Chennai Court November 2008 Judgments

P. Muthupandi Vs. State

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ1943

ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. The petitioner, who is a practising Advocate, has come forward with these petitions seeking for the relief of cancellation of bail granted to the second respondents in both the matters, who have been arrayed as A-1 and A-2 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, in Crl.M.P. No. 1787 and 1788 of 2008 dated 29.10.2008 for the alleged offences under Sections 124(A), 153(A)1(a) of IPC and under Section 13(1)(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.2. The petitioner filed separate affidavits containing the same contents in both the matters seeking for the relief of cancellation of the order of bail granted to the second respondents in both the matters, who have been arrayed as A-1 and A-2, in this case.3. Mr. T.K. Gopalan, learned Counsel for the petitioner made two-fold submissions, firstly, in respect of the maintainability of the petition filed by the petitioner and secondly in respect of the reasons for cancelling the bail order.4. The lea...

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Offi ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Mad)90; [2009]316ITR292(Mad)

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 144B of the IT Act, 1961 are attracted and the reference to the IAC was in accordance with the provisions of Section 144B?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment was not time-barred?2. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and marketing of fertilizers etc. The return of income for the asst. yr. 1980-81 was filed on 27th June, 1980 showing an income of Rs. 10,91,22,540 subject to disallowances and the claim under Section 80J of the IT Act, and after adjusting the carry forward business loss to the extent of Rs. 10,86,03,271 and the unabsorbed depreciation carried forward to the extent of Rs. 5,19,269, declared its total assessable income as 'nil'. Subsequently, on 11th Dec., 1980, it filed a revised ...

M. Swaminathan Vs. the Secretary to Government, Industries Department ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ1276

ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. By consent of both sides the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.2. Prayer in W.P. No. 13093 of 2008 is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to proceed with the eviction proceedings after issuing notice of opportunity enabling the petitioner to raise objections, pursuant to the G.O.Ms. No. 139, Industries (MIG-II) Department, dated 3.11.2006, passed by the first respondent in respect of the agricultural lands to an extent of 2 acres comprised in Survey No. 49/1A/6B of Oragadam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chengalpet District, so far as the petitioner is concerned.3. In W.P. No. 17307 of 2008, twelve petitioners pray to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in G.O.Ms. No. 187 Industries (SIPCOT-LA), dated 4.7.2007, issued under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbear the respondents from procee...

G.K. Steels (Coimbatore) Ltd. Rep. by Its Director Vs. the Commissione ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009(238)ELT709(Mad)

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of hot re-rolled products. The petitioner's manufactured goods fall under Chapter Heading 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 05.03.1998 calling upon him to show cause as to why a differential duty of Rs. 29,01,015/- should not be demanded and further penalty should not be imposed on them under the Central Excise Rules. At this stage, the petitioner wanted to take advantage of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998 (for short KVSS) introduced by the Finance Act 21 of 1998 with effect from 01.08.1998. Section 95(ii) reads as follows:95.Scheme not to apply in certain cases:(i)...(ii) in respect of tax arrear under any indirect tax enactiment,- (a) in a case where prosecution for any offence punishable under any provisions of any indirect tax enactment has been instituted on or before the date of filing of the declaration under Section 88, in respect of any tax arrear in respect o...

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. State Trading Corporation of India

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)27VST559(Mad)

K.K. Sasidharan, J.1. These three revision petitions have been preferred by the Sales Tax Department challenging the order dated July 30, 1999 in T.A. Nos. 418, 419, 420 of 1995 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.2. The following are the substantial questions of law raised for our consideration:1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding guarded rubber sheets sold by the respondent is natural rubber latex falling under entry 74 of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959?2. Whether the Tribunal has failed to follow the decision of this honourable court in Okay Rubber Corporation v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [1984] 55 STC 247 which has held that raw rubber sheets are not latex?3. Whether the Tribunal ought not to have relied upon the decision of the apex court in Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. v. Cantreads Pvt. Ltd. reported in : [1994] 95 STC 561 SC wherein the limited question dealt with was w...

Kurien Francis Manavalan Vs. M/S. Southern Railway

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 complainant has filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service as against the opposite party under the following circumstances: According to the complainant, when he has reserved a ticket to travel on 24.4.2005 in First Class A/C coach from Chennai to Wellington in Nilgiris Express through his Travel Agent, even though in the ticket, it is clearly indicated that he is entitled to travel from Chennai to Wellington, after getting down at Mettupalayam, he was not allowed to travel in the confirmed A/C ticket in the Mountain Express. On the other hand, he was forced to travel in unreserved compartment. Under the said circumstances, the complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party. 3. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint by holding that there is no specific information in the tick...

V.R. Krishnakumar Vs. the Branch Manager American Express Bank Ltd., C ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. 1. The complaint is filed under the following circumstances: The complainant Tr. Krishnakumar, Proprietor of Central Processor Global Inc. Slofter, has opened a current account with the opposite party bank and a sum of Rs.250/- is being deducted every month towards service charges. The opposite party promised to give mercantile banking service for the Current account and also promised to extend Letter of Credit facility in favour of the suppliers of the complainant for his export business. According to the complainant, after completion of the first transaction with the foreign buyers, he has received a cash order for rice and fertilizer for a quantity of 25000 metric tons each. The complainant through letter in Ex.A6 dt.19.5.2002, requested the opposite party to extend the issuance of letter of credit by sanctioning the credit facilities. Even though, the opposite party has made various correspondences, subsequently, does not extended the said facilities. According to...

SirajuddIn Sayeed Vs. M/S. Residency Towers, Rep. by Its Managing Dire ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. 1. The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the opposite party before the District Forum. 2. The complaint is filed as against the opposite party claiming compensation for deficiency in service under the following circumstances The complainant is a permanent trustee as well as Treasurer in the Southern India Educational Trust. The complainant is also functioning as an agent of LIC and Chairman and Club Member of the LIC, for the past several years and having a respectable status in the society. The complainant has availed the services of the opposite party hotel for conducting marriage dinner of his daughter, which took place on 2.1.2005. On 27.11.2004, the hotel was booked and an advance of Rs.50000/- was paid by the complainant. The bridegroom and his parents had requested the complainant to arrange dinner in a grand manner, in a reputed hotel. Though the complainant initially suggested to the bridegroom family, the sports pavilion and hall of the SIE...

Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]311ITR1(Mad); [2009]179TAXMAN300(Mad)

D. Murugesan, J.1. The appellant-M/s Rayala Corporation Private Limited is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of typewriters and manufacture and supply of defence equipments/components to various defence establishments in the country. In respect of levy of interest under Section 216 of the Income Tax Act and for waiver for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1980-81, the matter landed before the Settlement Commissioner who, by order dated 30.12.92, remitted the matter to the assessing authority, and the assessments were completed on 6.12.93 and 21.2.94 respectively.2. In terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee is entitled to prefer a revision within a period of one year from the date of the assessment order. However, without availing the remedy of filing revision petition, the appellant-assessee approached this Court by filing W.P. Nos. 21111 to 21113 of 1994. By order dated 22.12.2000, this Court, while dismissing W.P. No. 21111 of 1994 as...

P. Jayaraman Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Rep. by Its General Man ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ218

V. Dhanapalan, J.1. The appellant-workman in both the Writ Appeals challenges the common order dated 11.1.2001, passed by the Writ Court in W.P. Nos: 239 and 1604 of 1995 whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the Award of the Labour Court which directed reinstatement of the appellant without backwages, but with continuity of service, excluding the period of absence which were to be treated as Earned Leave and to be adjusted in future.2. The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, for consideration of these appeals, are as follows:(i) The appellant-workman was appointed as a Fitter Grade-IV on 4.9.1981. From the year 1983 onwards, he was not regular in his attendance and therefore, he was warned twice on 15.2.1985 and 14.3.1985. On 24.10.1985, a memo was issued for his unauthorised absensteeism. On 14.11.1985, the appellant was chargesheeted for unauthorised absenteeism and subsequently he was severely warned. On 10.3.1986, he was again chargesheeted for his irregular attendance. A...