Chennai Court June 2004 Judgments
Velu @ Javelu, S/O. Subramanian Vs. State Represented by Inspector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3783
R. Banumathi, J.1. The Appellant is the Accused in S.C. No. 22/97 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal. Aggrieved over the Conviction under Sec. 308 Part II I.P.C and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of Three years imposed upon him, the Appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The occurrence on 25.08.1995 arose in a strange situation. P.W.1-Muthukumaraswamy, P.W.2-Kumar and P.W.3-Mathavan are the employees under Rajeswari Lorry Service. On the fateful day-25.08.1995, P.Ws. 1 to 3 happened to be inside E.I.D. Parry Company, Thennangudy Village to unload the Iron Rods, which they transported in Lorry No. TSL-4243.3. Prosecution case:- Case of Prosecution is that while they were unloading the Iron Rods, the Appellant/Accused came in a Van (which was on Contract of E.I.D. Parry Company) and parked infront of the Lorry. The Appellant/Accused questioned P.W.2 as to why he parked the Lorry in such a way preventing his vehicle from coming inside the Factory, which...
Tag this Judgment!Tocheunglee Stationery Mfg. Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Company Ward
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: (2006)5SOT428(Chennai)
Both the appeals of the assessee relate to the assessment years 2001-02 and 2000-01. Since common issue arises for consideration in both the appeals, we heard the same together and disposing of the same by this common order.Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the issue arises for consideration in this appeal is regarding grant of deduction in respect of interest income received by the assessee from the bank to the extent of Rs. 5,31,125 and provision no longer required which is written back in the books of' account of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 11,60,048 and also sales tax refund received by the assessee to the extent of Rs. 1,16,212. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee also claimed deduction under section 80HHC in respect of resale value of Special Import License to the extent of Rs. 7,494. The learned counsel further submitted that section 10B has undergone a vast change. It is now that the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Garments Private Limited Rep by Its Director Vijay M. Pai Vs. Ins ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad38
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner seeks for the issue of a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to return the sale deed dated 27.8.2002 executed by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority in favour of the petitioner herein and registered on 25.9.2002 under document No. 2827/2002 at the office of the third respondent.2. The following facts are sufficient for the disposal of the writ petition:The petitioner is admittedly one of the allottees of the plot by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. The said Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority had set up the Maraimalai Nagar Industrial Complex and divided the said property into various plots for Industrial Development with all amenities such as roads, drains and other common betterment facilities. The petitioner is one of the applicants and the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority fixed the total price of the said plot Nos.3 and 4 at Rs. 12,79,440/-. The petitioner had initially paid a sum of R...
Tag this Judgment!M. Murugan Vs. L.A. Muthu @ L. Angamuthu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ524
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 10.12.2003 and made in I.A.No.759 of 2003 in O.S.No.547 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem thereby dismissing the said Interlocutory Application filed by the plaintiff seeking to amend the plaint regarding certain new facts that have been brought forth in the circumstances of the case.2. Aggrieved, the petitioner/ plaintiff before the lower Court has come forward to file this civil revision petition on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of revision.3. Today, when the above civil revision petition was taken up for consideration in the presence of the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that it is the plaintiff who filed the interlocutory petition before the lower Court seeking to amend the plaint suitably on ground that since the suit is for partition and separate possession of the family properties, pending ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty and Co. (P) L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)382
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, dt.16th June, 1999, in WTA No. 133/Mad/1993 for the asst. yr. 1988-89.2. The Revenue has challenged the order of the Tribunal directing the exclusion of the theatre complex of the assessee on the ground that it is exempted under s, 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983. The following question of law has been framed for consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) in directing the exclusion of the value of the theatre complex as exempt under Section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983 ?'3. The assessment year involved in the instant case is 1988-89 and the question is whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983, for the asst. yr. 1988-89. A similar question of law came up for consideration before this Court in CWT v. Varadharaja Theatres (...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Carburettors Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)245; [2005]275ITR185(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal, Madras Bench 'A', in ITA No. 531/Mad/1996, dt. 1st Oct., 1999 for the asst. yr. 1992-93, and the same has been admitted and the following substantial question of law has been framed for consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and had valid materials to hold that the consideration for the purpose of computing the capital gains should be taken at Rs. 3.00 crores and that the CIT should not have directed the AO to replace Rs. 3.00 crores by Rs. 5.97 crores?'2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are : the respondent-company entered into an agreement with its subsidiary company M/s Ucal Components Ltd. on 18th March, 1992 and sold its manufacturing unit at Maraimalai Nagar as a going concern for a sum of Rs. 3 crores. The AO came to the conclusion that the transfer would attract the provisions of the capi...
Tag this Judgment!Mohideen Meera Natchi and ors. Vs. P.S.M. Segu Mohamed and Magdoom Mee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC130
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The petitioners, the defendants 1 to 12 in the suit for partition filed by the first respondent herein, after the preliminary decree was passed, filed a petition under Section 4 of the Partition Act to direct the second respondent herein to sell his 1/8 share in the suit property to the petitioners, which was purchased by him as a stranger purchaser, and the said petition was dismissed. Hence, this civil revision petition.2. The first respondent filed the suit for partition of his 5/8 share in the suit property. Since 1/8 share of the suit property was purchased by the second respondent herein as a stranger purchaser, he was also impleaded as one of the parties to the suit. Ultimately, a preliminary decree was passed, allotting 5/8 share to the plaintiff, the first respondent herein and 1/8 share to the second respondent herein, who is the stranger purchaser and 2/8 share to the petitioners/defendants 1 to 12.3. In pursuance of the preliminary decree, the...
Tag this Judgment!Solomon and Mary Maria Mathelena Vs. Jaini Bai and Salomi (Minor), Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad460
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The appellants are the defendants 1 and 2.2. The first respondent (first plaintiff) - Jaini Bai is the second wife of the first appellant - Solomon. The second appellant (second defendant) - Mary Mathia Mathelena is the first wife of the first appellant (first defendant) -- Salomon. Since the second appellant did not beget any child through the first appellant, the first appellant married the first respondent, the first plaintiff, as second wife on 15.1.1984. After the marriage, they lived together as husband and wife in the house of the first appellant. Out of their wedlock, Salomi, the second respondent (second defendant) was born on 11.2.1985. On the instigation made by the first defendant's (first appellant) sister, both the appellants/defendants deserted the respondents/plaintiffs and therefore, the respondents came and joined the parents. The first appellant is not maintaining the plaintiffs from 4.3.1985. Inspite of repeated demands, the first defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Thanjavur Municipality Represented by Its Commissioner Vs. R. Swaminat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad49; 2006(1)CTLJ375(Mad); (2004)3MLJ490
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.10.1987 rendered in O.S.No.49 of 1984 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur thereby dismissing the said suit filed by the appellant herein.2. Tracing the history of the above appeal suit, it comes to be known that the appellant herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.49 of 1984 before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,100/= from the respondent/defendant on averments such as that the defendant was the successful bidder of plot No.1 in T.S.No.3013 in 6 acres 68 cents in the auction held on 25.3.1982; that earlier to this auction, the same plot was put on the open auction on 17.3.1982 and the defendant was the highest bidder having bidden for Rs.11,800/= for the period commencing from 1.4.1982 to 31.3.1983 and since the bid amount was less, it was re-auctioned on 25.3.1982 wherein also the defendant was the higher bidder for a sum of Rs.30,100/= and the s...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sampath Vs. Commissioner, Kandili Panchayat Union and K. Veerabadra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ82
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The order of termination dated 8.7.1996 issued by the Commissioner, Kandili Panchayat Union, the first respondent herein, against the petitioner, is under challenge in this writ petition, seeking for quashing of the same through a writ of certiorarified mandamus.2. Relevant facts are as follows:(a) K.Sampath, the petitioner herein joined as Overhead Tank Operator in the Panchayat Union in 1989 as per the order of the Commissioner, Kandili Panchayat Union, the first respondent herein. Initially, his monthly salary was Rs.60/-. Subsequently, it was increased to Rs.100/- and thereafter to Rs.110/-.(b) The petitioner and his associates have made a demand through certain representations for regularisation of their services. Their demand was not considered. The petitioner continued to work only as a temporary servant.(c) Suddenly, the petitioner was shocked to see that the impugned order dated 8.7.1996 was affixed on his house door intimating that his services...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »