Chennai Court November 2008 Judgments

S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ361

ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The civil revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff has filed this revision petition as against the order dated 11.12.2007 in regard to the marking of plaint first document viz., the unregistered sale deed dated 27.02.2006 in O.S. No. 17 of 2007 passed by the Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam.2. The trial Court, in its order dated 11.12.007, has inter alia opined that the unregistered sale deed dated 27.02.2006 being the first item of document mentioned in the plaint is not a one to be marked.3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff contends that the document has been sufficiently stamped but the same has not been registered and this fact has not been taken note of by the trial Court and further that the procedure of deciding the admissibility of a document in the interlocutory stage has been deprecated in various decisions and that the trial Court has not taken into account of the fact that the respondents have entered into an oral sale ...

India Pistons Limited Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ572

V. Dhanapalan, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgement of the learned Single Judge, passed in W.P. No. 5209 of 1999, whereby, the writ petition was allowed holding that the two Units of M/s. India Pistons Ltd., one at Sembium and another at Maraimalai Nagar constitute one integrated whole for the purpose of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to claim 'infancy protection' under Section 16(1)(d) of the Act and in the consequences, the appellant is bound to comply with the provisions of the said Act from the date of its establishment i.e., January 1987.2. The facts which are relevant for consideration of this appeal are set out hereunder:The appellant herein, namely, M/s. India Pistons Ltd., is one of the group companies of M/s. Simpsons Group of Companies. The appellant-company established its factory at Sembium in the year 1960 and it started another Unit at Maraimalai Nagar in the year 1987. Th...

Meenambal @ Meena Vs. C. Senthilkumar and B. Ranganayaki

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ227

ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The civil revision petitioner/first respondent/first defendant has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 23.06.2008 in I.A. No. 7019 of 2008 in O.S. No. 2826 of 2004 passed by the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in allowing the application filed by the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 16 and 17 of Civil Procedure Code praying for permission to amend the prayer in the suit.2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A. No. 7019 of 2008, has inter alia opined that 'even though the learned Counsel for respondents had contended that the issue of limitation is also be considered while allowing such prayer this Court is of the considered view to follow the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court that the procedural law is hand maid of justice and in order to render substantial justice it is necessary to amend the prayer alone without amending the pleading which will not prejudice the responden...

Commissioner of Income Tax-i Vs. Fal Industries Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]314ITR47(Mad)

ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The assessee is a manufacturer of typewriters and vacuum cleaners. It commenced a new industrial undertaking for the manufacture of the above equipments during the previous year ending 31.12.1981 relevant to the assessment year 1982-83. The initial assessment year for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act in respect of this new industrial undertaking, therefore, was 1982-83. The assessee claimed that the ten assessment years would end with 1992-93 because there was a change of the previous year with regard to a particular assessment year, viz. 1991-92. However, the Assessing Officer, following 185 I.T.R. 63, held that it that would apply to this case and held that what is important is 'the natural sequence of ten assessment years', and did not accept the assessee's claim. The Commissioner (I.T. Appeals) confirmed this. The Tribunal, however, decided to allow the claim of the assessee and therefore, the Department has filed the appe...

i.i.558 Kuthiraichandal Primary Co-operative Bank Limited, Rep. by Its ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ18

D. Murugesan, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is Whether the Secretary of Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Bank belonging to Common Cadre Service is entitled to payment of subsistence allowance in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 55 Cp. Operation Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 12.03.2000, during the period of his suspension?2. The above issue arises under the following circumstances. The writ petitioner, while he was working as Secretary of the Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Bank Limited, Kuthiraichandal was suspended from service in contemplation of inquiry into grave charges on 19.03.2002. He was paid subsistence allowance till 31.03.2003. However, the said payment of subsistence allowance was stopped thereafter. He made several representations from 21.06.2003 and lastly on 16.09.2006, for payment of subsistence allowance. All his representations, though were acknowledged by the special Officer of the Co-Operative Bank, no subsistence...

B. Ranganayaki Vs. C. Senthilkumar and Meenambal @ Meena

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ1314

ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The civil revision petitioner/second respondent/second defendant has preferred the civil revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 23.06.2008 in I.A. No. 7019 of 2008 in O.S. No. 2826 of 2004 on the file of First Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in allowing the application filed by the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 16 and 17 of Civil Procedure Code praying for permission to amend the prayer in the suit.2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A. No. 7019 of 2008, has inter alia opined that 'even though the learned Counsel for respondents had contended that the issue of limitation is also be considered while allowing such prayer this Court is of the considered view to follow the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court that the procedural law is hand maid of justice and in order to render substantial justice it is necessary to amend the prayer alone without amending the pleading which will not prejudice the...

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Moti Sales Corporation

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)21VST442(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The revision is filed questioning the correctness of the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty under Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.2. We have heard the argument of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner.3. We are of the view that issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 23274 of 2002 dated October 26, 2007 (Krishna Alloy Steels v. Registrar Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal [2008] 13 VST 424), wherein the Division Bench relied on the decision in the case of Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer (FAC) [2002] 125 STC 505 in which decision, after taking note of the decision in the case of State of Madras v. Jayaraj Nadar & Sons : [1972]1SCR751 , it was held as follows : (at page 508)5. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madras v. S.G. Jayaraj Nadar & Sons [1971] 28 STC 700 at page 701 after extracting Section 12(2) of the Tam...

Ramgosri Constructions P. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]308ITR290(Mad)

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The question of law raised in these tax case appeals is as follows:Whether in an assessment proceedings particularly under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, mere suspicions, surmises and conjectures on the part of the Assessing Officer in denying the set off of losses of business income without considering the weight of evidence submitted before it is sufficient for the Tribunal to remit the matter back for fresh ascertainment of facts when all the materials were available before it on record?2. The learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the matter should be remitted to the Assessing Officer with a specific direction to find out whether the assessee has temporarily suspended its business and actually incurred the expenditure.3. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing plastic moulds and plastic products. According to the assessee, its very first proje...

L.K.S. Jewellers Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)27VST258(Mad)

ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This tax case is at the instance of the assessee having aggrieved by the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in STA No. 68 of 2001.2. Substantial questions of law:(1) Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal is correct in reversing the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and sustaining the levy of tax on the alleged sales turnover of gold jewellery in assessment year TNGST 1996-97, when the alleged excess gold jewellery of 16.428 kgs seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence of the Income-tax Department on January 30, 1997 were returned to the petitioner only on March 17, 1998?(2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal being a final fact-finding authority is correct in sustaining the levy of tax on the alleged sales turnover of gold jewellery when the fact remains that the alleged excess stock seized on January 30, 1997 was returned to the petitioner only on March 17, 1998 and so the petitioner would not have effected sale...

S. Thamilarasan Vs. M/S. Indus Ind Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its Manager, Thi ...

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 approached the District Forum alleging deficiency as against the opposite party on the ground that for the repayment of the loan amount, which was disbursed as vehicle loan by the opposite party, even though the opposite party has granted a weeks time and the said amount was paid within the time stipulated, the possession of the complainants vehicle was taken over illegally and accordingly the complaint is filed. 3. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint by holding that in as much as the complainant has not paid the instalments in time; he cannot make any allegation of any unfair trade practice as against the opposite party. Aggrieved as against the said order, the present appeal is filed. 4. In the light of the materials available on record, we are of the opinion that the District Forum is not correct in taking the vie...