Chennai Court August 2007 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.
P. Snehalatha Vs. Victory Leathers Rep. by Its Managing Partner V. Sur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ177
ORDERR. Regupathi, J.1. Petitioner herein is the first accused in C.C. No. 777 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Erode, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'Act'). Second accused is the husband of the petitioner/first accused.2. At the foremost, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the notice issued to the petitioner subsequent to dishonour of the cheque dated 15.12.2004, she has been wrongly described as the Proprietor of the Firm Techno Associates, consequently, a reply has been sent, clarifying the fact that the petitioner is a sleeping partner and that only her husband viz., second accused, is the Managing Partner of the Firm, however, in spite of such clarification by way of reply to the notice, it has been stated in para No. 2 of the complaint that the petitioner is the Managing Partner of the Firm. It is stated that the petitioner, being the wife of the 2nd accused, never actively participated in the ...
Larsen and Toubro Ltd., Ecc Division Vs. the Assistant Commissioner (C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: (2008)12VST54(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. Brief facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows:The petitioner, is a registered dealer under the TNGST Act, engaged in business of commercial construction and works contract. For the assessment year 1999-2000, they filed their returns quoting the turnover for Rs. 289,25,35,384/-. Based on their returns, the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order in TNGST 0620015 dated 30.04.2007, determining the taxable turnover at Rs. 2,98,25,55,972/- and disallowed the claim of the petitioners, regarding the inter-State works contract, RMC Freight and pumping charges, sales in the course of import and other issues. He further determined the tax liability at Rs. 37,01,68,497/- and levied Rs. 6,79,44,165/- as additional tax. Besides, the assessing authority also levied penalty under Section 12(3)(b) of the TNGST Act at Rs. 1,91,03,488 and under the Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970 at Rs. 1,16,89,193/-. Out of the above said amounts, the petitioner has already paid ta...
indo International Limited Represented by Its Director Umraomal Lodha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(218)ELT661(Mad)
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Since the issues involved in all the seven writ petitions are identical, these writ petitions are decided by this common order.2. While the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 17176 & 17177 of 2007 are companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioners in the other five writ petitions are individuals who are none other than the Directors/officials in these two companies.3. The facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions, in short, are as under:a Indo International Limited and Rave Global Limited, petitioners in W.P. Nos. 17176 and 17177 of 2007 respectively are companies are engaged in export business of leather and other commodities. In the normal course of their business, their Directors and other officials purchased foreign exchange under Liberalized Exchange Rule Management System (in short 'LERMS') as per details below and made payment towards the same by way of crossed cheques issued from their bank accounts:Name of Companies Travellers Cheq...
Novartis AG represented by It's Power of Attorney Ranjna Mehta Dutt Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: (2007)4MLJ1153
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same. In the first writ petition, Novartis - a foreign company represented by it's Indian Power of Attorney holder, is the writ petitioner. In the second writ petition, Novartis India represented by it's power agent is the writ petitioner. The respondents in both the writ petitions are one and the same. The prayer in both the writ petitions is one and the same namely, for a declaration that Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, amended by Patents (Amendment) Act 15/2005, is unconstitutional. However, in the first writ petition there was an additional prayer in addition to the relief asked for. The additional prayer was to direct the second respondent in that writ petition namely, the Controller General of Patents and Designs, to allow the patent application bearing No. 1602/NAS/98 filed by the petitioner seeking patent. However at a later stage, during the pendency of the writ petitions, M.P. N...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Ranganathar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: [2009]316ITR252(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. These appeals are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'SMC-III(D)', Chennai in I.T.A. Nos. 1006 and 1007/Mds/2005 dated 16.11.2005 raising the following common substantial question of law:When the assessee itself has declared that the income of the Balaji Trust is to be clubbed with the income of the assessee, for the earlier Assessment Years, treating the income of Balaji Trust as separately for the Assessment Years 2000-2001 to 2001-2002 that of the assessee, whether would be opposed to consistency and logic2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is a Civil Engineering Contractor and Petrol Product Dealer for Indian Oil Corporation. The relevant assessment years are 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 and the corresponding accounting years ended on 31.03.2000 and 31.03.2001, respectively. For the assessment year 2000-2001, the...
Kasi Consultant Corporation Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: [2009]311ITR419(Mad)
D. Murugesan, J.1. All these appeals are admitted on the following substantial questions of law:i) Whether the Tribunal is correct in confirming the order imposing penalty under Section 271D o the Act on the facts and in the circumstances of the case?ii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding that there was reasonable cause for accepting deposits in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/- with reference to the provisions of Section 273B of the Act?iii) Whether the Tribunal is correct in not considering the scope and the purpose of the provisions of Section 271D of the Act, especially with reference to Sections 269SS and 273B of the Act? andiv) Whether the Tribunal is correct in rejecting the ground relating to the violation of the principles of natural justice on the facts and in the circumstances of the case?2. For the disposal of the appeals, the facts relating to Tax Case (Appeal) No. 552 of 2007 is referred.3. The appellant-firm is one of the firms floated by one Mathivathanan and his w...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kovai Maruthi Paper and Board P. Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Mad)607; [2007]294ITR57(Mad)
D. Murugesan, J.1. This appeal is directed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'D', Chennai in I.T.A. No. 721/Mds/04 dated 04.08.2006.2. The brief facts that gives rise to the present appeal are as follows:The respondent-assessee filed Return of income on 28.11.1997 admitting income of Rs. 27,13,390/-, and after adjusting a sum of Rs. 22,57,277/- towards carry forward loss for the year 1995-96 and a sum of Rs. 4,56,113/- towards carry forward loss for the year 1996-97, the income returned was 'Nil'. However, the assessee has computed the income under Section 115JA of the Income-tax Act ('Act' in short) on the book profit as Rs. 64,74,643/- and computed the tax liability at Rs. 8,35,229/-. The Return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and notice was also issued. Ultimately, the assessment was revised under Section 154 of the Act to tax the amount of Government Subsidy on generator, a portion of which was received by the...
Prakash Foods and Feed Mills (Private) Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: (2009)23VST455(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. Writ petitions have been filed challenging the assessment orders under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04, respectively. The impugned order for the assessment year 2002-03 is the revised order and for 2003-04 is the original order of assessment. Both the writ petitions relate to levy of tax on the poultry-feed supplements. As the facts and law involved are one and the same, they are taken up together and dispose of by common order.2. The petitioners are the dealers in poultry-feed supplements. The place of business was inspected by the enforcement wing officials on March 24, 2005 and they came to the conclusion that the poultry-feed supplements sold in inter-State sales are liable to tax only at four per cent, when covered by C declaration forms under the CST Act, 1956. Accordingly, the revised notice was served for the year 2002-03 under the CST Act and pre-assess-ment notice was issued for the year 2003-04, proposing to...
R. Perumal Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ789
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Both the writ petitions are filed by the very same petitioner challenging the order of final show cause notice dated 10.4.2002 and the charge memo dated 12.5.2005 and 29.7.2005 respectively.2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions as per the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as clerk in the third respondent Society on 16.5.1977 and he worked as Senior Clerk till 31.12.1999. On 11.2.2000, a charge memo was issued containing six charges and on 22.2.2000, the petitioner submitted his explanation. On 1.4.2000 second charge memo was issued. The third respondent conducted enquiry in respect of the charge memo dated 11.2.2000 and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 30.10.2000. On 9.11.2000, a show cause notice was issued proposing punishment, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 15.12.2000. By order dated 7.3.2001, petitioner was dismissed from service for the said delinquencies. On 28.4.2001, petitio...
H. Dawood Vs. L. Thangarajan and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2300; 2007(4)CTC468
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. These appeals are filed against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai, in W.C. No. 26 of 1999 on 14.9.1999 and in W.C. No. 248 of 1999 on 10.5.2002 respectively.2. The Claimants in the respective case filed the appeals only in respect of denial of interest for the amount of compensation awarded. In C.M.A. No. 1899 of 2000 (W.C. No. 26 of 1999), the authority passed an award of Rs. 95,744/- and in C.M.A. No. 710 of 2003 (W.C. No. 248 of 1999) the award amount is Rs. 2,09,920/-.3. In both these appeals, the common substantial question of law raised by the appellants/claimants is that the authority failed to award interest from the date of accident as against the statutory provision contained in Section 4A of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective appellants argued that the claim of the appellants having been upheld and the compensation having been awarded, interest should have been ordered f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »