Chennai Court July 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. T.S.K. Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: [2005]274ITR41(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras Bench 'a' dated 12.9.2003 in I.T.A.2285/96. The following substantial question of law is raised for consideration:-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessing officer was not correct in assessing the assessee trust in the status of Association of Persons for the assessment year 1984-85?'2.1. In brief, the assessment of the assessee trust for the assessment year 1984-85 was originally completed u/s 143(1) determining the total income at Rs. 1,99,940/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax, on a perusal of the records, found that the order of the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue inasmuch as the assessing officer has not assessed the trust in the status of Association of Persons and levied tax at the minimum marginal rate. The Commissioner of I...
Merit Scada Automation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanmar Industrial Systems Ltd. an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad19; II(2005)BC170; 2004(5)CTC81
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.8.2002 in Application No.2280 of 2002 in O.A.No.362 of 2002 in C.S. No. 383 of 2002 granting interim injunction in favour of the first respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit.2.1. According to the plaintiff/first respondent herein, they are engaged in providing software solutions to the terminal loading automation. The main purpose of the software is to supervise and control the working of the flow meters through a batch controller. The batch controller is a device in the form of a piece of machinery by which the quantity can be pre set to be loaded into the tankers. The batch controller also controls a set of stop valves, which will cut off the flow of the petroleum products on reaching the required quantity. 2.2. The plaintiff/first respondent herein complains that the said software for controlling the whole operation is designed and developed by them and the commercial value of the software runs in...
S. Rajalakshmi Vs. the Official Liquidator High Court, as the Official ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: [2005]123CompCas412(Mad); 2004(4)CTC737; [2005]272ITR257(Mad); [2005]64SCL361(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Heard all the parties.2. These appeals are directed against the order dated 10.2.2003 made in C.A.Nos.1443 to 1445 of 2002 in C.P.No.233 of 1999, in the matter of RPS Benefit Fund Limited (in liquidation), heeling the wound of the depositors.3.1. Behind these appeals, there is a painful history of the sufferings of the innocent depositors, who invested their hard earned money with RPS Benefit Fund Limited, a financial company in liquidation.3.2. During the course of winding up proceedings of RPS Benefit Fund Limited in C.P.Nos.233 to 238 of 1999, this Court, by order dated 20.7.1999, appointed Mr. G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel as the Chairman of the Inspecting Committee, assisted by his team of officers, who unearthed various misfeasance and malfeasance relating to the siphoning of the funds of RPS Benefit Fund Limited by P.G. Saranyan and his wife Rajalakshmi, the appellants in the above appeals.3.3. The Investigating Committee found that the appellants h...
Moolchand Exports (P)ltd., (In Liquidation), Rep. by Official Liquidat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR564(Madras); [2006]131CompCas194(Mad); 2004(4)CTC690; (2004)4MLJ182
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The point for consideration in this appeal is as to the enforcement of an award dated 15.11.1995 passed by an arbitrator under the provisions of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement Act) 1973, which was enacted to give effect to the International Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards done at New York on 10.6.1958, in the context of Section 85 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which reads as follows:-'Section 85(1):- The Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 (6 of 1937), the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940) and the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 (45 of 1961) are hereby repealed.Section 85(2):- Notwithstanding such repeal:- a) the provisions of the said enactments shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings which commenced before this Act came into force unless otherwise agreed by the parties but this Act shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings which commended on or after...
Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Secretary, Railway Board, Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ564
P.K. Misra, J. 1. The aforesaid writ petition has been filed by the Union of India (Railway Ministry) and two others challenging the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras in R.A. No. 44 of 2000, rejecting such application and refusing to review the order in O.A. No. 290 of 1998. In the said O.A. No. 290 of 1998, the Tribunal had directed the present petitioners to settle the retired benefits due to the applicant (present Respondent No. 2).2. In order to appreciate the questions raised, it would be appropriate to notice the facts in some detail. For convenience, the present Respondent No. 2, who had filed O.A. No. 290 of 1998, is hereinafter referred to as 'the employee' and the present petitioners, who were the respondents before the Tribunal, are referred to as 'the employer'.The employee was in service under the Southern Railways. As per the resolution of All India Loco Running Staff Association dated 28.1.1981, there was an agitation with effect from 1.2.1981....
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anandha Metal Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: [2005]273ITR262(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 12.5.2003 made in I.T.A. No. 1072/99, on the following substantial questions of law:-1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,49,173/- made u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act being the difference between the value of closing stock as found in the seized document and the value of Rs.7,51,186/- admitted by the assessee?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,49,173/- when under law, the onus of proving that the difference did not represent undisclosed income was on the assessee?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition being the difference between the value of closing stock as found in the seized docum...
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ599
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The first respondent in O.A. No. 8983 of 2000, aggrieved by the direction issued by the Tribunal, has preferred this writ petition.2. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department called for applications, for the appointment of six Junior Technical Assistants on 20.2.1998. The first respondent herein and others have applied for the said post. It seems, in the written test as well as the practical test conducted by the department, the first respondent stood in the 7th rank. The Commissioner of H.R.& C.E., considering the vacancies, appointed six persons, as per the proceedings dated 17.6.1998 in Na. Ka. No. 98922/94 BEE-2. The first respondent, aggrieved by his non selection, impleading the 6th candidate in the selection list, by name Dharmaraj, had filed O.A. No. 5911/98, seeking direction to appoint him, to the post of Junior Technical Assistant, attached with the office of the Joint Commissioner, H.R & C.E., Tirunelveli, alleging...
M. Venugopal Vs. G. Manohar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad35
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 7187 of 1993 on the file of XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, against the dismissal of his petition in I.A. No. 11452 of 1995 filed under Order 37, Rule 3 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure to defend the suit unconditionally, has filed the above Revision before this Court. 2. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 38,000/- with interest on Rs. 20,000/- at 30 per cent per annum based on a promissory note dated 24-9-1990 under Order 37, Rule 1 C.P.C. The defendant/petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 11452 of 95 under Order 37, Rule 3 (4) C.P.C. praying for leave to defend the said suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated that he handed over papers with signature to one financial broker by name Chandra Banu who used to get money from one Bansilal. He denied the suit claim and according to him, at no point of time he borrowed any amount from the plaintiff based ...
National Institute of Epidemiology Represented by Its Director, Former ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ1104Mad; (2004)3MLJ615
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The writ petitioners aggrieved by the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 6 of 1999 and 4 of 1999 dated April 28, 2000 and August 31, 2000, have filed these writ petitions, seeking writ of certiorari, since they felt that the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal are not in accordance with the law and ratio laid down by the Apex Court.2. The second respondent, who is one and the same, in both the writ petitions, was appointed as Laboratory Technician in the ICMR Unit, for Special Studies in Leprosy at Central Leprosy Teaching Research Institute, Chingleput from May 7, 1979 to June 30, 1983, thereafter as Research Assistant with effect from July 1, 1983 to March 31, 1987. Subsequently, he was appointed as Animal Supervisor in the same ICMR Unit with effect from April 1, 1987 and he was relieved from the said service due to the termination or discontinuation of the scheme on March 31, 1989 afternoon. Thereafter, he was app...
A. Abdul Samath Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(117)LC652(Madras)
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J.1. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Officers of the respondent Department have conducted a search at the residence of the petitioner which resulted in seizure of (a) US Dollar 1,92,493/-; (b) Saudi Riyals 5,44,000/-; (c) Qatar Riyals 12,000/-; (d) UAE Dihams 70,500/-and (e) Singapore Dollars 11/-. By a show cause notice dated 29.12.1993, the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi required the petitioner to show cause in writing as to why the adjudication proceedings as contemplated under Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') should not be held against him for the alleged contravention of Section 8(1) of the Act and as to why the above foreign currencies should not be confiscated under Section 63 of the Act. It is further contended that as per Section 41 of the Act, if no proceedings are initiated within a period of six months, the document should be returned. It is further conten...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »