Chennai Court October 2004 Judgments
Khizaria Leathers Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2004
Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Chennai)616
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-III, Chennai, dt. 23rd Aug., 1995. The relevant assessment year involved in this appeal is 1992-93.2. The only issue in this appeal is that the CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the penalty order passed under Section 271D of the IT Act, 1961.3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee firm filed its return of income for the asst. yr. 1992-93 which was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act, dt. 24th Dec., 1993 and penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act was initiated for violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act for accepting the loans in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000 or more. The Dy. CIT, issued show-cause notice to the assessee-firm that as to why the penalty under Section 271D of the IT Act should not be levied amounting to Rs. 5,19,917 in view of violation of provisions of Section 269SS of the IT Act for accepting the deposits in cash. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO n...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Alex,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC595
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Appeal is directed against the Award dated 30.1.2002 made in MCOP. No. 29 of 2000 by the I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional Sub Court), Gobichettipalayam.2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that the first respondent herein has filed the claim petition before the I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gobichettipalayam claiming a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs towards compensation for the grievous injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.3. The Tribunal below having framed its own points for consideration, would conduct a thorough enquiry into the matter wherein on behalf of the claimants they would examine three witnesses for oral evidence as P.Ws.1 to 3 and would mark nine documents for documentary evidence as Exs.A.1 to A.9 and on behalf of the respondents, the evidence adduced on their behalf, in all, is nil. Thereupon, in consideration of th...
Tag this Judgment!A. Samivel Vs. the Competent Authority and Additional Commissioner (Ci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ565
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. By consent, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.2. Today, when the C.M.P.No.16303 of 2004 was taken up for consideration in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent as well, this Court is apprised of the fact to the extent that the appellant has come forward to file the above C.M.P. praying for the grant of interim stay of the order dated 23.09.2004 made in O.A.No.44 of 2004 by the Court of the Special Judge under TNPID Act, Chennai, relating to the conditions imposed requiring the appellant/petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10/lakhs.3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the total number of accused are 31 and all are alleged to have had some nexus or the other in the defunct company of the appellant herein, and since the petitioner is neither a Managing Director nor even a Director and no such responsibilities are attached to the appellant whether it is policy making or...
Tag this Judgment!R. Lakshmanan Vs. Mannarsami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ684
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The first respondent herein filed O.S.No.126 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Kumbakonam seeking relief of declaration and possession of the suit properties, against the mother of the applicant herein, viz., Saraswathi Ammal (deceased) and the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, by judgment and decree dated 31.3.1987 decreed the suit as prayed for.2. As against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1987 made in O.S.No.126 of 1985, the mother of the applicant herein preferred A.S.No.804 of 1990 on the file of this Court. The learned Single Judge, by judgment and decree dated 28.4.2000 confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.4.2000 made in A.S.No.804 of 1990, the applicant herein and his mother, Saraswathi Ammal (deceased), preferred a Letters Patent Appeal bearing No.189 of 2000 on the file of this Court. However, the Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 17.11.2...
Tag this Judgment!Subiksha Trading Services (P) Limited, Represented by Its Authorised S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC226; 2004(5)CTC348
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.6381 of 2001 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Madras, are the petitioners. This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the complaint in the said case taken on file under Sections 138 and 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. It is stated in the Original Petition by the petitioners that for the supply of maida and sooji to the petitioners by the respondent/complainant as per invoice bearing No.93433 dated 17.10.2001, the cheque bearing No.426736 dated 29.10.2001 drawn on UTI Bank Ltd., was issued and the cheque when presented on 5.11.2001 was returned unpaid with the remarks 'Payment stopped by the Drawer' and informed accordingly on 7.11.2001. The lawyer notice dated 9.11.2001 of the complainant was replied by the accused on 21.11.2001 denying the liability. By way of grounds, it is urged by the petitioners that no offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been mad...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. K. Revathy,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC411; 2006ACJ1274; 2004(5)CTC660; (2004)4MLJ636
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Appeal is directed against the Award dated 22.7.2004 made in MACTOP. No. 1803 of 2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that the respondents 1 and 2 have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal below claiming a compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs for the death of their son K. Thomas aged about 19 years, in a road accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the third respondent for which the appellant is the insurer.3. The Tribunal below having framed its own points for consideration, has conducted a thorough enquiry into the matter wherein on behalf of the claimants they would examine four witnesses for oral evidence as P.Ws.1 to 4 and would mark six documents for documentary evidence as Exs. A.1 to A.6 and on behalf of the respondents, the ev...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Alex and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2004
Reported in: II(2006)ACC518
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above appeal is directed against the award dated 30th January, 2002 made in MCOP No. 29 of 2000 by the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional Sub-Court), Gobichettipalayam.2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned Counsel for both, it comes to be known that the first respondent herein has filed the claim petition before the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gobichettipalayam claiming a sum of Rs. 9 lakh towards compensation for the grievous injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.3. The Tribunal below having framed its own points for consideration, would conduct a thorough inquiry into the matter wherein on behalf of the claimants they would examine three witnesses for oral evidence as PWs 1 to 3 and would mark nine documents for documentary evidence as Exts. A-l to A-9 and on behalf of the respondents, the evidence adduced on their behalf, in all, is nil. Thereupon, in consideration...
Tag this Judgment!S. Thangavelu Vs. S. Kannammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad106; 2004(5)CTC352; I(2005)DMC204; (2004)4MLJ508
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal dated 07.04.2003 made in I.A.No.38 of 2002 in HMOP.No.140 of 2002, which was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for ordering DNA Test by sending the petitioner, the respondent and her minor son Sangeeth Prem to the Center for Cellular Microbiology, Hyderabad, Andrapradesh State.2. The petitioner - husband has filed HMOP.No.140 of 2002, praying for a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of him with the respondent, which was solemnised on 28.10.1984 at Tiruchengode. According to the petitioner, the said petition was filed as early as on 09.06.1998. Pending the said HMOP., the petitioner has filed I.A.No.38 of 2002 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 CPC to order for Deoxybo Nucleic Acid Test ( in short 'DNA Test'). In the affidavit filed in support of the said application it ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajagopal Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Bank,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ427Mad
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the impugned order. Petitioner was working as Scale-III Officer in Indian Bank. Certain charges were framed against him and an enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner pleaded guilty of the charges. Based on that admission of guilt, a finding was given that all the charges have been proved. Therefore an order of dismissal has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed. Still aggrieved, the petitioner filed a review application and the same was also dismissed and hence this writ petition.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the regulations of the Indian Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, and Indian Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) (Amendment) Regulation, 1985, regulation 6 provides for Procedure for imposing major penalties, and the relevant clause read...
Tag this Judgment!M. Chinnappan Vs. M. Ranganathan and B.M. Chennaiya Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad105; 2004(5)CTC326; (2004)4MLJ510
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Civil Revision Petition is directed against order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri dated 17-4-2003, made in I.A.No. 791/2000 in O.S No. 111/95 in and by which the learned Judge has found that the question as to genuineness or not of the Muchalika dated 24-10-1976 is to be decided in the suit after concluding the trial. After making such an observation, the learned Judge closed the said petition. 2. It is seen in the said I.A.791/2000 the petitioner therein, 2nd defendant has prayed for permission to mark family arrangement Muchalika dated 24-10-1976 executed between the parties to the suit as document on the side of the defendant. The said application was resisted by the respondents/plaintiffs by filing counter statement. It is relevant to note the objection raised in the counter. In para 8 it is stated that the document in question is insufficiently stamped; hence the same could not be considered for marking the same as a document. The learned Su...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »