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.
Chinnaswamy Alias Chinnan and Guna Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ488
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The appellants are A-1 and A-2. The first appellant (A-1) Chinnasamy @ Chinnan was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC simpliciter and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The second appellant (A-2) Guna was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 109 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, this appeal has been filed.2. Short facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:(a) The deceased Palani was working as a Tea-Master in the tea shop belonging to P.W.3 Selvaraj (meesaikarar). The first appellant/A-1 Chinnasamy @ Chinnan and the second appellant/A-2 Guna are friends.(b) On 12.2.1995, A-2 Guna was carrying a hen from a Temple to his house. At that point of time, the deceased Palani snatched the said hen from the hands of A-2 Guna. Therefore, quarrel ensued between them and in the said quarrel, A-2 assaulted the deceased with hands. A Panchayat was convened over ...
Shaw Walace Co. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cc, Manifest Clearance Department and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(95)ECC217; 2004(175)ELT23(Mad)
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned Order No. 401/97, dated 22.4.1997 passed by the third respondent (confirming the Order No. C49/12/96, dated 11.10.1996 passed by the second respondent and Order No. 28/96 dated 10.5.96 passed by the first respondent) and quash the same.2. The petitioner/company is carrying on business as steamer agents for several foreign and Indian ship owners. In the early 1980s, carriage by containers came into existence. Container, normally, is entrusted at the Port of shipment to the vessel to be discharged at the Port of discharge. In course of time, this practice underwent a change. The containers were entrusted to a carrier known as 'Main Line Operator' who would carry the same from the port of shipment to intermediary ports from where that would be carried by another vessel known as 'Feeder Line Operator' to the final port of discharge. The ' Main Line Operato...
Dharmalingam Vs. Pavalkodi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ572
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 7.8.2003 made in E.P. No. 70 of 2002 in O.S. No. 729 of 1994 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi.2. Tracing the history of the above Civil Revision Petition coming to be filed before this Court, what comes to be known is that the respondent herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 739 of 1994 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi and the said suit was decreed on 28.4.1995 and thereafter the respondent/decree-holder has filed a petition for execution in E.P. No. 70 of 2002; that in the execution petition an order of arrest was ordered on 7.8.2003, testifying the validity of the said order, petitioner has come forward to file the above Civil Revision Petition praying for the relief extracted supra. 3. Today, when the above Civil Revision Petition was taken up for consideration in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, with no represe...
K. Kamalaveni, Minor Moorchika Rep., by Her Mother and Natural Guardia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC651; 2005ACJ443; (2004)IIILLJ682Mad; (2004)3MLJ468
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The claimants filed the above appeal aggrieved by the order dated 6.10.1994 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem in W.C. No. 164/1993, rejecting the claim in toto. 2. One Kumar, the husband of the 1st appellant and father of the 2nd appellant was an employee under the 2nd respondent, who entered into a contract with the 1st respondent to construct a roof of a godown in the Spinning Mills of the 1st respondent When the said Kumar was working for the purpose of construction of the roof of the godown, on 19.1.1993 he fell down and sustained injuries. In spite of treatment he died on 12.4.1993. The claimants filed a claim petition in W.C. No. 164/1995 claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as the deceased Kumar was aged about 26 years at the time of death.3. The 1st respondent-management filed a counter denying the fact even with respect to the contract with the 2nd respondent and the construction work carried on 19.1.1993. On that basis, t...
Damu Alias Damodharan and ors. Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ444
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The appellants/A-1 to A-6 were convicted for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with 34 IPC and each sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment respectively, for having attacked the deceased Sukumaran on his head, resulting in his death. In addition to this, A-5 was convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, for having caused injury on P.W.1 Baskar. These convictions and sentences are the subject matter of challenge before this Court in this appeal filed by all the accused, namely A-1 to A-6.2. Short facts leading to the conviction could be summarised as follows:(a) The deceased Sukumaran was carrying on money lending business. P.W.1 Baskar is his younger brother, doing work as Painter in a paint company. A-1 and A-6 are brothers and other accused are their associates. (b) After finishing his work of collecting money from various persons, the deceased ...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Spl. Range Ii Vs. Sanmar Holdings Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: [2005]272ITR345(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above appeal is directed against the order dated 19.5.2003 made in I.T.A. No. 1633/Mds/95 on the file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench.2.1. In brief, aggrieved by the assessment order dated 3.2.1995, assessing the rent from two sister concerns, viz. Chemplast & Overseas Sanmar Financial Corporation, under the head 'income from house property', in spite of the request made by the respondent/assessee for assessing the receipts of the rent under the head 'profits and gains of business and for depreciation thereto', the respondent/assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, who, by his order dated 17.5.1995, directed the Assessing Officer to assess the income derived from the building under the head 'profits and gains of business', paving way for an appeal to the Tribunal by the revenue.2.2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 19.5.2003, holding that there is no infirmity in the order of the appellate authorit...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Mad)50; [2004]271ITR79(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appeal is directed against the order dated .6.2003 made in I.T.A. No. 83/Mds/96 on the file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'A', holding that the residential properties of the respondent/assessee let out to the employees of the sister concern of the respondent/ assessee are treated as business assets and that the income from letting out the property should be treated as business income in the hands of the assessee and allowing depreciation for the same, on the following substantial questions of law.(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the residential properties let out to employees of sister concerns are to be treated as business assets and depreciation allowed? and(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that income from letting out of property should be treated as business income in the hands of the assessee?2.1. In brief, the properties...
S. Dorai Raj Vs. Official Liquidator and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: [2004]122CompCas918(Mad); (2005)193CTR(Mad)318; [2004]271ITR497(Mad)
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. Heard both sides. This application has been filed by the official liquidator to direct the respondent to waive the penalty imposed by them on wealth-tax under Section 31(2) of the Wealth-tax Act and to dispose of the petition dated May 23, 2003, made before the respondent by the official liquidator. 2. The relevant provisions in the Wealth-tax Act (27 of 1957) pertaining to the case on hand are Sections 30 and 31 run as follows :'30. Notice of demand.--When any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum is payable in consequence of any order passed under this Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum so payable.31. When tax, etc., payable and when assessee deemed in default.--(1) Any amount specified as payable in a notice of demand under Section 30 shall be paid within thirty days of the service of the notice at the place and to the person mentioned in the notice :Provided that, where t...
Catholic Centre Vs. Pilot Pen Co. (India) (P) Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: (2004)4CompLJ571(Mad); (2004)186CTR(Mad)562; [2005]63SCL553(Mad)
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. Heard both sides. This application has been filed by the Official. Liquidator to direct the respondent to waive the penalty imposed by them onwealth tax under Section 31(2) of the Wealth Act and to dispose of the petition dated 23.5.2003 made before the respondent by the Official Liquidator.2. The relevant provisions in Wealth Tax Act (27 of 1957) pertaining to the case on hand is Section 30 and 31 runs as follows:'30. Notice of demand.--When any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum ispayable in consequence of any order passed under this Act, the Assessing Officershall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed Form 380Aspecifying the sum so payable.31. When tax, etc., payable and when assessee deemed in default.-(1) Any amount specified as payable in a notice of demand under Section 30 shall be paid within thirty days of the service of the notice at the place and to the person mentioned in the notice:Provided that, where the Assessing Of...
S. Dorai Raj Vs. Official Liquidator and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN542(Mad)
A. Kulasekaran, J.Heard both sides. This application has been filed by the official liquidator to direct the respondent to waive the penalty imposed by them on wealth-tax under section 31(2) of the Wealth Tax Act and to dispose of the petition dated 23-5-2003, made before the respondent by the official liquidator.The relevant provisions in the Wealth Tax Act (27 of 1957) pertaining to the case on hand are sections 30 and 31 run as follows :'30. Notice of demand.When any tax, interest, penalty fine or any other sum is payable in consequence of any order passed under this Act, the assessing officer shall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum so payable.31. When tax, etc., payable and when assessee deemed in default.-(1) Any amount specified as payable in a notice of demand under section 30 shall be paid within thirty days of the service of the notice at the place and to the person mentioned in the notice :Provided that, where the assessing o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »