Chennai Court March 2007 Judgments
Okey Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST232(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in Letter No. M3/1633/2007, quash the order dated February 7, 2007 and consequently direct the first respondent to admit the petition filed by the petitioner before him under Section 16D of the TNGST Act.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was the assessee under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the assessment year 1996-97, the petitioner claimed exemption on the entire sales pertaining to export of hosiery garments. However, the second respondent after checking up the accounts, culled out certain values from the books of account for the sales of quota, industrial salt and carton boxes and assessed the same to tax, besides levying penalty by his assessment order dated March 15, 2002 without issuing any pre-assessment notice inviting o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Varalakshmi Chemind P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: [2008]303ITR174(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated October 5, 2006, raising the following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had properly exercised its discretion and was right in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c)?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer has to prove with evidence that there was a deliberate attempt to conceal income before he could invoke the provisions of Section 271(1)(c), ignoring the Explanation 1 to Section 271?2. The facts which led to the rise of the above appeal are as under:The assessee filed its return for the relevant assessment year declaring a loss of Rs. 1,30,81,000. While completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer made two additions, viz., unexplained credit in the form of shares advance and...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu State Express Trans. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. A. Revathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ351
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. Transport Corporation is in appeal against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1243 of 2003 questioning the award both on the aspect of negligence and quantum arrived at by the Tribunal for the amputation of right hand of the claimant.2. The claimant-injured, aged 35 years, has been assisting her husband in his grocery shop. It is seen from the order of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred on 1.2.2003 resulting in grievous injury to the appellant. A petition was made to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation to the extent of Rs. 23,00,000.3. By an order dated 5.4.2005 in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1243 of 2003, the Tribunal passed an order fixing the compensation at Rs. 13,62,500 with interest at 9 per cent from the date of the petition. A perusal of the order would show that based on the evidence adduced by PW 1 and after analysing the evidence of the driver as RW 1, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Commercial Traders (P) Ltd. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Mad)599; [2008]303ITR166(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of cartiorari to call for the records of the case on the file of the first respondent in respect of the notice issued under Section 226(3) of the IT Act, dt. 8th March, 2007 received by the petitioner on the same day evening and quash the same.2. The relief has been sought for in the following premise that the petitioner is a registered company carrying on business of trading of Ayurvedic medicines and healthcare products as a wholesale distributor and is maintaining regular accounts. The petitioner has been regularly assessed to income-tax and sales-tax.3. The petitioner purchased goods from a company by name M/s DXN Herbal . It appears that M/s DXN Herbal . is having some dispute in respect of income-tax payable by them and the respondent authorities are taking action to recover the tax due from M/s DXN Herbal . which is in a sum of Rs. 3,88,85,000. In the course of recovery of the amount fro...
Tag this Judgment!Kolammal (Died) and Dr. A. Nagarajan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad258
P. Sathasivam,J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.4.2002 made in W.P. No. 21093 of 1994, in and by which the learned Judge after finding that the award had been passed as early as on 23.11.1994 and the acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged after passing of the award, dismissed the writ petition, the writ petitioner preferred the above appeal.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter as arrayed in the writ petition.3. Heard Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr.P.Subramanian, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.S.Kasikumar, learned Standing counsel for the 3rd respondent. 4. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned senior counsel for the appellant after taking us through the entire acquisition proceedings has raised the following contentions:(i)Inasmuch as the very same acquisition notification was quashed by this Court in W.P.Nos.20850 and 20851 of 1994 by order dated 15.10.2001 and the...
Tag this Judgment!Das Lagerway Wind Turbines Ltd. Vs. Cynosure Investments Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR97(Madras); [2009]147CompCas149(Mad)
S. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order passed by the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai, dated 17.12.2002 made in CA No. 99 of 2002 in CP No. 55 of 2002 dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner herein under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the matter to arbitration.2. The Company Petition No. 55 of 2002 was filed before the Company Law Board by the respondent herein in their capacity as shareholder of the petitioner-company. The main grievance of the respondent is that the revision petitioner-company had conspired to take away the assets, business and benefits belonging to the company and parked them with the third parties and a gigantic fraud was played by V.R. Raghunathan and others who are parties to the main petition. So many allegations of fraud have been described by the respondent herein in the typed set at several pages. According to them loss has also been caused to the Go...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. R. Paulmanickam (Decea ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)2LLJ975Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.2.2002 made in W.P. No. 10976 of 1996, the Management of Madras Aluminium Company Ltd., Mettur Dam, Salem District has filed the above appeal. 2. The respondents 1 to 18 herein/writ petitioners joining together have filed W.P. No. 10976 of 1996 praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the common order of the Labour Court, Salem in C.P. No. 894 of 1994, etc. and quash the same, and consequently, direct the management to pay their wages from 1.4.1992 to October, 1994 less the advance given during the period they worked. According to them, all were employed in the factory of the Madras Aluminium Company at Mettur Dam. From 1.4.1992 all workmen except those who were in-charge of essential services like, security, water supply, sanitation, electricity, etc. were asked not to report for duty. Since the writ petitioners belonged to essential services, they were require...
Tag this Judgment!P. Rajeswari Vs. the Vice Chancellor, the Tamil Nadu Dr. Mgr Medical U ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ1050
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order bearing reference Proc. No. EI(2)452/2000 dated 18.08.2003 issued by the first respondent and to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to reinstate her with all attendant benefits including seniority and monetary benefits.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:The petitioner is a Computer Science graduate. Based on the advertisement dated 27.08.2000 issued by the respondent University calling for applications for the post of Programmer with the break up of reservation being one post each for OC, SC and BC categories, she applied for the same. By the letter dated 13.11.2000 of the respondent University, the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, was appointed as Programmer and she joined duty on 29.11.2000 with time scale of pay fixed at Rs. 8000-275-13500. She was granted two increments and Provident Fund contributions were also ded...
Tag this Judgment!M. Bhaskaran Reddiar Vs. the District Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ1003
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent which culminated in the order dated 11.07.2002 bearing No. W.2/60266/2001 and to quash the same.2. The petitioner's case in short, as culled out from his affidavit is as under:Based on the demands for acquisition of lands for Adi Dravidar and Harijan Welfare, the petitioner's parents and the petitioner himself as well had given huge extents of land during the years 1983, 1986, 1994 and 2000 without raising any objection and even without receipt of compensation in full in respect of which cases are still pending in courts. In addition to the above, certain extent of lands has also been given by the petitioners father immediately after the country's independence, for the purpose of providing exclusive place of worship for the local Adi Dravidars. The extent of 14 acres of land, left out with the petitioner is partly wet and partly dry and has be...
Tag this Judgment!The Land Acquisition Officer and the Spl. Thasildar (La) Vs. Palaniapp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ266
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. Acquisition proceedings initiated for laying a broad gauge railway line-Salem-Karur Project. The acquired lands are situated in two villages Namakkal and Kosavampatti. In the appeals filed against the compensation awarded in the L.A.O.Ps., this Court on 06-10-2005 held that the determination of the market value had been made on the basis of sale deeds which were not relevant and which do not reflect the correct value and therefore, without directing a de novo trial and findings were called for from the Court below. The parties were allowed to let in evidence on the market value of the lands acquired. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal has submitted his findings. For the purpose of arriving at the value of the lands he has divided the lands in Kosavampatti Village into three parts and the lands in the Namakkal Village also into three parts. From the sale deeds produced by the claimants, the learned Sub-Judge chose those documens which he found were acceptab...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »