Chennai Court September 2004 Judgments
iwl India Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Ct), Zone Iv and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST493(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. By notice dated July 31, 2002 the second respondent pointing out certain violations thereunder, proposed to recover a sum of Rs. 217 lakhs and required the petitioner to repay the said deferral amount of Rs. 217 lakhs already availed immediately along with interest under Section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), even though there was no dispute as to the eligibility of the petitioner to avail the deferral of sales tax as per the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 500 Industries (M.I.G-II) dated May 14,1990 read with the eligibility certificate No. 11 dated February 18, 1991 issued by the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT), and the statutory notification issued by the Government in that regard by G.O.P. No. 92, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated February 22, 1991 under Section 17 of the Act.2. Aggrieved by the said demand notice, the petitioner mov...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Coffee Workers Co-operative Society Limited Vs. Deputy Commerci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST357(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner is a co-operative society running a canteen for selling food and drinks. The petitioner seems to have applied to the Government for granting exemption from sales tax in respect of the sales turnover for food and drinks in the said canteen. As a matter of fact, such an exemption has also been granted by the Government in G.O.P. No. 669 CT & RE dated November 21, 1990 in Notification No. 11(1)/CTRE/205/90 Gazette dated December 5, 1990 with effect from April 1, 1990 with reference to Thiruvalargal Indian Coffee Worker's Co-operative Society Limited, Pondicherry, on the sale of food and drinks in their branches in the State of Tamil Nadu by exercising the power conferred under Section 17(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. In respect of the assessment year 1989-90, as the application for exemption under Section 17 of the Act is pending before the Government, the assessee has not paid the t...
Tag this Judgment!R. Venkataramanan Vs. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by Its Reg ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ320
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent CBE RO:PERS:RR.2003 DT.10.4.2003 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant benefits as stated therein.2. The petitioner was appointed by the first respondent Company in the year 1979 on the basis of the Community Certificate produced by the petitioner as he belongs to Kammara Caste, Scheduled Tribe Community. Later, the first respondent suspected the genuineness of the Community Certificate and conducted enquiry. The petitioner's caste was verified with the School and College in which the petitioner had studied and found that he belongs to Gavarava Naidu Community. The petitioner also gave a letter admitting Gavarava Naidu Caste. On the basis of the enquiry findings, and on the admission of the Gaurava Naidu Caste by the pe...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Fagun Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Mad)280; [2005]272ITR472(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 11.3.1998 made in Tax Case Petition Nos.406 and 407 of 1967, the Tribunal drew up a statement of case and referred the following question of law for our opinion:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the land and building, a portion of which was let out and a portion of which was occupied by the assessee are to be treated as the assets of the assessee's business and hence, not hit by the provisions of Section 40 of the Finanace Act, 1983?'2. The assessee is a domestic company carrying on business of dealing in real estates, constructing, selling and letting out buildings on hire. The basement portion of the building to an extent of 1500 sq.ft. was let out to Indian Bank and the balance portion was used by the assessee for its business purpose. Though the assessee had returned the value of the building and land, it contended before the Assessing...
Tag this Judgment!M. Radheshyamlal Vs. Shailesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad93; 2004(5)CTC401; (2004)4MLJ535
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. O.S.A. No. 181 of 2003 is directed against the judgment dated 18.11.2002 made in Review Appln. No. 5118 of 2001 in Appln. No. 3765 of 2001 in C.S. No. 331 of 1996, whereas O.S.A. No. 110 of 2004 is directed against the judgment dated 10.10.2001 made in Application No. 3765 of 2001 in C.S. No. 331 of 1996.2.1. The appellant in these appeals is the plaintiff in C.S. No. 331 of 1996 laid for:(i) declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the premises, land and building, Old No. 14, New No. 18, Peria Neikkaran Street, Sowcarpet, Madras-79, by virtue of his having perfected his title by adverse possession; and(ii) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein jointly and severally and/or others acting for or through them or anyone of them interfering with and disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.2.2. Since the second defendant/respondent herein was set ex parte by a judgment dated 27.3.2000 in the said suit, the se...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd. by Its Managing Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR428]; (2004)4MLJ613
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner filed the above writ petitions praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in his Award dated 16.11.1996 respectively made in I.D.No.130 of 1996 and C.P.No.469 of 1996, and quash the same.2. The case of the petitioner-management is that the second respondent joined the services of the petitioner-Corporation as Driver on 06.08.1993 and immediately thereafter, within 10 days, on 15.08.1993, he was involved the vehicle in a major fatal accident in which the victim was an old lady who died on the spot; that since the accident occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the second respondent he was discharged from service by an order dated 16.02.1994 retrospectively with effects from 16.08.1993, on the ground of unsuitability since he had worked only for 10 days; that no enquiry was held prior to the discharge; that against the said order dated 16.02.1994, the second respondent...
Tag this Judgment!F. Ramesh and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)92TTJ(Chennai)760
1. These appeals by four different assessees are directed against the different orders of the Asstt. CIT, Circle I(2), Salem, made under Section 143(3) r/w Section 158BC of the IT Act in the case of F.Ramesla, dt. 30th June, 1997, and under Section 143(3) r/w Section 158BD of the Act in the cases of Sri R. Kailash, Smt. Nisha R. and Smt.R. Sangeetha, dt. 30th Sept., 1997, for the block period 1st April, 1986 to 20th June, 1996. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.2. The first common issue in all the appeals is as regards to the admitted income of the assessees assessed as undisclosed income by the AO. The briefly stated facts in these cases are that the assessees have paid advance taxes in all the assessment years assessed by the AO and treated the income which falls under the advance tax as undisclosed income while framing the block assessment. The assessees ha...
Tag this Judgment!Tmt. S. Ayinulmarliya Vs. the Commissioner, Ramanathapuram Municipalit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad166
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to direct the respondents to release the payment of Rs. 5000/-sanctioned already by the first respondent towards the marriage assistance to the petitioner and quash the same.2. The case of the petitioner is that based on the scheme called 'Moovalur Ramamirthammal Marriage Assistance Scheme', the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a G.O.No.515 (Backward Classes) dated 31.05.1989 which was formulated only for the welfare of the backward class women folk by providing Rs. 6000/- as financial assistance for the girls' marriage expenses, the petitioner who belongs to Indian Muslim Lebbai Caste falls under backward class, studied upto IX standard, applied with all required documents to the first respondent during the end of 1992, for her marriage negotiations and fixed to take place in 1993; that after thorough verification, the first respondent sanctioning the payment of Rs. 5...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Chairman and Vs. S. Thanicka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ403
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is the appellant before us. The challenge is to the order of the learned Judge dated 29.11.2000 in W.P.No.9672 of 1995, wherein the learned Judge while setting aside the order of the appellant-Board dated 29.6.1995 insofar as it denied the backwages to the respondent for the period between 16.10.1982 and 29.6.1995, directed the appellant-Board to pay the said backwages within a period of eight weeks. The appeal centers around the question as to whether the respondent is entitled for full backwages for the said period.2. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, a few facts are required to be stated. The respondent, who was working as Assistant Executive Engineer, was issued with a charge memo dated 8.3.1983 alleging that he unauthorizedly absented himself from 16.10.1982 onwards. Pursuant to the said charge memo and after holding an enquiry, he was dismissed by the order of the Full Board dated 29.6.1984. The said order wa...
Tag this Judgment!P. Meenakshiammal Vs. G. Muralidharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ325
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. Both the above Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the common judgment and decree dated 11.3.2003 respectively rendered in R.C.A.Nos.329 and 335 of 2001 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Small Causes Judge), Chennai thereby reversing the fair and decretal order dated 18.4.2001 respectively made in C.M.P.No.60 of 1999 and M.P.No.800 of 2000 in R.E.P.No.410 of 1998 in R.C.O.P.No.88 of 1998 by the Court of Rent Controller(XVI Small Causes Judge), Chennai.2. Tracing the history of the above Civil Revisions having come to be filed, what comes to be known is that the petitioner herein is the landlady who filed R.C.O.P.No.88 of 1998 for eviction of the respondent therein for wilful default on the ground that originally one Mr.Kanniappan was the tenant of the tenanted premises and he was carrying on the business of blacksmith; that on his death, his wife claiming to be associated with the business of her husband asserted right to continue in occu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »