Chennai Court November 2003 Judgments
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Sree Visalam Chit Fund Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Mad)183
Acts/Rules/Orders: Gift Tax Act, 1958 - Section 4(1)Cases Referred: Reva Investment (P) Ltd v. CGT, (2001) 249 ITR 337 (SC); CGT v. Indo Traders and Agencies (Madras) (P) Ltd., (1981) 131 ITR 313 (Mad)...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaresan Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeal)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC744
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner has questioned the impugned order of the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 dated 26.2.96 made in T.S.E. No. 17 of 1995 holding that the petitioner had abandoned the service from 4.4.95 and the claim of the petitioner that he had been terminated from service cannot be accepted.2. It is the case of the petitioner that nearly 20 workers were employed in the second respondent Cinema Theatre. The workers were denied their leave facilities, over time facilities and even the minimum wages guaranteed under the Minimum Wages Act. In order to secure those facilities, the petitioner and other workers joined the Madras Cinema Theatre Employees Union and made a complaint to the Inspector of Labour. The Assistant Inspector of Labour inspected the cinema theatre on 21.4.95 and obtained statement from the workers. Aggrieved by the above act of the petitioner, the petitioner was orally terminated from service on 22.4.1995....
Tag this Judgment!Ramanujam R. and ors. Vs. Chief Inspector of Factories and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ947Mad
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. Though the W.P.M.P.Nos. 27801 to 27808 of 2003 are listed, by consent of parties, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for hearing and disposal.2. As against the orders of the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Vellore, dated May 30, 2003, the petitioners filed appeals before the Chief Inspector of Factories, the first respondent under Section 107 of the Factories Act, 1948, on July 7, 2003. The said appeals were dismissed on the ground that the same were barred by limitation. According to the first respondent, the petitioners had received the orders of the second respondent on June 6, 2003. The appeals were not filed within 30 days, i.e., before July 6, 2003 and were filed with a delay of one day.3. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners and Sri S.V. Durai Solaimalai, learned Government advocate for the respondents. I have also perused the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions wherein it is stated that the petitioners have got...
Tag this Judgment!Sivananda Steels Ltd. and anr. Vs. India Cements Capital Finance Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC346
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. When the matter is listed for admission, after hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the same is disposed of in limine.2. This appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 27.10.2003 passed in Application No. 4298 of 2003, rejecting the request of the appellants to set aside the order dated 29.4.2003 made in Application No. 5074 of 2002 in appointing the Advocate Commissioner.3. Learned counsel Mr. C.S. Dhanasekaran, appearing for the appellants, has submitted as follows:The appellants and the respondent entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement dated 25.2.1998 in respect of the schedule machineries; the first appellant company has been duly declared as sick under Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act and, therefore, the proceedings taken under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, are not maintainable. The first appellant company has been directed by an order dated 22.9.2000 under Section 22-A of the Sick Industrial ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Krishnan Vs. Orange Valley Tea Industry Rep. by Its Managing Partne ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ105
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The above appeal is directed against the order dated 2.7.2001 made in A.S.No.7 of 2001 on the file of the District Judge, Nilgiris, at Uthagamandalam upholding the claim of the first respondent and reversing the judgment and decree dated 3.1.2001 made in E.A.No.134 of 1999 in E.P.No.32 of 1998 in O.S.No.49 of 1996 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Uthagamandalam wherein the properties of the first respondent-firm/third party/claimant were attached in lieu of the liability of the second respondent/judgment-debtor/defendant in the suit O.S.No.49 of 1996. 2.1. Admittedly, the appellant/decree-holder/plaintiff obtained a decree against the second respondent/judgment-debtor/defendant in O.S.No.49 of 1996, who was a partner in the first respondent-firm, under a partnership by contract during the period 1.11.1989 to 22.6.1996. 2.2. Even though the Execution Court dismissed the claim of the first respondent/third party/claimant and refused to raise the attachment by an order ...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Shanmugam Vs. N.R. Mani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad178; 2004(1)CTC436; (2004)1MLJ608
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above appeal is directed against the order dated 15.3.1999 made in C.M.A.No. 31 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 7.4.1998 made in E.A.No. 300 of 1997 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Erode. The learned District Munsif dismissed the application filed by the appellant and refused to raise attachment made on 11.6.1987 attaching the property in the Execution proceedings in E.P.No. 81 of 1997 to execute the decree dated 9.1.1992 in O.S.No. 582 of 1997 laid by the first respondent/plaintiff (decree holder) against the second respondent/defendant (judgment debtor).2. Admittedly, the property was settled by one Palani Ammal, the mother of the second respondent/defendant (judgment debtor) under Ex.A.6 dated 1.6.1984. Even before the suit was filed, the said property settled under Ex.A.6 by the said Palani Ammal in favour of the second respondent was attached on 11.6.1987....
Tag this Judgment!George Oakes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Mad)536; [2004]267ITR677(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1.Three questions arise in this batch of references and appeals. The first two arise for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1987-88, 1988-89 and the third for the assessment years 1988-89, 1990-91 and 1991-92.2.The three questions are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the assessee's contention that the property at No. 17, Greams Road, Madras, should be valued on the basis of rent capitalisation method for determining the taxable wealth under the Wealth-tax Act ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the assessee's contention that the property at Ooty should be valued on the basis of rent capitalisation method for determining the taxable wealth under the Wealth--tax Act ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should hold that applying the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of F.S. Ghandhi : ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalidoss Pillai Vs. Palani Subban Pillai (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ329
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This is an appeal by the second defendant in the suit. The suit has been filed for partition. The suit was originally instituted on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Karaikkal in O.S. No. 30 of 1977 and later transferred to the file of Additional District Judge of Pondicherry at Karaikkal. The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are brothers. During the pendency of the suit before the learned Subordinate Judge, Karaikkal, it was represented by the second defendant that there was a compromise and hence, he filed an application to pass a decree in terms of the compromise entered into among the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 in the presence of mediators. The plaintiff, however, contended that there was no division and he never singed the memorandum of compromise. Learned Subordinate Judge, after enquiry found that there was a compromise which was reduced into writing and signed by the parties and accordingly, he passed a preliminary decree in terms of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Sha Moolchand Praopchandji Gandhi Vs. C.C. (Airport)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(163)ELT20(Mad)
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. Return of the seized goods is asked for on the ground that a period of six months have elapsed from the date of seizure of the contraband, when the show cause notice was served on the petitioner. The following dates are not in dispute :The seizure was on 23-4-2003; the show cause notice is dated 16-10-2003 and the petitioner's case is that, it was served on him on 30-10-2003. Sub-section (1) of Section 110 of the Customs Act enables the proper officer, if he has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Act, to seize such goods. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Act, when any goods are seized under Sub-section (1) referred to above and no notice in respect thereof, is given under Clause (a) of Section 124 of the Customs Act within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. Section 124 of the Customs Act directs issue of a show cause notice b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Enterprising Exporters (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Mad)76
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is engaged in the extraction and export of granite blocks. For the asst. yr. 1989-90, it claimed deduction under Section 80HHC on the ground that it is engaged in the manufacture and production of dimentional granite blocks. All that the assessee does is to quarry granite and export the granite blocks of the sizes required by its buyers abroad.2. A claim similar to the one made by the assessee in this case was considered by this Court in the case of another exporter of granite blocks in CIT v.Pooshya Exports (P) Ltd : [2003]262ITR417(Mad) . It was held by the Court therein in that case that the quarrying of granite blocks does not amount to manufacture.3. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the fact that the law declared in that case is applicable to the facts of this case as well.4. The question as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that theassessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC is, therefore, required to be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »