Chennai Court October 2004 Judgments
Shenbagam W/O. Senthil @ Sethilkumar Vs. Shenbagam the District Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC476
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. By the order, dated 9.9.2004, the detenu has been detained by branding him as 'Bootlegger'. Mr. Sathish Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the Order of detention would suffer from grave illegality on the ground that there is no mention about the awareness of the detaining authority that on the date of detention order, the detenu was in remand.2. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on this aspect. On going through the grounds of detention, it is clear that the detaining authority would only mention that the remand period was extended on 13.8.2004 and 27.8.2004. There is no material referred to by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention that by the Order of extension, dated 27.8.2004, the detenu has been remanded upto 9.9.2004, the date on which the detention Order was passed. Curiously, the remand order, dated 13.8.2004, has been placed before the detaining a...
Tag this Judgment!iit Capital Services Limited, Represented by Its Authorised Representa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC215; 2004(5)CTC491
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. This revision is directed by the complainant in C.C.No.2546 of 1999 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai against the dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.1637 of 2004 filed to recall and examine P.W.3 to mark documents in the above criminal case.2. The case in C.C.No.2546 of 1999 is a private complaint filed by the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The value of the cheques involved is Rs.27/- Lakhs. The direction was issued by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1633 of 2003 on 20.1.2004 to dispose the case within four weeks from the date of receipt of that order. The complainant was cross-examined on 25.2.2004. During the cross-examination, it was suggested that the complaint has been filed without authorisation of the complainant company, which made the complainant to file Criminal M.P.No.1637 of 2004 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the complainant, viz., P.W.3 and mark the documents r...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Petro Chemical Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2004
Reported in: (2005)93TTJ(Chennai)161
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt. 31st Oct., 2003, of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 2000-01.The assessee-company carried on the business of fertilizers, heavy chemicals, shipping and pharma contract. The assessee has raised before us various grounds of appeal which are dealt in by the learned CIT(A).2. The first effective ground of appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming that the expenditure to the extent of 10 per cent of the dividend earned, amounting to Rs. 88,73,758 was attributable to earning of dividends.3. The brief facts apropos this issue are that the assessee had claimed exemption under Section 10(33) of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of dividend income aggregating to Rs, 8,87,37,583. In regard to the query of the AO regarding the expenditure attributable to the earning of this dividend income, the assessee contended that no direct expenditure was incurred in relation to the dividend income. The AO observed that as per the provisions...
Tag this Judgment!Tvl. Ascard Spinners (P) Limited, Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2004
Reported in: [2005]140STC254(Mad)
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the respondent in CST No.499319/94-95, dated 31.12.1996 and quash the same as illegal, without jurisdiction and without authority of law.2. The petitioner is a spinning mill manufacturing Cotton and Cotton Yarn. For the assessment year 1994-95, the petitioner reported the total and taxable turnover of Rs.1,80,000/- under the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner during that year effected consignment sales to the tune of Rs.8,30,000/-, but it did not report the same in the monthly statement since it is not liable to tax. But, the second respondent assessed the said consignment sales turnover and levied tax on that. The petitioner's taxable turnover for the year 1994-95 was determined at Rs.10,10,000/- taxable at 2% as against the reported taxable turnover of Rs.1,80,000/- by Order dated 30.10.1996. In view of the assessment based on the 'Best Assessment', there ...
Tag this Judgment!Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. and India Steamship Co. Ltd. Vs. the Union o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTLJ420(Mad); (2004)4MLJ599
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The defendants in C.S.No.1062 of 1988 on the file of Original Side of this Court, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.02.1997, have filed the above appeal.2. The respondent herein - plaintiff filed the said suit against the defendants praying for a judgment and decree for a sum of Rs.35,17,444/- with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of plaint till date of realisation. 3. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated hereunder:The plaintiff, Department of Space, having established P.S.L.V. Project of Vikram Sarabhai Space Center at Valiamala, Trivandram for the purpose of Indian Space Research. The second defendant is the owner / carrier of the vessel S.S. RUMIJA. The first defendant is the Shipping Agent of the second defendant. For the purpose of establishing light alloy structure facility at HAL, Bangalore, the plaintiff on the quotation dated 20.11.1985 submitted for and on behalf of M/s. Friedrick Deckel, Aktiongesells Chaft, West Germany ...
Tag this Judgment!P.S.K. Finance and Chit Funds Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director, T.K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC330; (2004)4MLJ501
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Since identical orders have been passed by the Court below, the above revisions are being disposed of by the following common order.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent.3. The petitioner herein/decree holder filed an execution petition before the Court below. In the said proceedings, the respondent herein/Judgment Debtor filed a memo stating that he has filed an Insolvency Petition before the same Court against the petitioner, i.e., LP.No.l of 2002; accordingly, the execution petition is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the same. By the orders which are under challenge, the learned Subordinate Judge, based on the information furnished in the memo, after recording the same, closed the execution petitions, hence the present revisions at the instance of the decree holder.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing my attention to Section 29 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 would contend that in the absenc...
Tag this Judgment!P.A.G. HassaIn Moulana Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad111
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner challenges Section 14(1)(b)(iv), 14(1)(c) and 14(1)(d) of the Wakf Act as unconstitutional. These provisions reads as follows:Section 14(1)(b)(iv): mutawallis of the wakfs having an annual income of rupees one lakh and above;Section 14(1)(c) : one and not more than two members to be nominated by the State Government representing eminent Muslim organisations; andSection 14(1)(d): one and not more than two members to be nominated by the State Government, each from recognised scholars in Islamic Theology.2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Section 14(1)(b)(iv) of the Wakf Act is unconstitutional because a mere annual income of rupees one lakh and above cannot be a reasonable qualification to consider the mutawalli, who could be a member of the Board for a State. According to him, the qualification such as education in degree and post graduation alone be a consideration.3. I am not able to appreciate the said contention....
Tag this Judgment!South India Corporation (Agencies) Limited Vs. the Deputy Port Conserv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad114
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records leading to the Order of the first respondent bearing Marine Service bill No.953, dated 21.7.1997 for the payment of a sum of Rs.11,76,120/- and quash the same.2. The petitioner was appointed as agent for handling the vessel m.v. STRAMAN, which arrived at the Port of Madras on 9.9.1995. The vessel, which is a regular liner, carrying chemicals trading all over the world under a valid licence, sailed from United Kingdom and reached Port of Bombay. Thereafter it arrived at Port of Chennai on 9.9.1995 with all the necessary documents on board. The necessary documents for berthing the vessel were filed with the statutory authorities. The vessel called at Madras Port and anchored at Madras Roadstead at 20.54 hrs. on 9.9.1995. As per the request made by the petitioner for priority berth, the vessel berthed at Bharathi Docks-II on 13.9.1995 at 10.24 hrs for loading the consignment. The loading was c...
Tag this Judgment!Kannaiyan Vs. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by Its Secretary Adi Dravida ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ651
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. Writ Petition filed by the petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari by calling for records relating to G.O.Ms.No.132 Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (ADW5) Department dated 15.07.1997 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same so far as the petitioner is concerned.2. Challenging the Government Order made in G.O.Ms.NO.132 Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (ADW 5) Department dated 15.07.1997, wherein the first respondent has ordered that for all building works to be taken up by the Tamil Nadu Adi-Dravidar Housing and Development, the second respondent herein, that such works would be entrusted only to the contractors who belong to Adi-Dravidar or Tribals only, excluding all other contractors who do not belong to the categories mentioned above.3. In the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he would belong to Boyar community and is a registered contractor with the Government Departments; that all contra...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. W.B. Vasantha Vs. the Director General, Council of Scientific and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad87
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Challenging the conferment of Shanthi Swarup Bhatnagar Award on the second respondent Dr.V.S.Sunder, by the first respondent, in the field of Mathematical Science for the year 1996, the petitioner has preferred the above writ petition for a writ of declaration, declaring that the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar prize prizeed by the first respondent to Dr.V.S.Sunder, the second respondent, for mathematical sciences for the year 1996, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.2. According to Mr. K.Chandru, learned Senior Counsel, only Indian Scientists/Technologists, who are up to 45 years of age are eligible for consideration of the award and the first respondent ought not to have conferred the said award to the second respondent, who was doing his research elsewhere outside India. That apart, Mr. Chandru, learned Senior Counsel brought to my notice a comparative statistics of the research work done by the petitioner and the second respondent from 1991 to 1995, which ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »