T.E.S. Fathu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC1; (2004)1MLJ374
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The appellants and the writ petitioners are Arts and Science Colleges or Associations of Arts and Science Colleges. Most of them are affiliated to Bharathidasan University and some of them are affiliated to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. They are the only colleges in the State running MCA course who have so far not obtained the approval of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). They are before this Court contending that no such approval is required as, in their submission the AICTE has no jurisdiction over the Arts and Science colleges offering the course MCA. They rely upon the definition of 'technical education' in Section 2(g) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (AICTE Act) and the definition of 'technical institution' in Section 2(h) of that Act.2. According to the information placed before the Court by the AICTE, as of the academic year 2001-02, there were 865 institutions in the country offering 40792 seats i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »