Chennai Court September 2004 Judgments
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamilnadu-i, Madras Vs. Wheels India L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Mad)284; [2005]275ITR319(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. These Appeals are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the orders dated 18.02.2004 and 15.07.2003 made in I.T.A.No.701/Mds/96 and I.T.A.No.562/Mds/1996 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'C' and 'B' Bench respectively.2. In both these appeals, a common substantial question of law has been formulated, which is to the following effect:-'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Sales-tax and Excise Duty (Appeal No.726/2004) and excise duty (Appeal No.181/2004) not to be included in the total turnover while computing the deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'3. The assessment years involved are 1990-91 and 1992-93. In these appeals, the assessing officer included the excise duty and sales tax collection in the total turnover of the assessee for computing the deduction under Section 80HHC. 4. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal...
Tag this Judgment!P. John Samuel Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad39; 2004(4)CTC755
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to G.O.Ms.No.445, Law Department dated 21.08.1997 and quash the same.2. From the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition what comes to be known is that the petitioner got enrolled himself in the year 1968 and his Enrolment Number is 213/68; that after initial practice of three years in the High Court of Madras, he has been practicing in the Courts at Saidapet thereafter; that he was appointed as a Notary and authorised to practice in the city of Madras with effect from 4.12.1990 in G.O.Ms.No.404, Law Department, dated 4.12.1990 and renewed for a further period of three years; the allegation against the petitioner was that two, twenty rupees non-judicial stamps each with the signature and seal of the petitioner-Notary with an expression 'signed before me, were seized from the Document Writer, A. V. Sundarajan, kept for his misus...
Tag this Judgment!The Kothur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its Pre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad85; (2005)IILLJ627Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. Writ Petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the third respondent in C.T.A. No.41 of 1994 dated 11.10.1996 and quash the same.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner Bank has filed a claim petition in ARC No.149 of 1990-91 before the second respondent herein as against the first respondent, who was the Secretary of the said Bank and six others for recovery of Rs.72,990.06 towards the shortage in stocks, loss caused in the sale of empty gunny bags at a lower price, shortage of empty gunny bags and loss incurred by way of payment of interest for belated payment to North Arcot Wholesale Marketing Society. However, the second respondent while holding that one C.Mani, who was the third defendant to the said proceedings, has admitted the guilt and claim and a resolution was also passed to the effect of irregularities committed by the said C.Mani, has dismissed the said claim petition as against the first re...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Muzam @ Thambi Vs. the Intelligence Officer, N.C.B.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC568
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Petition filed under Section 482, Crl.P.C. to set aside the order passed by the Principal Special Judge in Crl.M.P. No. 2137 of 2004 in C.C. No. 254 of 2002 dated 6.8.2004 and direct the respondent to produce the Log Book of Mini Bus bearing Registration No. TN-09-C-3118 before this Court to prove his innocence.2. Petitioner is the first accused. The relevant facts necessitated for disposal of this petition could briefly be stated thus : -- Based on specific information received on 20.2.2002 that A.1-Md. Muzam @ Thambi and A.2 Lyndon Albert @ Raj were carrying 2.5 kg of Heroin, Officers of N.C.B., Chennai maintained surveillance at Chennai Central Railway Station on 21.2.2002. A.1 and A.2 alighted from the Train-Jaipur Express. On enquiry and being searched, they were found to be in possession of 2.5 kg of Heroin. Personal search of the persons resulted in the seizure of Rs. 3,550. On the complaint, case has been registered against the accused under Sections 8(c...
Tag this Judgment!Spic Jel Engineering Construction Ltd. Vs. Gayatri Sugar Complex Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: [2006]132CompCas167(Mad)
S. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The applicant has filed the application praying for a decree and judgment for payment of the admitted hundi amount by the first respondent to the applicant.2. Learned Counsel for the first respondent/defendant contends that the first respondent has been already referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and therefore no proceedings for recovery of money can be instituted or ordered during the pendency of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction proceedings. Counsel for the first respondent/defendant has produced the letter dated November 18, 2003, sent by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, wherein, it is referred to that the reference made under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, by the defendant has been registered as Case No. 381 of 2003 before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction.3. Counsel for the plaintiff/applicant submits that mere submission ...
Tag this Judgment!G.V.H. Prasad Alias Jothi Prasad Vs. K.R. Rajaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ669
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The unsuccessful tenant before learned the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dated 26.4.2001 and made in R.C.A. No. 33 of 2001 confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 22.12.2000 and made in M.P. No.693 of 2000 in R.C.O.P.No.845 of 2000 passed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') directing the revision petitioner/tenant to pay the rental arrears from February 2000 at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month till the date of passing of the order to the tune of Rs.54,650/- on or before 10.01.2001 failing which to stop all further proceedings in the main petition and to evict him from the petition mentioned property. 2. The respondent/landlord filed Petition in R.C.O.P.No.845 of 2000 for evicti...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Subhashini Perumal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC9; 2005ACJ61
Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai, is the appellant. The appeal is filed aggrieved against the award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 1403 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No. 4), Chennai.2. The Claims Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs. 40,10,000 and passed an award accordingly in respect of the death of one Perumal, the husband of claimant No. 1 and the father of the minor claimant Nos. 2 and 3 and the son of the claimant No. 4 in the road accident on 23.10.1998.3. In this appeal, the quantum alone is questioned by the insurance company.4. The Claims Tribunal considering that the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 38 years and 5 months as seen from the first page of the S.S.L.C. book, Exh. P-8, which reveals the date of birth of the deceased as 24.5.1960 and that the deceased, who was a B.A. graduate as seen from Exh. P-9, had 12 acres of land in Kattavakkam village, Kancheepuram taluk as seen from ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Vs. K.V. Padmavathi,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ484
ORDERT.V. Masilamani, J.1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. This revision petition is preferred by the plaintiff questioning the legality of the order passed by the II Additional District Munsif, Salem in I.A.No.144 of 1997 in O.S.No.1658 of 1996 dated 10.9.1999.2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction in O.S.No.1658 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Salem and the said suit was decreed as against the defendants exparte. The defendants filed an application in I.A.No.144 of 1997 under Order 9 Rule 13 and Section 151 C.P.C. to set aside the exparte decree passed in the said suit on 24.2.1997 and the learned District Munsif allowed the same. Hence, the revision.3. Heard Mr.A.Thiagarajan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.P.Valliappan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued th...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Salem Steel Plant Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2004
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ901Mad
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The second respondent was issued two charge-sheets for following misconducts:(1) Submission of false claim for payment (Rule 27.100 of Standing Orders)(2) Wilful suppression of any material and false declaration given or information furnished in connection with his appointment (Rule 27.102 of Standing Orders) 1This charge-sheet was, dated July 14, 1973. The second charge-sheet, dated April 5, 1986. This relates to following charges:(1) Interference with machine not connected with work (Rule 27.34 of Standing Orders)(2) Fraud or dishonesty in connection with plant's business (Rule 27.45 of Standing Orders)(3) Gross negligence or neglect of work (Rule 27.50 of Standing Orders).An enquiry was conducted and at the conclusion, it was found that the charges under charge-sheet No. 1 were proved. As regards charge-sheet No. 2, these charges were also held to be proved and therefore, he was dismissed from service.2. In respect of the acts of misconduct set out in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai Dn. I) Ltd. Rep. by Managi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: 2005ACJ614; 2004(4)CTC663; (2004)4MLJ486
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The Transport Corporation filed the above appeal questioning the correctness of the award passed by the Tribunal.2. In the accident that took place on 25.4.1992 when the deceased tried to cross Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, the bus owned by the appellant-corporation bearing Regn. No. TML 1920 dashed against the deceased and he died. According to the claimants, only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus, the said accident took place. But, according to the appellant-corporation, the deceased carelessly crossed the road and he dashed on the front side of the bus and so the accident was not due to the negligence on the part of its driver. The Tribunal found that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of the bus.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal is not correct in fixing the negligence on the driver of the bus. The Tribunal, appreciating Ex.P10, the First Information Report and Ex.P11, the Plan, found that the bus has da...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »