Chennai Court January 2004 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.
Tvs Finance and Services Ltd. Vs. Orient Vision Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: [2005]123CompCas783(Mad); [2004]55SCL284(Mad)
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above application has been filed praying to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to call for offers and sell the schedule 'A' property and deposit the sale proceeds with the applicant.2. The applicant is a creditor of the respondent company and he submits that as on 26-7-2003, an amount of Rs. 49,15,833.90 is outstanding and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the 'A' schedule property, which is a house site in Bangalore is sold and on such grounds the applicant has come forward to file the above application.3. On a perusal of the materials made available on record and the report filed by the learned Official Liquidator, it comes to be known that the respondent company was wound up by this Court on 18-9-2002 in C.P. No. 166 of 1997 and the Official Liquidator of this Court has been appointed the Provisional Liquidator to take charge of all the assets and effects of the respondent company .Therefore, as per Section 456(2) of the Companies Act, ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Annamalaiar Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)250
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. The respondent-assessee is a company, which is a cent per cent subsidiary company, called M/s Annamalaiar Textiles (P) Ltd. The shares of the assessee holding company were held practically by two groups of shareholders, the majority shareholders called 'A' group and minority shareholders called 'B' group. Since all were not well and there were some differences of opinion, they thought it desirable to divide the companies among themselves. The result was, a memorandum of agreement was entered into on the 1st of June, 1985, and the parties to the said agreement were two companies and the shareholders of both groups 'A' and 'B', In the said memorandum, it was agreed the assessee-company shall transfer all the shares in the subsidiary company to the minority shareholder group 'B', who will in turn transfer all the shares held by them in the assessee-company to the majority shareholder group 'A'. It was further agreed that a sum of Rs. 42.45 lakhs should be t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Annamalaiar Textiles (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)248
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. M/s Annamalaiar Mills is a holding company, while M/s Annamalaiar Textiles is its subsidiary company. There were two groups of shareholders in the holding company and for the sake of convenience, can be referred to as group 'A' and group 'B', holding 61.26 per cent shares and 38.74 per cent shares, respectively. An agreement was entered into on 1st June, 1985 in and by which the majority group (Group A) came to hold all the shares in the holding company and the minority group (Group B) to own all the shares in the subsidiary company. The transfer was brought about by system of mutual transfer by Group B, transferring all the shares they had in the holding company to Group A and the parent company transferred all the shares in the subsidiary company to Group B showing it in the balance sheet as gifts to them. At the same time, Annamalaiar Textiles, the subsidiary company, paid a sum of Rs. 42.45 lakhs to the holding company, Annamalaiar Mills, to adjust f...
Thasi Naidu and ors. Vs. R. Vasantha and Nagammal and Minor Lakshmi Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ572
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1991 rendered in A.S.No.101 of 1991 by the Court of District Judge, Dindigul, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 9.2.1990 made in O.S.No.751 of 1984 by the Court of Additional District Munsif, Dindigul.2. Tracing the history of the above second appeal coming to be preferred, what comes to be known is that the appellants are defendants 1, 2 and 6 to 9 in the suit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff for a declaration that the suit properties belong to the plaintiff and also for possession, further claiming damages on averments such as that the suit properties and the land measuring 24 cents on the northern side of the suit properties originally belonged to one Marayammal W/o Karuppa Naicker purchased under a sale deed dated 7.1.1902 and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same till her lifetime; that Karuppa Naicker had four brothers and the defendants are the legal heirs...
Madurai Ganesan and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2736
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. 'Liberty is the product, not of institutions, but of a temper, of an attitude towards life. It is idle to look to laws, or Courts, or principalities, or power, to secure it.' says Judge Hand while writing on Sources of Tolerance in his 'Spirit of Liberty'.2. The operational zone of custodial law pending trial Court into the charges framed against the appellants/accused under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (for brevity 'the POTA'), the refusal of bail to them, the resultant consequences and their entitlement to bail are, in brief, the issues raised for our consideration in this appeal.3. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order dated 10-9-2003 in Crl. M. P. No. 68 of 2003 in Spl. C. C. No. 1 of 2003 on the file of Special Court, Poonamallee, Chennai - 56 (Specially constituted under the Prevention of Terrorism Act) refusing to grant bail to the appellants herein.4.1 The short resume of facts relevant for determination of the quest...
Dr. K. Senthilnathan Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Chennai)637
1. This is an appeal of the assessee that is moved with reference to assessment that was framed under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act.2. One of the issues that has been raised by the assessee in the appeal is with regard to non-allowing of deduction for compensation of Rs. 11,90,960 that was paid to M/s Sabari Builders. This ground was not insisted upon during the course of hearing. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed.3. On behalf of the appellant, Mr. Mohandass contended that the assessee is aggrieved with regard to two issues of Rs. 7.5 lakhs and Rs. 3.43 lakhs which were added to the income of the assessee. The first item of Rs. 7.5 lakhs was an advance that was made by the appellant's wife for purchase of a land. It was realised subsequent to the payment that the person who received the amount claiming that he was a power of attorney-holder of the property, was a fraud. It was also reported subsequently that the land which the person had committed to buy for the as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›