Chennai Court March 2005 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.
Dr. K. Nedunchezhian Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC161; (2005)199CTR(Mad)432; [2005]279ITR342(Mad)
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These are two connected writ appeals and are being disposed off by a common judgment. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned departmental counsel.2. The appellant had first filed a writ petition challenging the assessment notice under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. That writ petition being W.P. No. 38648 of 2004 was dismissed on 7.2.2005 on the ground that assessment order has already been passed on 29.12.2004 and the writ petition challenging that assessment order being W.P. No. 1725 of 2005 has also been dismissed o n 27.1.2005.3. W.P. No. 1725 of 2005 had been dismissed by the learned single Judge on the ground that since the assessment order has been passed the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under section 246 read with section 251 of the Income-tax Act. We agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge that the appellant has an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal.4. In W....
Moulana Traders, Rep. by Its Sole Proprietor, P. Kather Oli Vs. the Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC520
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The applicant claims to be the seller of the goods concerned in this case to the company in liquidation. He is before this Court for a direction to the official liquidator for permission to remove/lift the pulp wood to an extent of 16,000 metric tons lying in the premises of the company in liquidation after giving an appropriate direction in that regard to the official liquidator. There is no dispute that the applicant supplied a large volume of pulp wood to the company in liquidation and stating that whatever quantity of pulp wood is now left in the company premises belongs to him, he wants to take it back. The point involved in this case is whether the property in the goods passed to the buyer or not If it had passed to the buyer, then the property belongs to the company in liquidation and everyone, including the applicant, should stand in the queue and make a claim. On the other hand, if the property in the goods had not passed to the buyer, then the ti...
Ramasamy Raja and anr. Vs. P. Subbayya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC640
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The person who has landed the appellants and the respondent in this litigation is not before us. The following dates are relevant. The word 'property' refers to the suit property in O.S. No. 648 of 1998, from .which this Second Appeal has arisen.12.3.1979.-- The appellants sold the suit the 'property' to one K. Subbayya (the villain in this story).6.4.1979.-- K. Subbayya executed a pronote for a sum of Rs. 50,000 being the unpaid sale consideration (Ex.B-2).19.12.1979.-- K. Subbayya entered into an agreement of sale of the 'property' with the respondent.15.3.1982.-- O.S. No. 18 of 1982 was filed by the respondent against K. Subbayya for specific performance of the agreement dated 19.12.1979.5.4.1982.-- O.S. No. 23 of 1982 filed by the appellant for recovery of money due under Ex.B-2.5.4.1982.-- Attachment before Judgment of the 'property' ordered in O.S. No. 23 of 1982.13.4.1982.-- Attachment effected.16.11.1982.-- Ex parte decree passed in O.S. No. 23 of 198...
Mahalakshmi Enterprises Vs. Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2005
Reported in: [2006]144STC47(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai made in O.P. No. 351 of 2003 dated March 27, 2003.2. It is stated that the petitioner is an importer and exporter and dealer in general goods and is an agent for imported goods from foreign countries covered by import documents prescribed by the Government of India. It is stated that when the goods reached Chennai Harbour, their clearing agent produced the documents before the customs authorities and paid the customs duty and cleared the goods and despatched 15 pallets out of 77 pallets. Those 15 pallets were transported through lorry under cover of proper documents. The officials of the second respondent searched the clearing agent's godown and they served the detention order in G.D. Nos. 117, 118 of 2002-2003. That order came to be challenged before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed th...
Chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Teleprinters Ltd. Vs. M. Raj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ610Mad; (2005)2MLJ119
D. Murugesan, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order in W.P.No.4157 of 1996 dated 29.4.2004. The question that frequently arises for consideration by Courts as to the right of an employee to seek for legal assistance through his lawyer to defend the case in the disciplinary proceedings is put in as an issue in this case for our consideration. We are not narrating the entire factual aspects leading to the filing of the writ petition, except the following few facts in view of the disposal of the writ appeal on the limited questions involved. 2. The respondent, while he was working as Deputy General Manager (Management Services), was issued with a charge memo on 12.4.91. After an enquiry, he was removed from service by an order dated 18.3.92. On a challenge to the said order, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of removal. The learned Judge has held that the enquiry is vitiated for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC466
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This reference application seeks direction to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short CEGAT) to refer to this Court the following question of law:Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in deciding that the statement given by Shri Ratinakumar cannot be admitted as evidence in view of the facts available on record?2. We have heard the learned standing counsel for the Department as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent and have perused the records. In our opinion, the question has been wrongly framed. A perusal of paragraph 5 of the order of the Tribunal shows that the evidence of Shri Ratinakumar has been admitted in evidence but it has been disbelieved. There is difference between admitting a piece of evidence and disbelieving a piece of evidence. Non-admission of a piece of evidence means non-consideration of the evidence altogether. On the other hand, not believing some evidence means that that the evidence tho...
Nivaram Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Director Sardarmal M. Chordia Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ246; 2008[12]STR98; [2009]19STT194; 2006(205)ELT9(Mad)
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 15.10.2004.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The writ petition had been filed before the learned single Judge against the order of the CEGAT dated 09.07.1997. 4. We are surprised that this writ petition was entertained at all. There was a clear alternative remedy against the order of the CEGAT dated 09.07.1997 by means of filing a Reference Application before the CEGAT under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and if that application was rejected by the CEGAT there was a second alternative remedy of approaching this Court under Section 35G(3) of the Act seeking a direction to the CEGAT to make a reference to this Court.5. It is well settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court that particularly in tax matters there should be no short circuiting of the statutory remedies, vide Titagh...
The Special Officer, Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mills Vs. the Presidin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR681]; (2005)IIILLJ141Mad; (2005)2MLJ132
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 08.12.2003 in dismissing W.P.Nos. 32374 and 32375 of 2002.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The second respondent in both the writ petitions were workmen of the writ petitioner-Mill who filed applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Vellore. The 2nd respondent in W.P.No.32375 of 2002 viz., D. Krishnan in his application stated that he was working in the writ petitioner -Mill from 19.02.1979, and he was promoted as Time Keeper during the year 1982. He was deputed to work as Manager of the Canteen from 10.02.1996. He alleged that he used to work normally from 6 am to 6 pm, and he worked overtime for 1298 1/2 hours between 15.02.1996 to 31.05.1997 as detailed in the annexure to his application. He has relied on the punching cards available with the management to prove his claim. It was all...
M. Bhagavathy Vs. Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Limited Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC410; 2006ACJ1408; 2005(5)CTC745
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The claimant is the appellant. The appellant sustained an injury in the accident that took place on 11.09.1990 on the Trichy Chennai National highway. The accident occurred on account of the negligence of the bus belonging to the respondent. The appellant claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/- and therefore, this appeal has been filed. 2. The respondent though served has not entered appearance. Hence after perusing the grounds and the other connected papers filed along with it, we pass the following order. 3. It is clear from the award that the appellant had been injured near her left knee and her leg was broken and thereafter, her left leg was amputated below the knee. It is her case that she is unable to do household work. P.W.3 is the claimant and because of the injury she has engaged a person to assist her in the household work by paying a salary of Rs. 400/- per month. P.W.2 is the Doctor. He has given...
The Management of Reckitt and Benckiser (India) Ltd., Rep. by Its Fact ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ641Mad
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 25.11.2004.2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.3. The learned single Judge has only directed that the conciliation proceedings be completed within twelve weeks. We cannot see what objection can the appellant have to such a direction. In fact, it is an innocuous direction which does not affect the rights of the parties. 4. It must be understood that there is a difference between conciliation and adjudication. In conciliation proceedings no rights are decided and no binding order can be passed by the conciliation officer. The purpose of conciliation is to try to bring the parties to an amicable settlement by persuasion, reasoning, etc. without the need to go in for adjudication. It may be mentioned that the duty of the conciliation officer is only to mediate and try to promote a settlement of the industrial dispute without going to Court. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »