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.
South India Exports and ors. Vs. Joint Director of Foreign Trade and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(156)ELT632(Mad); [2003]47SCL192(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. These writ petitions were heard on merit on the consent of the counsels appearing for the parties at the stage of consideration of the stay petition. Common prayer in all the writ petitions is for quashing the notice issued by the second respondent dated 7.2.2002 under Section 108 of the Customs Act.2. The facts giving rise to the W.P. No. 4695 of 2003 are as follows:-The Union Government has formulated Export Import Policy under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, here-inafter referred to as 'Foreign Trade Act'. Under the Export Import Policy, concessions were given for import as well as export. One such concession related to import of raw materials in advance without payment of duty with an obligation to export. Under Export Import Policy, the licensing authority, namely the first respondent is the authority vested with the power of monitoring and to enforce the conditions of the licence under Section 8, 9 and 11 of the Foreign Trad...
Three-n-products (P) Ltd. Vs. Jocil Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(27)PTC47(Mad)
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. This application is brought forth seeking for ad-interim injunction restraining the 3rd respondent from registering the 2nd respondent, their agents, representatives, servants, assigns and men as subsequent proprietor of the trademark 'AYUSH' under No. 472037B in Class 3 pending disposal of the above O.P.2. Both sides are heard. Affidavit in support of the application and the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent are perused.3. The applicant herein filed the said O.P. seeking for cancellation of the registration of the trademark 'AYUSH' under Registration No. 472037B dated 11th May 1987 on the Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai standing in the name of the 1st respondent. It is alleged by the applicant that the applicant is the registered proprietor of the trademark 'AYUR' in various classes ; that the applicant is the owner of the artistic work titled 'AYUR'; that the applicant has given wide publicity to its trademark 'AYUR' through various advertising ...
S. Subramanian Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)286
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. In W.P. No. 45311 of 2002, the petitioner- seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to lift the provisional attachment made under Section 281B of the IT Act only to the extent of 45 per cent of the undivided land of the petitioner at No. 1, Crescent Park Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600017, in lieu of the 55 per cent of the constructed area in the said land which would continue to remain under attachment and further direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to dispose of the constructed flats in the said land at Crescent Park Street, T. Nagar Chennai 17, only to the extent to pay the admitted tax due of Rs. 1,51,99,834.2. Pending the above writ petition, the petitioner, in WPMP No. 66213 of 2002, seeks a direction to the IT Department, particularly the first respondent herein to release the 45 per cent of the undivided share in the land at Crescent Park Street, T. Nagar, Chennai in lieu of 55 per cent of the constructed area.3. The conte...
Bhel Executives/Officers Association and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Mad)478; [2004]269ITR390(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the amendment made to Rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, under the Notification No. S. O. 940(E), dated September 25, 2001 (see [2001] 251 ITR 81), with effect from April 1, 2001, By a later Circular No. 15, dated December 12, 2001 (see : [2002]253ITR1(AP) ), option was given to the employees governed by that amended rule to compute the value of perquisites under the old rule for the period from April 1, 2001, to September 30, 2001. The petitioners are mainly unions or associations comprising of employees who are in public sector undertakings. In their perception the amendment effected to Rule 3 has resulted in their being deprived of recognition of their distinct status, distinct in contrast to the employees of the Government and of the private sector, and further their being burdened with additional liability to tax. The amended rule in their view is violative of Article 14.2. Rule 3 of the Income-tax...
Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Mad)181
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J. 1. In the present case, the petitioner was assessed to wealth-tax and the grievance of the petitioner is that in respect of the notice under Section 17, the AO did not give the reason therefor and had not passed a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment. In the impugned order, the AO has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court wherein it has been held that the proper course of action is for the AO to furnish reasons within a reasonable time and on receipt of the reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to the issuance of notice and the AO is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.2. The first respondent, in the impugned order has admitted that the proper course of action 'for the AO is to give reason and then pass a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment'. But contrary to this, the first respondent holds that 'the assessee did not have the desire to issuance of notice' and that '....the assessee is a...
Shanmughavadivel @ Kannan Vs. State, by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC397
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. The accused appeals.2. The appellant, who, in this judgment, will be referred to as 'the accused', was tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagercoil. The allegation against him is that on 25.4.96, he kidnapped Christy Kala, aged about 20 years and committed her murder by administering furidon, a pesticide, after mixing it in a cool drink. The further allegation against the accused is that after committing the murder of Christy Kala, he removed ear studs, M.O.10, silver anklets, M.O.11, valued at Rs. 2,250 and in order to screen the offence of murder, threw the body of Christy Kala into a well belonging to P.W.1, after a stone was tied to the body. The learned trial Judge, finding the accused guilty under Section 364, I.P.C., sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 with a default sentence of six months S.I. and for the offence of murder, he was sentenced to imprisonment for...
Venkataramanasamy Vs. S. Sethuraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ376
ORDERP. Thangavel, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant as revision petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 20.4.1999 and made in R.C.A. No. 60 of 1996 on the file of learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore, reversing the order and decretal order dated 30.4.1996 and made in R.C.O.P. No. 43 of 1995 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Mettupalayam, so far as it relates to wilful default in payment of rent and for own use and occupation, but confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller with regard to act of waste.2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of the Civil Revision Petition are as follows:- The respondent herein is the owner of the premises described in the Rent Control Original Petition and the revision petitioner is the tenant of the above said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. The rent is payable on or before 3rd of every succeeding calendar month. The re...
N. Selvakumaaran, Vs. the Special Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC287
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner filed the above writ petition Challenging the tender notice dated 8.11.2002 and to direct the respondents to allot the construction of Rajagopuram at Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Maruthamalai, Coimbatore only to the empannelled Sthapathis directly. 2. The petitioners have been selected to include their name in the panel of Sthapathis. They have filed the above writ petition questioning the tender dated 8.11.2002 under which offers were called for construction of footsteps leading to Rajagopuram with Shopping cum Office complex and construction of seven Nilai Rajagopuram for Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil, Maruthamalai. Since some work was done by the Tamil Nadu Construction Corporation, it is stated that for the remaining part of the said work, the said tender was called for. The said tender was challenged on the basis of Rule-30 of the Management & Preservation of Properties of Religious Institution Rules. Learned counsel for the pe...
Leena Enterprises Rep. by Its Authorised Signatory, Vs. the Chairman, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC584; 2003(90)ECC899; 2003(156)ELT651(Mad); (2003)2MLJ664
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. By consent, the writ petitions themselves are taken for final hearing.2. Aggrieved by the orders dated 3.12.2002, 23.11.2002 and 14.9.2002 of the first respondent, viz., the Second Appellate Committee, confirming the orders of the First Appellate Committee and the original authority for forfeiting the bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 6,45,590/-, Rs. 8,83,360/- and Rs. 4,87,299/- respectively, for non fulfilment of export obligations, the petitioners have preferred the above writ petitions.3. The only contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6791 and 6795 of 2002 and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 46550 of 2002, is that the impugned orders of forfeiting bank guarantee for an alleged non utilisation of the quota beyond the control, vitiates, inasmuch as it specifically provides in W.P. No. 6791 of 2002 that the amount forfeited would be sent to the Consolidated Fund of India and the sai...
C.S. Robert and A.S. Arokiaraj, Trustees and Representatives of Cathol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ254
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The question regarding administration of a church, to be precise, a Catholic Church, by name, St. Mary Magdalin Church situate in a village called, Vakkampatti in Dindigul taluk is the subject matter of the appeal. There is no dispute regarding the exercise of spiritual power of the church by Papacy through its local representatives, the Episcopate and the local Parish Priest as the plaintiffs have conceded that the spiritual power should be exercised by the Parish Priest of the Church. The question is only with reference to the temporal or administrative power over the Church and the exercise of the said administrative power. 2. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants in the Letters Patent Appeal, have instituted the suit for declaration that the suit Church and the suit properties belong to the entire Catholic public of Vakkampatti village with consequential injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 4 from interfering with the management and administration ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »