Chennai Court April 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.
Union of India (Uoi), Union Territory of Pondicherry, Rep. by the Chie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ343Mad; (2004)2MLJ482
ORDER Sub: Office of the Council of Ministers, Pondicherry- Establishment Daily Rated Casual labourers - engagement order - Issued. Ref: 1.G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 25.3.92 of the office ofthe Council of Ministers, Pondicherry. 2.Appliation dated 5-5-92 from Thiru N.Manoharan,received through the Office of the Chief Minister,Pondicherry. 3.Joining Report dt.11.5.92 of Thiru N.Manoharan.. In pursuance of the above, Thiru N.Manoharan, S/0.Nagamuthi, Eripakkam New Colony, Kariamanikampet & Post, Netapakkam Commune, Pondicherry is engaged as Daily rated casual labourer in the Office of the Council of Ministers, Pondicherry, with effect from 11th May 1992. (fore noon) 2.He is informed that this engagement will not confer any right on him for regular appointment in Government Service whatever be the duration of such appointment. 3.He will draw daily wages as per orders issued by Finance Department, Pondicherry, from time to time.' 55. Now, we can look at the termination order dated 26.07.1996, w...
Western India Cashew Co. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ595; (2008)11VST450(Mad)
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, namely, M/s. Western India Cashew Company, is an assessee on the files of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District, and it is engaged in the business of processing of cashew nut kernels and exporting the same to foreign countries. Originally, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, Entry No.88 of I Schedule to the said Act, with effect from 04.03.1974, did not make any difference between cashew nut and kernels. Subsequently, by G.O.P. No.701/CT & RE dated 07.08.1995, with effect from 01.10.1985, the entry was amended as cashew nut with shell and cashew kernel including processed. From the assessment year 1974 onwards, the 2nd respondent completed the assessment under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and treated the cashew nut and cashew nut kernels as same commodity. No tax was levied on cashew nut if the petitioner exported cashew nut kernels. No purchase tax was imposed...
Kokila Vs. Swathanthira and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ702
K. Govindarajan, J. 1. In view of separate judgments delivered in A.S. No. 69/ 2003 and Cross Objection No. 40/2003 by P.Shanmugam, J., and R. Banumathi, J., the same was referred to the learned single Judge, K. Govindarajan, J.,(one of us) by the order of My Lord, The Hon'ble. The Chief Justice, dated 15.3.2004.2. K. Govindarajan, J., in his judgment dated 25.3.2004, concurred with the judgment of P. Shanmugam, J.3. Hence, the appeal in A.S. No. 69/2003 is allowed. Cross Objection 40/2003 is dismissed. C.M.P. Nos. 1026,4906 and 10324 of 2003 are closed. C.M.P. No. 10477/2003 is rejected. No costs....
S.S. Ummul Habiba, Proprietor, Alim Auto Supplies Vs. B. Rajendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)33; IV(2004)BC1; 2004(3)CTC573
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Complainant in C.C.415/1993 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam is the Appellant. By the Judgment dated 28.8.1996, the Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam had acquitted the Respondent/accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I.Act'). Aggrieved over the order of acquittal, Complainant has preferred this Appeal.2. Case of Complainant is that he is doing business of selling auto parts under the name and style M/s. Alim Auto Supplies. The accused and his brother one Kanagaraj are having transport business running two lorries under the name and style 'M/s. Angala Easwari & Santhi Lorry Services'. The accused purchased auto parts from the complainant's shop on credit for both the lorries.3. As on 20.5.1992, the outstanding credit balance on account of the two lorries was Rs. 24,415. Towards discharge of part of the balance amount, the accused issued Ex.P.1-Cheque for Rs. 24,400 on 30.9.1992 at Periyakulam drawn on State Bank...
Mehrunnissa Vs. Annammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC693
ORDERAR. Ramalingam, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by one Mehrunnissa against the order passed by the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in C.M.P.SR.No. 36709 of 2001 in A.S.No. 39 of 2001 dated 18.9.2001.2. The said unnumbered petition seems to have been filed by the said Mehrunnissa praying said V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to send the memo filed on behalf of Annammal for evidencing her appearance before the Court along with the affidavit filed in support of the appeal by the Annammal containing her finger prints for examination by finger print expert and getting his opinion.3. The V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras rejected that unnumbered petition by observing that another petition viz., C.M.P.No. 431 of 2001 has been earlier dismissed after enquiry whereby the said Mehrunnissa sought for a direction from the Court for appearance of Annammal and that subsequently, the said Annammal appeared before the Court on 17.9.2001 with ...
i. Jairaj Vs. Praful Kumar Pukhraj,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad448
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The 5th defendant/5th judgment-debtor/5th respondent in E.P. No. 601 of 2001 in O.S.No. 733 of 1999 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras is the revision petitioner. The revision is filed disputing the correctness of the order of attachment of movables dated 13.3.2001 made in the E.P. No. 601 of 2001.2. The first respondent herein filed the suit O.S. No. 733 of 1999 before the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras to recover the sum of Rs. 20,100/- with future interest at 21% per annum from the date of plaint till realization. The said amount is due on the suit promissory note executed by the defendants 1 to 5 and the 5th defendant is the revision petitioner. It appears the said suit was decreed ex parte on 7.7.2000. The plaintiff filed E.P. No. 601 of 2001 to recover the amount decreed against the defendants 3 to 5 by ordering attachment of movables. The executing Court ordered attachment of movables by dispensing w...
A. Radhakrishnan Proprietor of Sri Mahalakshmi Enterprises Vs. the Reg ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: [2005]142STC533(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. Petitioner, A. Radhakrishnan, is the Proprietor of M/s. Sri Mahalakshmi Enterprises. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. For the assessment year 1998-99, the petitioner had shown a taxable turnover of Rs.1,23,68,517/-. However, the third respondent did not accept the return and subsequently issued pre-assessment notice, which was served on the petitioner. The petitioner filed his objection. Thereafter, the order of assessment was passed on 19.4.2000. It was sent by registered post in the name of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that such order of assessment had not been served on him and subsequently learning about the steps taken by the Department for realisation of the amount, he applied for a certified copy of the order and soon thereafter filed appeal. The appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that such appeal had not been presented within the prescribed period of limitation. Suc...
Govinda Koundar Vs. P. Natarajan and P. Gajendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ513
V. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The above Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1993 rendered in A.S.No.16 of 1992 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Arni thereby dismissing the said appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 7.12.1991 rendered in O.S.No.711 of 1990 by the Court of District Munsif, Arni.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 herein have filed the suit in O.S.No.711 of 1990 before the Court of District Munsif, Arni claiming a sum of Rs.1,000/= as damages from the appellant/defendant on ground that the appellant defendant had lit fire to the sugarcane crop of the plaintiffs. The appellant/defendant filed a written statement thereby denying the allegation of the respondents/plaintiffs and in turn alleging that the respondents/plaintiffs have only lit fire to his sugarcane crop.3. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed five is...
Enterprising Enterprises Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Spe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: [2004]268ITR95(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. The following questions of law arise for determination :-1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the quarry lease rent paid to the Government for acquiring the right to excavate the granite on lease for 10 years is capital expenditure ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not appreciating that the lease was not of the land as such but only a lease of the right to excavate the granite blocks under the surface for a period of ten years?2. The facts giving rise to the above questions of law are as follows :-Appellant is a partnership firm carrying on the business of cutting, polishing and exporting granites. The questions raised relate to the assessment year 1991-92. The appellant had taken quarry on lease for a period of 10 years for extraction of granites. The proportionate lease rent paid for the period...
K.S. Sornam Vs. Minor S. Venkatasubbaian and Minor S. Thirumalainambi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ629
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The 8th opposite party in C.O.P.No.140 of 1997 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli is the revision petitioner. This revision is filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in R.P.No.35 of 2000 dated 3.11.2000 as per which, the order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli in E.P.No.43 of 2000 in C.O.P.No.140 of 1997 dated 26.9.2000 was confirmed.2. The respondents herein filed C.O.P.No.140 of 1997 in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli, for repayment of fixed deposit amount and for damages. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/- towards principal amount of two fixed deposits in question and also directing further to pay the sum of Rs.400/- towards interest for the month of June, 1997 and to pay interest at 24% per annum on the principal amount from September, 1997...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »