Chennai Court April 2009 Judgments

Surana and Surana Rep. by Mr. Vinod Surana Vs. Lic of India and the Es ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ507

S. Palanivelu, J.1. The following are the allegations succinctly, as per the petition under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971: 1. The property covered by the proceedings is spreading to an extent of 2757 Sq.ft. in the first floor of National Insurance Building in Door No. 224, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-1. The said building belongs to the first respondent and it is a 'Public Premises' under Section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). It was leased out to the petitioner for a period of three (3) years on a monthly rent of Rs. 37,220/- (at Rs. 13.50 per sq.ft. Per month) for carrying on legal profession. The joint measurement was made on 30.4.2004 and 2757 sq.ft. was offered, a floor plan was also drawn accordingly and the same was sent to the respondent along with draft lease agreement for execution and registration. The keys of the premises were handed over to the pet...

Shri A.L. Jalaludeen @ Chellavappa Vs. the Deputy Director

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ1303

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the Tribunal failed to consider the violation of principles of natural justice in not granting an opportunity to the appellant for cross-examination of the witnesses and that the findings and orders are based on inadmissible and flimsy evidence?2. Whether the Tribunal ignored the subjective satisfaction regarding the voluntary nature of statements, when the statement of the appellant was retracted at the earliest point of time and the appellant reported to the Magistrate about slapping by the Enforcement Officials, as held by the Supreme Court in KTMS Mohamed's case reported in 1992(3) SCC 178?3. Whether the Tribunal failed to consider the absolute confiscation of Indian currency is not sustainable in law on mere presumptions in respect of the order of confiscation and the finding of contravention?4. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is invalid/non-est in law in view of the vi...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Mad)211; [2009]314ITR231(Mad); [2009]180TAXMAN335(Mad)

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. In this batch of cases, the questions raised for consideration are one and the same. Therefore, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment.2. The questions of law raised for consideration are as follows:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that the carry forward MAT credit available to the assessee was to be adjusted first before charging interest under Sections 234B and 234C?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that Rule 12(1)(a) which lays down that every company has to furnish a return of income in Form No. 1 and Schedule G to the said form clearly lays down the manner of computation of the total income and also the order in which TDS, Advance Tax and Tax credit under Section 115JAA should be given effect to, is against the intention of the legislation and hence not applicable?3. Whet...

Kannan Vs. State

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ3365

T. Sudanthiram, J.1. The appellant herein who is an accused in S.C. No. 386 of 2004, on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai stands convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 449, 395 and 404, IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for each of the offences in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment under Sections 302, 449 and 395, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo 3 months S.I. for the offences under Sections 404, IPC and the sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant had preferred this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that P.W. 2 is the husband of the deceased, P.W. 1 is the father-in-law of the deceased. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were living in separate flats in the same building. P.W. 2 was running a plastic industry. On 13-12-1995 he had gone from ...

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Kaveri Oil and Fertilizers

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)28VST219(Mad)

Acts/Rules/Orders: Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Section 16(1) and 16(2)Cases Referred: Mary Antony v. State of Kerala [2000] 120 STG 224 [FB]ORDErK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Revenue is on appeal against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Addl. Bench), Coimbatore dated October 29, 2001 made in C.T.S.A. No. 69 of 1999 relating to the TNGST assessment for the assessment year 1992-93.2. The assessee is a dealer on the file of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Park Road Circle at Erode. For the assessment year 1992-93, the assessee was finally assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,02,69,69.50 and Rs. 59,09,402.50, respectively. Subsequently, the place of business including that of the sister concern of the assessee was inspected by the enforcement officials on December 13, 1995 by which certain records relating to the business activities were recovered for verification by issuance of D7 receipt. The officials of Enforcement Wing Department examined the...

Diamond Traders Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport) Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants herein filed Bill of Entry dt. 5.11.2001 for clearance of goods described as ‘Cassia broken old crop Anchor brand’ imported from Hongkong @ US$ 575 per MT. Goods were examined and found to be ‘Cassia whole’. Goods were seized for misdeclaration of the description. The importers were heard by the Commissioner who rejected the transaction value in view of the misdeclaration of the goods as ‘Cassia broken’ instead of ‘Cassia whole’ even as per the description on the bales, and loaded the value to US$ 910 per MT on the basis of contemporaneous import of identical goods of Chinese origin @ US$ 910 to 960 per MT. The total assessable value worked out to Rs.11,97,534/- on the above basis. He confiscated the goods for contravention of provisions of Section 111 (m) with option of redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.2,25,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs.1 lakh upon the importers. Hence this appeal. 2) We have he...

Jothi Chemicals Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)26VST451(Mad)

ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. The correctness of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai, dated July 13, 2001 in T.A. No. 265 of 1999 in bringing the value of the lorry sold by the assessee for taxation and the imposition of penalty under Section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is put in issue in this revision.2. The simple issue in dispute is that the assessee purchased a chassis from Ashok Leyland and he got the body built over the chassis. After using the lorry for some time, he sold it. According to the Department, the lorry as such is totally a different commodity than that of chassis purchased. For that addition made on the chassis as lorry, tax has to be levied, despite the material used for putting up the body has already suffered tax. As this transaction has not been accepted by the assessee, penalty was also levied by the assessing officer.3. When the matter is taken up for orders, learned Counsel Mr. Thiagarajan ap...

Alacrity Foundations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissione ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ910Mad

P. Jyothimani, J.1. The unsuccessful petitioner before the learned single Judge has filed the present writ appeal. The learned single Judge, in the order dated November 3, 2006 made in W.P. No. 33547/2006, has dismissed the writ petition, on the basis that the social welfare legislation should be strictly implemented and also taking note of the fact that simply because in Schedule II of the impugned sanction order, the respondents have failed to state about the previous conviction, that, by itself, cannot be a ground to conclude that there is non-application of mind by the respondents, before passing the sanction order.2. Under Section 14AC of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for a trial, Court to take cognizance of any offence' punishable under the Act, a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made with the previous sanction of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such other officer as, may be authorised by the Central Gove...

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Government Industries ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)6MLJ275

P. Jyothimani, J.1. The respondents in the writ petition have filed the present writ appeal against the order of the learned Judge dated 9.4.2007, by which the learned Judge has directed the appellants to confer the benefits given to the parties before the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. P.Krishnamurthy and Ors. : AIR2006SC1622 to the respondent, by granting him lease.2. It is the admitted case of the parties that in respect of the lands measuring an extent of 11.36.5 Hectares comprised in S.F.Nos.26, 32 and 33 situated in Ottampatti Village, and 5.50.0 Hectares and 6.85.5 Hectares comprised in Survey Nos. 134/Part-1 and 134/Part-2 respectively, situated in Tiruvanapatti Village, in Uthangiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District, the respondent was granted lease and the lease came to be terminated due to the advent of G.O.Ms. No. 95, Industries Department, dated 1.10.2003, by which the leasing operations in the Government lands have been taken over by the Government.3. When the...

K. Ramanathan Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Go ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ235

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner, who was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the District Board Higher Secondary School from 1952 to 1964, filed O.A. No. 7426 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking for a direction to the respondents to sanction pension with effect from 5.1.1981 and to continue to pay the same.2. At the time of filing of the O.A., the petitioner was 65 years old. The only ground on which the petitioner placed reliance for the grant of pension was the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of one K. Ammaiyappan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu made in O.A. No. 2600 of 1990, dated 24.04.1996.3. According to the petitioner, after the direction issued by the Tribunal, the Government has implemented the order in G.O.Ms. No. 827, Education, dated 25.11.1996. In that order, the case of the individual was considered on the basis of the voluntary retirement in terms of FR 56 and he was given the benefit of pension after holding that he had serve...