Chennai Court October 2008 Judgments

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Madura TarpaulIn Manufacturing Company

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)12VatReporter93; (2009)22VST458(Mad)

ORDER1. The issue involved in the present tax case is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Binny Limited reported in [1998] 111 STC 446, wherein the Division Bench has held that under entry 4 of the Third Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as amended with effect from April 1, 1974, by the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act, 1974, the items of cotton fabrics, woollen fabrics, rayon or artificial silk fabrics, are defined in the terms of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Once the item of goods 'cotton fabrics' corresponds to the scope of the entry in item No. 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 'tarpaulins' must fall within the substituted entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and consequently, tarpaulins are liable to be exempted from tax.2. Following the same, these revisions petitions are dismissed....

M/S. Kerala Roadways Ltd., Madurai Branch Rep. by Its Manager and Othe ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The complaint is filed under the following circumstances: The complainant has booked cloth bales through the opposite parties from Madurai to Kerala state with instruction that amount should be collected from the consignee. When the opposite parties were about to deliver the goods, the consignee have not paid the amount as instructed by the complainant and accordingly the complainant has instructed the opposite party to send back the goods. However, the opposite parties without following the said instructions, delivered the said goods, and hence the complainant had suffered a loss due to non collection of the amount for the said goods from the consignee. Under the said circumstances, the complainant has approached the District Forum. 3. The opposite parties have resisted the complainant by contending that there is violation of Sec.10 of the Car...

B. Suresh Babu Vs. Nithya

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ267

ORDERS. Tamilvanan, J.1. Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P (NPD) No. 3857 of 2007 has been preferred against the Notice ordered in I.A. No. 700 of 2007 by the Family Court, Coimbatore, wherein the respondent herein has sought an order to set aside Clauses 2 to 7 of the compromise decree, dated 23.02.3005 passed in G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2005, based on the joint memo of compromise.2. Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P (NPD) No. 3856 of 2007 has been preferred by the petitioner/respondent against the Notice ordered in I.A. No. 701 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore, wherein the respondent herein has sought an order of interim stay against the operation of Clauses 2 to 7 of the aforesaid compromise decree, dated 23.02.2005.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The respondent herein had filed H.M.O.P. No. 695 of 2004 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore to dissolve the marriage that was solemnised between the petitioner and the respondent on 18.10.2000. Similarly, t...

Mr. Nandagopal and Mrs. N. Gandhimathi Vs. the Competent Authority Urb ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ994

ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties concerned.2. It has been stated that the second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. The first petitioner is working as a Senior Technical Assistant, Civil Engineering, Central Leather Research Institute, Adyar, Chennai. He had purchased 0.24 acres of agricultural wet land, under a registered sale deed, dated 18.5.1983, with document No. 2345/83. The second petitioner had purchased 0.4 acres of agricultural wet land, on 11.8.1986, with document No. 378/86 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ambattur. Both the petitioners together had purchased a total extent of 28 cents of agricultural wet land from Thulasi Ammal, wife of late Ekambaram. After the purchase, the petitioners had been cultivating paddy by drawing water from a lake in Madanakuppam. After the officials of the U.D.R. Scheme had inspected the lands, patta had been issued to the petitioners, on 24.5.1986, bearing patta No. 282 ...

Subodh Enterprises Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)21VST458(Mad)

ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This petition is filed to call for the records from the file of the respondent in CST No. 723635/2001-02 dated March 26, 2008, quash the same, direct the respondent to grant a copy of the Enforcement Wing Report relied on by the respondent in the pre-revision notice dated November 10, 2006 in CST. No. 723635/2001-02, consider the objections filed by the petitioner, grant personal hearing to the petitioner and petitioner's advocate.2. The case of the petitioner as per the affidavit is as under:3. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and they are dealing in casuarina billets and eucalyptus billets. The respondent passed final orders of assessment under the Central Act, by order in CST. No. 723635/2001-02 and CST. No. 723635/2002-03 on April 25, 2003 and August, 24, 2004, respectively in which after scrutinising the entire document, it was declared by the respondent that the petitioner is not lia...

Ganesh Prabhu Vs. M/S. Bbc, Associates Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Dire ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. {Open Court} 1. The Appellant is the complainant and the Respondents are the opposite parties before the District Forum. 2. The complainant has filed the complaint before the District Forum under the following circumstances: The complainant has entered into two independent construction agreements on 29.3.1996 with the opposite parties for the purchase of two flats viz., C/4 and D/5. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.6,10,000/- towards an advance. Since the opposite parties have not furnished the sanctioned plan, the complainant was not in a position to raise the loan by approaching the financial institutions and as such the remaining payment could not be made immediately. In the meanwhile, the opposite parties have not completed the construction work for a long time due to certain violation with regard to a portion of the constructions. In view of the delay, and inability on the part of the opposite parties to complete the project, the complainant and other inves...

S. Chandrasekaran, Advocate, Chennai Vs. the Chief Manager, Citi Finan ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. {Open Court} 1. The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the opposite party before the District Forum. 2. The complaint is filed under the following circumstances: The complainant has availed a loan of Rs.17000/- for the purchase of bike viz., TVS XL from the opposite party. The complainant has handed over 23 post dated cheques apart from the payment of an initial amount by way of an another cheque. According to the complainant, even though all the payments were made, the opposite party has failed to acknowledge the same and hand over the documents such as R.C.book, No Due Certificate etc., Hence the complaint is filed before the District Forum seeking the relief as stated therein. 3. The opposite party remained exparte. The District Forum has rejected the complaint by holding that the complainant has not proved that he paid the entire amount and one post dated cheque for the month of May-2004 is returned and due to the failure on the part of the complai...

S.Palani Vs. the Manager, M/S. Bank of America, Chennai and Another

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. {Open Court } 1. The appellant is the Complainant and the respondents are the opposite parties before the District Forum. 2. The appeal is filed as against the order of the District Forum in rejecting the complaint. 3. The complaint is filed by contending that even though the complainant has availed loan of Rs.25000/- from the 1st opposite party and nominated the 1st opposite party as his Power Agent and later on the loan was discharged after a period of 4-months, the complainant was not informed about anything with regard to the allotment of the car by the 2nd opposite party for which, the loan was obtained and a booking was made. The District Forum has rejected the complaint by holding that it is barred by limitation and also by considering the fact that the loan agreement was cancelled by the 1st opposite party with the complaint. 4. We have perused the materials available on record and heard the arguments of learned counsel on either side. It is not in dispute th...

T.M. Kamalanathan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary t ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ634

ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred for issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner on account of the unfortunate death of his son by way of electrocution and to take both departmental and criminal action against respondents 2 to 6 for their negligence.2. The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as under:Petitioner's case:The petitioner is a tea shop owner and his shop is located at No. 79, Azad Road, Thorappadi, Vellore about 100 metres away from his house. The petitioner had one son and two daughters and he was maintaining the family with the meagre income derived from the tea shop. While so, the Tamil Nadu Noon Meals Employees State Conference was organised in Vellore under the leadership of Tmt. Indira Kumari, the then Minister for Social Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu. All the preparatory and decorative works were started and carried out even t...

Saraswathi Agencies Rep. by Mr. R. Kothandan, Partner Vs. the Sales Ta ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)21VST200(Mad)

ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.7.1999 in T.A. No. 560 of 1997 on the file of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai confirming the assessment order dated 8.12.1995 on the file of the second respondent.2. The factual details as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as under:The petitioner is a dealer in electrical goods, wet grinders, pumpsets, etc., carrying on business at Door No. 40, Sembudoss Street, Madras-1. During the assessment year 1994-95 the petitioner submitted accounts and reported Nil total and taxable turnover under Central Sales Tax Act. The accounts were subjected to check by the Assessing Officer and the second respondent assessed a total and taxable turn over of Rs. 68,825.00 as per proceedings dated 8.12.1995 and levied tax and penalty. The Nil return submitted by the petitioner was rejected for the reason that in the bills issued by the petitioner for sale of articles to different...