Chennai Court December 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Amber Impex Vs. Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: [2006]144STC45(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Petitioner is an importer and has imported Camay toilet soap. According to him, this consignment is meant for sale in Delhi. Even before the consignment could be cleared from the bonded warehouse after payment of duty, the goods were attached by the officers of the sales tax department on the ground of suspicion which are based solely on the fact that a notice had been sent to the petitioner at the address given by the petitioner, but which notice came back unserved.2. Petitioner has produced documents to show that it has applied for registration in Delhi. It has stated that this is the first import that it has effected and that the goods imported are meant for sale in Delhi and none of it is meant for sale in Tamil Nadu. Petitioner has also offered to co-operate with the enforcement wing authorities to ensure that the consignment is removed from Tamil Nadu and that there is no possibility of the goods being sold within Tamil Nadu.3. The role assumed by the...
A. Chandrasekaran Vs. Logambal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC778
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The owner of the vehicle has filed the above appeal questioning the award passed by the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from paying the compensation.2. The owner of the vehicle, the appellant herein has come forward with the above appeal on the basis that merely because the driver was not having licence, the Tribunal is not correct in exonerating the Insurance Company. It is well settled that even in similar cases, the Courts have held that owner is liable to pay the money and so, the Tribunal is correct in fixing the liability on the owner, when it is admitted that the driver, who drove the vehicle was not having valid licence on the date of accident. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs....
Macneill and Magor Kilburn Group Companies Employees Union, (Regd. No. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ929Mad
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is very limited inasmuch as the petitioner seeks for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 6 to implement the award of the Industrial Tribunal in Complaint No. 17 of 1999, dated August 9, 2001. By the said award, the lockout declared by respondent 2 to 5 was held to be illegal and with a further direction to reinstate the workers from November 2, 1999 with back wages. Since the said award has not been implemented, the present ] writ petition has been filed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 6.3. Considering the plea as well as the fact that the award has not been questioned by the respondents, more particularly, the respondent 2 to 6, it is needless to mention that the same has to be implemented excluding 43 employees whose names mentioned in the additional affidavit.4. In this view of the matter, there will be a direction as prayed for in this wri...
South India Exports Rep. by Its Partner Mr. Indermal Ramani Vs. the Jo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(91)ECC555; (2004)1MLJ489
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court, dismissing the five writ petitions and the writ miscellaneous petitions therein, the petitioners have come up before us in these writ appeals. 2. All the petitioners are the export-oriented units. The Government of India has formulated an Export-Import Policy under Sec. 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Foreign Trade Act'). Under the said policy, concessions were given for imports as well as exports. On the basis of such concessions, the petitioners could import raw materials without payment of duty with the obligation to export the 'manufactured goods' from that imported raw material. The petitioners are manufacturing exporters in the sense, that they are expected to have their factories for the manufacturing of some export-material, the raw material for which is imported. This is called 'Advance Licence'. The advance licences ar...
Premier Poly Sacks (P) Ltd. Vs. Jow Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Chennai)619
The appellant- assessee is in appeal against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Tiruchirapally, dated 30-9-2002.The brief facts of the case are that the appellant- company is a private limited company manufacturing HDE pipes. The company filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year admitting 'Nil' income. Assessment was framed under section 143(3).The first issue is regarding disallowance of Rs. 4,20,000, confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), being the commission paid to the directors, and the second issue is regarding confirming the disallowance by Commissioner (Appeals), the amount of Rs. 13,47,894 being the interest payable in respect of investments made in M/s Virgo Polymers India ITD.Now, we will consider the first issue, i.e., the commission paid to the three directors amounting to Rs. 4,20,000. In its return of income, the appellantcompany had claimed expenditure on account of sales commission to its three directors, namely, Shri A. Ramadoss, Smt. R....
Shanmugaraj Vs. the Deputy Superintendent of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad235; 2004(1)CTC750
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. One Shanmugaraj, West District Secretary of Puthiya Thamizhagam Political party, aggrieved by order of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thenkasi/first respondent herein dated 6.12.2003, rejecting his request for holding an all party Hunger Strike under the presidentship of Puthiya Thamizhagam Founder President Thiru K. Krishnasamy on 10.12.2003 to protest against construction of wall across Karuppanathi River after 1 1/2 k.m. from the Karuppanathi Dam to a height of 4 feet and length across 155 feet near Kadayanallur, has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and direct the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to hold an all party Hunger Strike in Quaid-e-Millath Thidal, Kadayanallur, Tirunelveli District.2. According to the petitioner, he is a District Secretary of Tirunelveli West District of Puthiya Thamizhagam political party. Karuppanathi Dam comes within the jurisdiction of Kadayanallur Municipality and the water benefits about ...
V. Sundarajan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad277
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent, made in G. O. Ms. No. 16 Commercial Taxes and Religions Endowment Department dated 11-1-1996 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of 2nd respondent, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder :The third respondent herein, a chit company filed A. O. P. No. 77/90 (Arbitration Original Petition) on the file of 2nd respondent alleging that the petitioner stood as guarantor in respect of a chit transaction. The petitioner has filed a written statement stating that he never stood as guarantor and denied the execution of guarantee letter. It is also stated that his signature was forged for which he filed an application in I.A. No. 2/94 praying the second respondent to issue summons to the hand writing expert of the Tamil Nadu Forensic Laboratory, Madras-4. The third respondent filed a counter stating that ...
Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)165; [2005]273ITR152(Mad)
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The assessee is a company carrying on the business in the manufacture and sale of flavours, essence, etc. For the asst. yr. 1989-90, the company filed a return, in which, a claim of deduction under Sections 80HH and 80-I of the IT Act was made. In the assessment made, the AO allocated a sum of Rs. 54,92,889 as expenditure on research and development pertaining to Chithoor unit. Assessee's appeal and further appeal to the Tribunal having proved unsuccessful, assessee is now before us.2. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the amount so included does not pertain to Chithoor unit, in which unit there is no research and development activity undertaken and carried out. Learned counsel for the assessee also submitted that regarding the products that were manufactured in Chithoor unit, no research and development was undertaken at Madras and that, therefore, the allocation of some amount on that head to Chithoor unit was not warranted.3. It is pertinent to point ou...
Hiluru Hameedha Begum Vs. Pappammal and Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC164; (2004)1MLJ540
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The landlady is the revision petitioner.2. The landlady filed the petition under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 in RCOP. No. 89/1992 before the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif) Tirunelveli and the same was decreed on 22.12.1994. As against the same, the tenant preferred an appeal in RCA. No. 11/1995 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli and the said appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the landlady has preferred this civil revision petition.3. The case of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent is the wife of the 2nd respondent, who took the petition premises on lease in October 1988 for running a business in ornament making, on a monthly rent of Rs. 275/- payable on or before 5th of every English calendar month. The respondents are very irregular in payment of rent and they have paid a sum of Rs. 1,100/- on 12.5.1992, being the four months rent from Septem...
S. Rahamathullah Vs. Mrs. Ratna Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad368
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115, CPC praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 26-3-2003 made in I.A. No. 5885 of 2002 in O.S. No. 5731 of 2001 by the Court of VIII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.2. Tracing the history of the above civil revision petition having come to be filed, it comes to be known that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S. No. 5731 of 2001 before the Court of VIII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai for recovery of a sum of Rs. 38,800/-. Pending the suit, the petitioner/defendant has filed the petition in I.A. No. 5985 of 2002 under Order 37, Rule 3(5) of CPC praying to grant leave to the petitioner to defend the suit and, since, the said petition was dismissed by the Court-below, the petitioner/defendant in the suit has come forward to file the civil revision petition on grounds such as the finding of the trial Court that a perusal of Exs. R1 to R8 show that the goods were supplie...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »