Chennai Court December 2008 Judgments

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nagammal,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009ACJ865; 2009(1)CTC1; (2009)2MLJ853

P.K. Misra, J.1. Learned single Judge raised some doubt regarding applicability of the ratio of a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court reported in : (2006)1MLJ154 (United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Selvam and Ors.) and referred the matter to a Larger Bench by observing as follows:28. In the light of the latest decisions of the Supreme Court, exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation for the death/injury to the gratuitous passenger traveling in a goods vehicle, substantial doubt arises whether the decision of the Division Bench of this Court made in : (2006)1MLJ154 could be followed. 29. In view of the latest decisions of the Supreme Court, in my considered view, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court made in : (2006)1MLJ154 is to be clarified.Thereafter, the present Full Bench has been constituted by the Honorable the Chief Justice.2. The precise question to be answered is whether the Insurer can be directed to pay compensation ...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Adar Tea Products Company

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Mad)597; [2009]314ITR38(Mad); [2009]178TAXMAN126(Mad)

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The Tax Case Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that even though the fluid bed drier is an energy saving device, and is entitled 100% depreciation is valid in law? The Revenue has re-framed the question of law which are posed for our consideration and they are as follows:1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that fluid bed drier is entitled for 100% depreciation which does not find place in the restrictive definition of energy saving devices in the depreciation table appended to the Income Tax Rules?2. When 'being' used to restrict the definition of 'energy saving devices' in the depreciation table appended to the Income Tax Rules is the Tribunal right in holding that an item not enumerated in the restrictive definition is also entitled for depreciation under the said definition?2. The assessee had claimed depreciation at 100%...

Trendy Moods Represented by Its Proprietor Mr. Mukesh Gupta Vs. Custom ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009(235)ELT231(Mad)

V. Dhanapalan, J.1. Appellant is a merchant, exporting various goods, apart from importing raw-materials. He was granted an Advance Licence on 01.04.1992 under Duty Exemption Scheme. As per the said Scheme, exporters are allowed to import inputs i.e., raw-materials, components, consumables, packaging materials and mandatory spares required for the manufacture of a given finished product known as 'resultant product', without payment of import duty on such inputs, subject to the condition that a specified quantity of the resultant product should be exported within a specific time limit and the foreign exchange against such exports should be realised. The licence in question permitted the import of 81 MTs. of Cassia, subject to the condition that 1000 Kgs. of Cassia Oil should be exported. The appellant effected imports of 80.534 MTs. of Cassia against the Advance Licence. Duty free imports were allowed in terms of Customs Notification No. 159/90.2. As a result of certain allegations made...

Bakelite Hylam Ltd. Rep. by Manager-taxation Vs. the Customs, Excise a ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(161)LC183(Madras)

ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is a public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office and manufacturing Unit at Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. The petitioner is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of Alkyd Resins and various other products. It has been further stated that Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is the charging Section in terms of which duties specified, under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, is levied on various excisable goods manufactured in India at the rates set forth in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Central Excise Rules, 1944, prescribe a detailed procedure to be followed by the assessee. According to Rule 173B, as it stood before its amendment, on 16.3.95, all assessees were required to file, with the Proper Officer, a Classifi...

P. Baskaran Vs. Ayyakannu Chettiar and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad114

ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioner is the eighth respondent in E.P. No. 153 of 1982 in O.S. No. 379 of 1954 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town. On 05.04.2002, he was set ex parte by the executing Court and he filed an application within 30 days from the date of his knowledge on 28.02.2008. On the said date, the 4th respondent, one among the decree holders came to his house and informed him that she obtained an ex parte order against him and she was proceeding with the execution proceedings to take delivery of the property and thereafter alone, he came to know that an ex parte order was passed 05.04.2002. Since the petition has been filed within one month from the date of his knowledge, the petition may be allowed.2. In the counter filed by the respondents 21 to 25 in E.A. No. 153 of 2008 it is alleged that already these respondents have obtained delivery order in the execution proceedings and in order to protract the matter, this petition has been fi...

Tube Investments of India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Ta ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Mad)99

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. In the appeal, the following questions of law are raised:(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the matter back to the respondent, when per se, the legal position was well settled and the material facts were on record with which the issue could have been decided by the Tribunal ?(2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trade incentive given to the dealers would partake the character of commission or brokerage so as to attract the provisions of Section 194H of the IT Act, 1961?(3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in stating that the price at which the dealers sell the goods will alone determine the real relationship existing between the appellant company and the dealers ?2. The assessee is the manufacturer inter alia, of bicycles. It appoints dealers, for sale of the bicycles. Survey under Section 133A was conducted and an order was passed, wherein t...

Kalaivani Vs. K.U. Rajasekar

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad174

ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. C.M.S.A. No. 10 of 2007:The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 26-10-2006 in C.M.A. No. 70 of 2005 on the file of Additional District -and Sessions' Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Poonamallee reversing the judgment in H.M.O.P. No. 32 of 2002 or the file of the subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, dated 2-9-2005.Cross Objection No. 48 of 2007:The Cross Objection is filed against the judgment 4ated 26-10-2006 in C.M.A. No. 70 of 2005 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Poonamallee in so far as directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month to the wife. 2. The respondent/wife in H.M.O.P. No.32 of 20p2ii the appellant before this Court.3. The respondent here in husband filed H.M.O.P No. 32 of 2002 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolving the marriage dated 27-3-1986 solemnised between the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband herein.4. The case of t...

Vijayalakshmi Insecticides and Pesticides (P.) Ltd., in Re

Court: Company Law Board CLB Chennai

1. The petitioner Company has presented this petition under section 17 of the Companies Act, 1956 (‘the Act’) to this Bench for confirmation of the alteration to the Situation Clause of the Memorandum of Association of the Company as approved by the Special Resolution passed in accordance with section 189 of the Act at its Extraordinary General Meeting held on 7-6-2008. 2. The petitioner Company has been incorporated as a private Company limited by shares in the State of andhra Pradesh in the year 1974 to take over and exploit the licence obtained by Sri Eatla Satyanarayana Raju and Kosuri Janakirama Raju for manufacture of pesticides, insecticides and formulations and cattle feed respectively and set up factories, plants for manufacture of the above and allied products and to take up manufacture of organic and inorganic chemicals and agro based processing industries and to act as Agents, Dealers, Distributors of these products etc. The petitioner Company is proposed to exp...

T.G. Krishnamurthy Vs. the Assistant Registrar of Companies

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]148CompCas226(Mad)

ORDERM. Sathyanarayanan, J.1. These Criminal Original Petitions are filed to quash the prosecution launched against the petitioner herein who is arrayed as accused in E.O.C.C. Nos. 247 to 258 of 2004 by the respondent herein pending on the file of the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-II), Egmore, Chennai.2. The sum and substance of the averments made in all the complaints are:That the petitioner is the Managing Director of the first accused company viz., M/s. Gangappa Paper Mills Limited, Chennai-21. As per Section 220 of the Companies Act, the first accused company and its Directors are under statutory obligation to file with the respondent herein/complainant, three copies of Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account in the prescribed format within 30 days of placing the same in the Annual General Body Meeting and in case no Annual General Body Meeting was held, within 30 days of the due date of the said meeting. It is further averred in the complai...

Gem Agencies Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)21VST362(Mad)

ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. This writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the respondent in TIN 33353783772 dated June 4, 2007 and consequent proceedings passed in TIN 961/2007 dated October 31, 2008 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to issue a fresh certificate of registration to the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 with effect from January 1, 2007.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. V. Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader, who took notice on behalf of the respondent.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner by inviting the attention of this Court to the decision of this Court in Majri Steels v. Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruchy reported in [2007] 9 VST 433 would develop his arguments that the petitioner's registration under the TNG ST Act was cancelled simply on the ground that no application was filed under Section 88(2) of the Act.4. Perused the said judgment. The last para of the judgment is e...