Chennai Court September 2008 Judgments

Asia Stone S.L. Vs. B. and G. Impex (P.) Ltd.

Court: Company Law Board CLB Chennai

1. The present company application is filed under section 186(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 (“the Act”) before this Bench seeking various reliefs as prayed in para 8 of the application. 2. Shri A. Narayanan, learned Counsel for the applicant Company which is registered under the Laws of Spain, submitted that M/s. B.G. Impex Private Limited, the first Respondent Company herein (“the Company”) has been incorporated as a Private Company, limited by shares on 14-7-2006 in the State of Karnataka with authorised share capital of Rs. 10 lakhs divided into 1,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. Subsequently, at the Extraordinary General Meeting held on 21-12-2006 the Authorised capital was enhanced to Rs. 2.97 crores divided into 29,70,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The applicant company is a shareholder and holds 99.67 per cent of the paid up capital of the company and also having an investment of more than Rs. 2.95 crores. He further submitted that the first board ...

Areva T and D India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Mad)156; [2009]177TAXMAN192(Mad)

ORDERP.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. Writ petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking the relief of issuance of writ of declaration declaring that the conditions occurring in the Notification No. 380 of 2006, F.No. 142/9/2006-TPL, dt. 22nd Dec, 2006 [(2007) 207 CTR (St) 8] along with the words 'subject to the following conditions, namely,' issued by the CBDT are ultra vires Section 54EC of the IT Act, 1961 and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India and consequently unenforceable.2. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment.3. The brief facts are as follows:Writ Petn. No. 1524 of 2007:The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of transmission and distribution including manufacturing relays, circuit breakers, power transformers, distribution transformers and switchgear transmission and distribution busin...

Sujana Universal Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)23VST118(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the writ court dated June 26, 2008 made in Writ Petition No. 2392 of 20081, which was a common order passed in three writ petitions, the other two being Writ Petition Nos. 2393 and 13457 of 20081, in respect of the same assessee for three assessment years. The assessment year relating to this appeal is 2004-05.2. In Writ Petition No. 2392 of 20081, the appellant herein sought for the relief of certiorari to quash the order of TNGST assessment dated December 7, 2007 for the assessment year 2004-05. For the said assessment year, the assessing officer determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 2,34,29,59,494 and levied tax in a sum of Rs. 9,39,97,474 and surcharge of Rs. 20,931 and additional sales tax in a sum of Rs. 87,217. Apart from that penalty in a sum of Rs. 14,09,13,503 was also levied.3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 2392 of 2008 See Sujana Universal Industri...

Vinayaga Engineering Works Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)25VST226(Mad)

ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The correctness of the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Additional Bench), Chennai, dated March 4, 2004 and November 13, 2003 is assailed before this Court in these revisions. The relevant assessment years are 1985-86, 1988-89, 1990-91, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97.Tax Case (Revision) Nos. 466 to 469, 473, 477, and 478 of 20062. The revision petitioners in these revisions are dealers in rolling shutters and assessees on the file of the respondent. They were originally assessed in respect of the turnover of the transaction of sale of rolling shutters as works contract taxable at five per cent. The assessees have taken the matter on appeal to the first appellate authority, who allowed the appeals on the premise that the goods with which the shutters were made up of had' already suffered tax. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax took up the matter on suo motu revision, set aside the order of the appellate authority and remit...

Tamil Nadu Muruga Baktha Peravai, Rep. by Its General Secretary, S. Si ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ697

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner claims to be the Tamil Nadu Murga Baktha Peravai, rep. by its General Secretary and seeking to challenge the order dated 10.04.2008 passed by the Executive Officer cum Joint Commissioner, Thiruchendur in refusing to permit the petitioner association to conduct special poojas on 13.04.2008 and to celebrate the Tamil New Year Day and also to distribute Sakarai Pongal (Sweetened Cooked Rice) to the devotees. It was also informed that the temple should not put up a notice board kept outside that the First day of Tamil Month Chithirai is the Tamil New Year Day.2. Nowhere in the affidavit the petitioner had stated that it was a registered body. They have not enclosed copy of the Registration Certificate. A writ petition at the instance of an un-registered body is not maintainable and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone.3. However, Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that since the deponent to ...

Anbalagan and anr. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]148CompCas233(Mad)

K.N. Basha, J.1. The petitioners, who have been arrayed as A-l and A-3 and are facing trial for the alleged offence under Sections 39(1), 44(1)(c) of the Electricity Act, 1980 on the allegation of theft of energy, have come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against them in C. C. No. 265 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sankari.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is not pressing this petition in respect of the first petitioner/A-1 and also made an endorsement to that effect as such this petition is liable to be dismissed as not pressed in respect of the first petitioner/A-1.3. Mr. N. Chandrasekaran, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that as far as the second petitioner, who has been arrayed as A-3 is concerned, there is absolutely no material available on record to indicate or to establish prima facie that he was also responsible and in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of ...

M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its Divisional Manager, Ann ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. 1. The above appeal is filed as against the order dt.24.2.2005 passed by the District Forum, Chennai (South) in OP.No.814/2004. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant before District Forum. 2. The complaint is filed by raising the contentions as follows: The complainants son late Mr. Jose Philip has insured is life with the opposite party by taking Janata Gramin Personal Accident Policy. The sum assured is for Rs.2 lakhs. The complainant is the nominee of the said policy. On 22.5.2002, when the insured was proceeding to his office in a motorcycle at Annasalai, he was killed by a group of persons in furtherance of unlawful object and gain. The insured died with multiple injuries. The complainant being a nominee, lodged a claim with the opposite party on 5.8.2002. Inspite of the production of all the documents, her claim was not settled. In the meanwhile, the persons who were charged with the murder were acquitted by the Additional S...

Selvakumar Vs. Adhilakshmi and Another

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant is the 1st opposite party before the District Forum. 1st Respondent is the complainant and the 2nd respondent is the 2nd opposite party before the District Forum. 2. The complainant approached the District Forum seeking relief to the effect that even though the Fixed Deposit amount, which is lying in the hands of the 2nd opposite party, wherein it is indicated that the Fixed Deposit is under the category former or survivor; and she being the former, she was not paid the money. According to the complainant, since the 2nd opposite party has failed to disburse the amount, she alleged deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party and approached the District Forum. 3. The complaint was resisted by the 1st opposite party to the effect that a Civil Suit is pending on the file of the Munsiff Court, Panruti in OS No.210/2002, and the order of injunction is in force, and unless the Civil Court renders finding, the amount should not ...

M.C. Krishnamoorthy Vs. the Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Bo ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant is the complainant before the District Forum, respondents are the opposite parties. 2. The complaint is filed under the following circumstances: The complainant is an agriculturist, and owning an extent of about 12 acres of land at Maruthadu Village at Cuddalore Taluk. The complainant has obtained two service connections bearing No.44 and 47 for the irrigation purposes of his lands. At the relevant point of time, the complainant was cultivating sugarcane crops, in a portion of the land, and other agricultural operations in the remaining land. Suddenly on 9.8.2002, there was no power supply and the complainant came to know that certain wires in the transformers installed in the adjoining areas were removed. Immediately thereafter, the complainant has reported the said fact to the 1st opposite party and requested for service connection. Since no action was initiated, he was constrained to approach the 1st opposite party on various occasion...

Mr. T.N. Arumugam Prop. Sri Jayalakshmi Textiles Vs. the Chief Commiss ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]308ITR216(Mad); CDJ2008MHC4928

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present writ petition, he is challenging the order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax dated 8/3/2004 in which the petitioner's waiver of interest under Sections 234(b) and 234(c) was rejected by the impugned order. The first respondent rejected the request for waiver on the ground that he has not satisfied the condition prescribed in the Board's circular and that the return of income was filed voluntarily by the petitioner and the tax portion of the demand on the assessed income by the assessee. Even though in paragraph 7 of the impugned order, the Commissioner for Income Tax has recorded that there was no doubt that return of income filed was voluntarily, but the only question is the conditions for consideration for waiver of interest was not satisfied.2. The writ petition was admitted on 9/11/2004 and on notice Mr. T. Ravikumar learned standing counsel for the Income Tax submits tha...