Chennai Court April 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sambandam Spinning Mills Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Mad)666; [2003]263ITR115(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, in respect of the assessment year 1987-88, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court. The referred question goes as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law and had valid materials to hold that medical expenditure incurred in connection with by-pass surgery of the managing director and also the travelling expenses in this connection incurred by the director and managing director's wife were to be treated as business expenses allowable in the hands of the assessee-company ?'2. The assessee claimed the medical and travelling expenses incurred by the assessee-company for providing medical aid to its managing director in the United States of America in a sum of Rs. 5,34,655 as a revenue deduction treating the expenditure as expended solely for business considerations. Likewise the air fare of the managing director's wife and another dire...
N. Nataraj Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Mad)388; [2004]266ITR277(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee owns a building known as 'Nataraj building' which consists of ground floor, first floor and second floor with vacant space for parking cars situate at Dr. Nanjappa Road (Jail Road), Cbimbatore. The building was constructed in the year 1981 by the assessee. Immediately after its completion, a lease deed was entered into between the assessee and the firm, Lakshmi & Co., consisting of the wife and daughter of karta of the assessee Hindu undivided family and a trusted employee of the kartha as partners, under which the entire building was leased out to the firm on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,250. The firm, in turn, entered into several agreements of lease with different tenants in respect of several portions of the building. The building was occupied immediately after its completion by such tenants. A lease deed dated December 9, 1982, was entered into between the firm and Indian Bank which is on record. That lease deed shows that the tenant had to occupy t...
A. Jegannathan, Vs. Local Library Authority of Tiruchy District Rep., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC522; (2003)2MLJ753
K. Govindarajan, J.1. In all these Second Appeals, the tenants under the respondent/plaintiff who suffered a decree for possession, have filed these Second Appeals. 2. As the issue involved is common, I am inclined to deal with all these Second Appeals jointly. 3. It is not in dispute that the appellants are the tenants and the respondent/plaintiff is the landlord. On the ground that the terms of the tenancy had already expired and the rent was not paid in spite of repeated demands, notices were issued to the tenants to surrender possession of the suit properties. Since no reply was given and no amount was paid, the respondent/plaintiff filed the respective suits for recovery of possession of the suit properties from the appellants/tenants. The same was contested by the appellants/tenants stating that their rights are protected under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 as amended by the Act 23 of 1973, herein after called the Rent Control Act 1960, and so the sui...
D. Samraj @ Newraj Vs. K.N. Nagarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad78
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner is the judgment debtor and he has come forward to file the above Civil Revision Petition against the orders passed by the Court of District Munsif, Krishnagiri, made in E.P. No. 25 of 1999 in O.S. No. 3 of 1995 dated 29-09-1999.2. Today when the above Civil Revision Petition was taken up for consideration in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner and with no representation made on the part of the respondent, inspite of the name of the respondent being printed in the list of today and therefore, this Court is left with no option but to decide the above Civil Revision Petition in consideration of the grounds pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would give the sum and substance of the whole episode covering the above Civil Revision Petition coming to be filed stating that the subject matter is the decree amount of Rs. ...
Hairtha Finance Ltd. Vs. Atv Projects India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR376(Madras); 2003(2)CTC226; (2003)2MLJ141; [2003]44SCL741(Mad)
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. This Application is filed under Section 9(ii)(a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act stating that the Applicant-Company has entered into a lease agreement dated 8.9.1993 with the respondent-company with respect to equipment. The said lease agreement dated 8.9.1993 was assigned under the deed of assignment dated 30.7.1998 to M/s TVS Lakshmi Credit Limited. To the said agreement the respondent is also a signatory and thereby they agreed that the original agreement dated 8.9.1993 would hold good and continue to be in the hands of the assignee, M/s TVS Lakshmi Credit Limited. By an order dated 31.7.1999 in C.P.Nos. 141 and 142 of 1999, M/s TVS Lakshmi Credit Ltd., was amalgamated with the Applicant's Company. Referring to Clause 31 which provides that all disputes, differences and claims and questions have to be resolved by referring the same to the Arbitrator, it is stated that they have referred the dispute to the Arbitrator. It is also st...
Peer Mohammed and S. Raju Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ45
V. Kanagaraj, J. 1. Both the above Criminal Appeals have arisen from and out of one and same judgment dated 27.03.2002 rendered in S.C. No. 59 of 2001 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court), Chennai, thereby convicting and sentencing the first accused the appellant in C.A. No. 722 of 2002 to undergo R.I. for 9 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo further R.I. for three months for the offences committed under Section 120B r/w 489-B of the IPC and to undergo R.I. for 2 years for the offences committed under Section 120B r/w 489-C of the IPC and a sentence of R.I. for 9 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default R.I. for three months for the offences committed under Section 489-B of the IPC and a sentence of R.I. for 6 years for the offence committed under Section 489-C of the IPC. Likewise, so far as it is concerned with the second accused, the appellant in C.A. No. 722 of 2002, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced him to ...
Rita Agencies, Rep. by Its Partner Rajan Syal Vs. the Enforcement Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1304
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This petition has been filed praying to quash the complaint No. TN/19783/Ch.II/Reg1/2002 dated 10.01.2003 made by the first respondent to the second respondent herein against the petitioner to prosecute for the offence alleged under Sections 406 and 409 IPC for breach of trust for non-payment of Employees Provident Fund, on the following grounds:-(a) that the impugned complaint is mala fide as it has deliberately suppressed the pendency of writ proceedings before this Court in W.M.P. No. 30981 of 2002 in W.P. No. 22422 of 2002 relating to the same alleged demand; (b) that the impugned complaint is not maintainable as it lacks the basic ingredients of mens rea necessary for IPC offences; (c) that the impugned complaint is illegal as it suffers from the vice of the Principles of 'Double Jeopardy' when the special provision of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act')make the non-payment of Provident ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›