Chennai Court October 2009 Judgments

J. Srinivasan (Died) and Vs. S. Venkataraman @ Balaji

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1030

M. Chockalingam, J.1. This intra-court appeal challenges an order of dismissal made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Application No. 3800 of 2004 whereby the request of the first appellant husband seeking revocation of the letters of administration granted in O.P. No. 312 of 2001, was denied.2. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.3. Admittedly, O.P. No. 312 of 2001 was filed seeking letters of administration in respect of the Will executed by one J. Rukmani. The Court of testamentary jurisdiction ordered the same on 18.9.2001. The above application was filed by one Srinivasan, the husband of the second appellant, alleging that the said Rukmani obtained letters of administration dated 23.3.1978 from the Court for the estate of her brother G.V. Shandilya; that the respondent in the application was the son of the applicant's sister one Saroja Srinivasan; that taking advantage of the close relationship, he got the Will executed on 18.4.1994 by exercising coercion...

Commissioner of Income Tax-iii Vs. Rajini Investment Pvt. Ltd. (Now Kn ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]319ITR433(Mad)

F.M. Irbrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The Revenue has come forward with the above appeal raising the following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction for bad debts of Rs. 38,20,417/- in respect of the money lending business which was closed down during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year in 1998-99, without following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation ([1967]65 ITR 643(SC)) and contrary to the provisions of Section 36(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act?2. The issue relates to the assessee's claim in writing off of a sum of Rs. 38,20,417/- as bad debts in the assessment year 1998-99. The claim for such deduction was made based on the provision contained in Section 36 of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Authority as well as the Commissioner of Inco...

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)27VST245(Mad)

ORDERB. Rajendran, J.1. This revision is filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai made in S.T.A. No. 1351 of 2001 dated January 13, 2004.2. This tax revision has been preferred by the State, wherein the following substantial question of law is sought to be raised:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in treating the turnover representing loading charges, transport charges, unloading charges of fly ash as not includible in the purchase turnover for the purpose of levy of tax under Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959?3. The order relates to the assessment year 1995-96. The assessee, viz. Chettinad Cement Corporation Limited had purchased fly ash from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mettur and transported the same from the Board to their premises. The question involved here was that whether the expenses incurred by the assessee in transporting the fly ash from the thermal power s...

V.N.S.S.Textiles Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

In this case, service tax demand has been confirmed against the appellants on the ground that they are rendering clearing and forwarding service, together with interest and penalty has been imposed. 2. I have heard both sides. There is no dispute that the activity of the assessees consists of receipt of goods from their principals, storage of the same in their premises, despatch of the same to clients on their sale invoices, maintenance of records for receipts, sales, preparation of periodical statements about stock position, collection of amount from the clients on behalf of their principals and remittance of the amount collected from the clients and undertaking of payment of taxes and rental charges of godown etc. on behalf of the principals. There is no dispute that the goods are cleared by the principals to the assessees. In other words, the assessee do not undertake clearance of goods from their principals but the goods are supplied by their principals to them. In this view of the...

Venkateswara Electrical Industries Pvt.Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissione ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The issue in dispute in the present appeals namely as to whether interest is payable on account of delay in payments due to demands being raised in supplementary invoices stands covered against the assessees by the recent apex court’s decision in CCE Pune Vs SKF India Ltd. [2009 (239) ELT 385 (SC). Following the ratio of the above decision, which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, I uphold the impugned orders and reject the appeals....

S.Rajendran and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The above appeals arising out of separate impugned orders involve a common issue and hence are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. In all cases, demands of service tax along with interest have been confirmed on the ground that assessees herein were providing rent-a-cab operator service. Penalties have also been imposed upon them. 3. I have heard both sides. I find force in the submission of the appellants that the demands are barred by limitation for the reason that there is no material on record to establish suppression on the part of the assessees who, although had not got themselves registered with service tax authorities and not paid the taxes, have stated that they did so out of ignorance which stand has not been controverted or rebutted by the Revenue. Therefore, although demands are sustainable on merits in the light of the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in Secretary, Federation of Bus Operators Vs Union of India 2001 (134) ELT 618 (Mad.), demands ...

The Junior Engineer Operation and Maintenance Thiruvarur District and ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties, who suffered an award in the hands of the lower forum, on complaint by the respondent/complainant, are the appellants. 2. The respondent/ complainant is drawing energy from the appellants/ opposite parties, through service connection No.20-111 B, for running rice mill. As a prudent consumer of electricity, the respondent/ complainant, used to record the actual consumption, by verifying the meter daily and the same is also recorded in a note book maintained by him. On 24.2.2003, the complainant noticed that the meter was not working. Immediately, he informed the opposite parties about the non-functioning of the meter, which was attended by the appellant, by replacing a new meter, in the place of old meter. But unfortunately, the opposite parties, issued a notice, directing to pay a sum of Rs.7919/-, threatening that the non-payment would lead to disconnection. The calculation made by the electricity department, is erroneous and th...

A. Raja and M.A. Parameswari Vs. P. Srinivasan Publisher and Printer o ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ513

M. Chockalingam, J.1. These two intra Court appeals challenge a common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in O.A. No. 420 of 2009 and Application No. 2919 of 2009 in C.S. No. 366 of 2009.2. The Court heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and also for the respondents.3. Pending the suit in C.S. No. 366 of 2009, a suit for permanent injunction and damages, O.A. No. 420 of 2009 has been filed seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 3 from in any way printing, publishing and circulating the defamatory news items and the photographs of the plaintiffs' family or publishing any caricature or fudged photographs of the plaintiffs or the photographs of the plaintiffs' minor daughter in their bi-weekly magazine 'Junior Vikatan' in any manner causing damages to the reputation of the plaintiffs without seeking any clarification from the plaintiffs, while Application No. 2919 of 2009 was filed by the respondents seeking to vacate ad-interim inju...

The Management, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited Rep. by ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ1489

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petitions are directed against the orders passed by the Labour Court, Vellore in Computation Petition Nos. 619 of 2003 and 209 of 2004, by which the Labour Court allowed the computation petitions filed by the second respondent herein with direction to the writ petitioner to pay the monetary benefits of Rs. 2,98,371/- and Rs. 2,42,579/- respectively.2. The petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited. The second respondent claiming himself to be the authorised representative of the beneficiaries filed the above computation petitions under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, 'the Act'), claiming monetary benefit of Rs. 2,98,371/- for the period between 18.4.1990 and August, 2003 and Rs. 2,42,579/- for the period between 18.4.1990 and July, 2001 respectively.3. While the claim in C.P. No. 619 of 2003, which is the subject matter in W.P. No. 1065 of 2009, was filed by the second respondent on behalf of D. Jayasi...

Madras Gymkhana Club represented by Its Hon'y Secretary the Island Gro ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ969

ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. Summary of allegation in the common affidavit filed by the respondent herein:1.(a) The petitioner filed suit to declare the order of suspension of the club dated 27.01.2009 as against the Rules and Bye-laws of Madras Gymkhana Club (hereinafter referred to as 'Club'), null and void and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants' club, their men etc., in any manner interfering with the petitioner's continued membership rights of the Club pursuant to the suspension order dated 27.1.2009. He has been a member in the Club for the past 22 years. He had impeccable track record in the Club and he had served as member and captain of golf team of the Club.1.(b) On 31.12.2008 the Club arranged a New Year eve party in the Club premises. He had casual conversation with Mr. H.M. Belgamwala and Mr. Abishek Gupta, who are closely associated with the second and third respondents, both keen snooker players and one Mr. Abishek Gupta who is also a part of the cricket...