Chennai Court June 2004 Judgments
Aventis Cropscience India Ltd. Vs. Nilgiris Fertilizers Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2004
Reported in: I(2006)BC539; [2005]125CompCas139(Mad); [2004]55SCL411(Mad)
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The petitioner M/s. Aventis Cropscience India Limited, formerly known as AgrEvo India Limited is a public limited company has filed the present petition for winding up of the respondent company under Sections 433(e) & (f) read with Sections 434(1)(a) and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 and for appointment of Official Liquidator as Liquidator.2. The respondent is a private limited company with authorised share capital of Rs. 1,25,000 nominal value being Rs. 10 preferential shares of Rs. 1,25,000 of Rs. 10 each. The total issued, subscribed and paid up capital is Rs. 25,00,000.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was appointed as stockists to deal with agro-chemical products manufactured by the petitioner company in and around Coimbatorc District. It is stated that the petitioner company has supplied goods during 31-8-1998 to 22-12-1998 to the respondent company amounting to Rs. 14,87,457.37. The respondent stated to have acknowledged the mate...
Tag this Judgment!Baby Chitra Vs. K. Radhakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ380
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above petition has been filed praying to withdraw O.P. No. 1456 of 2003 from the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai and transfer the same to the Family Court, Madurai.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 parties are wife and husband and that the respondent herein has filed the O.P. No. 1456 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai seeking divorce from his wife/the petitioner herein and during pendency of the said proceedings, the wife has come forward to file the above transfer C.M.P. on grounds that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home and now she is residing with her parents at Madurai along with her four years old child and she has to travel to Chennai from Madurai to attend every hearing during which time she needs assistance from her parents and having no source of income, she is depending on her parents for her day-to-day ex...
Tag this Judgment!Alstom Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Chennai)139
1. The assessee filed this miscellaneous petition for the asst. yr.1990-91 on the ground that the additional ground raised by the assessee was not considered by this Tribunal while disposing of the appeals.2. Mr. K. Ravi, the learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee submitted that that the appeal was disposed of by an order dt. 26th May, 2003. The non-consideration of the additional ground is an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the order of this Tribunal dt. 26th May, 2003 is to be rectified under Section 254(2) of the IT Act.3. This petition was originally posted for hearing on 6th April, 2004.Mr. Ravi, the learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee submitted that for the purpose of computing relief under Sections 80HH and 80-I, this Tribunal directed the AO to grant the relief without deducting benefit under Section 32AB. This direction of the Tribunal, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee is at para 7...
Tag this Judgment!G. Asokan Vs. the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Rep. by Its General Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad517
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to restore power supply to the petitioner's shop bearing No.4, Daily Market, Block 19, Neyveli.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Since the question raised in the miscellaneous petition is the same as in the writ petition, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.3. Against the petitioner, an order of eviction is said to have been passed under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. It is said that the petitioner has filed an appeal, which is pending before the District Judge. The main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is to the effect that even though the petitioner is continuing in possession, the respondents have disconnected the supply of electricity to the premises in question.4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The main stand taken in the counter is to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›