Chennai Court November 2008 Judgments

The Managing Director, P and C Motors, Erode Vs. N. Janaki Raman and O ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. 1. The appellant herein is the first opposite party and the first respondent is the complainant and second and third respondents are the second and third opposite parties before the District Forum. 2. The complainant has approached the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the ground that even though the first opposite party introduced a scheme of exchange offer of the vehicle, when the complainant approached the first opposite party, the vehicle was not handed over to him as announced in the scheme. The complainant has also made allegation that the first opposite party has promised that they would arrange finance through third opposite party and said promise was not adhered to. 3. The District Forum has allowed the complaint, against which the present appeal is filed. 4. In the above appeal, it is mainly contended that even though no finding is rendered as against the first opposite party for non disbursement of the loan amount, the District Forum ought ...

G. Pravina Vs. the Registrar, Dr. Ambedkar Law University and the Prin ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ209

A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, including the learned Counsel for the University-first respondent.2. This writ appeal has been filed impugning a judgment of the learned Judge of the writ court dated 04.11.2008 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The writ petitioner is the appellant in this case.3. The case of the writ petitioner before the learned Judge of the writ court was that she is a third year student of the Central Law College, Salem (hereinafter called the 'said College'). Her grievance is that she is not allowed to sit for the third year examination as, according to her, permission was refused since she did not pay the donation charged by the said College. The learned Judge found that the aforesaid plea of not allowing the appellant to sit for the examination for non-payment of donation is factually incorrect. In coming to the said finding, the learned Judge relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rende...

Assistant Commissioner of Customs Vs. C. Bharani Exports

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009[16]STR260

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and two others against the order dated 24th January 2006 in W.P. No. 26479 of 2005 whereby the learned Judge while observing that the respondent (writ petitioner) has given a valid explanation for the delay, set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and remitted the matter with direction to decide the appeal in accordance with law.2. The main plea taken by the appellants is that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot condone the limitation beyond the period prescribed under the statute for the purpose of determination of appeal on merits.3. It appears that the respondent (writ petitioner), who was carrying on business of exporting cotton shirts, exported goods to the value of Rs. 8,45,082/-under Shipping Bill No. 650 dated 1st May 1988 and claimed drawback for a sum of Rs. 1,43,834/-, which was allowed and paid back on 6th January 1998. Subsequently,...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lucas Indian Services Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]315ITR273(Mad)

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. In the tax case, though three questions were raised, the tax case was admitted only on the following question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 7,93,423 being the interest accrued but not due should (not?) be included in the taxable income of the assessee, especially when it is following mercantile system of accounting?2. The learned senior standing Counsel submitted that the claim of exclusion in respect of the interest accrued cannot be granted because, before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had claimed exclusion on the ground that it had accrued but not received and the assessee had been adopting mercantile system of accounting. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had dealt with this issue as though the claim of the assessee was that the 'interest had accrued but had not become due' for the relevant year.3. The learned senior standing Counsel submitted ...

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner (Ct), Madurai ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)19VST349(Mad)

ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This tax case is at the instance of the department and the following substantial question of law is raised for our consideration:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the estimation of turnover and consequential penalty based on survey report on an erroneous assumption that the assessment was based on one day survey?Factual Matrix:2. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and sale of bakery products and for the assessment year 1996-1997 they have reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 8,33,151/- and Rs. 6,17,065/- respectively. The assessee had claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 2,16,086/- as second sales of biscuits and chocolates. However the returns submitted by the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer on account of the suppression noticed during the test purchase made by the enforcement officials of the department on 14.12.1996 and on 16.12.1996 as well as the survey conducte...

M. Rajendra Naidu Vs. Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]148CompCas170(Mad)

D. Murugesan, J.1. The appellant in both the appeals is N. Rajendra Naidu. He has purchased 50 equity shares from the first respondent-company, namely, M/s. Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Ltd., on July 15, 2005. On July 21, 2005, he approached this Court by filing Company Petition No. 140 of 2005 under Section 237(a)(ii) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rule 11(9) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, seeking for a direction to declare that the affairs of the first respondent-company ought to be investigated by the inspector or inspectors appointed by the Central Government.2. The grievance of the appellant is that managing director of the company by name R. Subramanian, the second respondent, was declared as an insolvent on June 12, 2000, on and after the said date he has no right to manage the affairs of the company. However, suppressing the fact that he was declared insolvent, he authorised one Mr. M.S. Suresh Achary on June 6, 2005, to take possession of the schedule mention...

D. Peter Francis Vs. P.S.B. Educational Trust Rep. by Its Managing Tru ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ671

D. Murugesan, J.1. In O.S.A. No. 128 of 2008, the question placed before this Court is as to whether the Court would be justified while restoring a suit which was dismissed for default to revive the order of restoration of the applications which were filed, pending the suit.2. In O.S.A. No. 245 of 2008 the issue that arises is as to whether a suit filed in the capacity of Power of Attorney and dismissed for non-prosecution could be restored at the instance of an individual.3. Both the appeals arise out of common order of the learned Judge made in the Application No. 4494 of 2007 in C.S. No. 804 of 1998 dated 19.12.2007.4. For disposal of both appeals, the following facts are necessarily be stated:(i) An agreement of sale was executed at Chennai on 31.01.1997 between Sri D. Peter Francis (Appellant in O.S.A. No. 128 of 2008) and P.S.B. Educational Trust, Represented by its Managing Trustee Sri. S. Pethaiah (Appellant in O.S.A. No. 245 of 2008). For the convenience Mr.D. Peter Francis is...

Parvathi Bhavan Sweets Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)22VST368(Mad)

ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. Two substantial questions of law are raised in this tax case : One with regard to the legality and validity of three times addition of the estimated suppression and that too on the basis of the assessment relating to previous assessment year, and two, whether the penalty imposed under Section 12(3)(b) on the estimated suppression is sustainable.2. The assessee is a dealer in sweets and savouries. The present case relates to the assessment year 1998-99. Place of business was inspected by the authorities on October 26, 1998 and several discrepancies were found. Actual suppression detected from the records recovered at the time of inspection was Rs. 1,31,892. The assessing authority found that for the year 1997-98, there was suppression of sales turnover of Rs. 9,18,762, whereas the dealer had recorded turnover of only Rs. 3,09,233. On this basis, three times estimated suppression was calculated and addition of penalty was also imposed.3. On appeal, the appellat...

Ace Trading Company Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)24VST467(Mad)

ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The tax case revision is directed by the 1 petitioner, questioning the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai, dated July 6, 2001 in T.A. No. 298 of 1999.2. The present revision has been filed on the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Department has discharged the burden of proof cast on it?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the additions even without considering the fact that there is no material at all to suggest any other omissions during the assessment year 1990-91?(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the penalty under Section 12(3) of the Act in the revision of assessment without bringing home the guilt is correct in law?3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner here...

The Secretary Nazareth Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., TuticorIn Distric ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The main ground raised in the above appeal is to the effect that the complainant shall avail remedies only by approaching the authorities prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and the Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The law is already settled by this Commission by rejecting the similar contentions in FA.Nos.634/2006 to 636/2006 dt.15.11.2007. By following the above principles this appeal is also dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cost....