Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-30-2000
Reported in : 2001(76)ECC151; 2001(129)ELT48(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The issue requiring our consideration is as to whether Modvat credit is available to a manufacturer in this case a manufacturer of Viscose Rayon in respect of the wires and cables which are used for the transmission of the electrical energy from the Sub Station within the premises of the manufacturer to the blowers which are used to take out Sulphur dioxide gas generated in the manufacturing process employed in the factory, unless that noxious gas is removed, it will not be possible for the workmen to continue to work within the premises of the factory, as the gas is generated in the process of manufacture, the workmen being engaged in operating, the machines employed in that process.2. The Modvat credit so claimed was not granted on the ground that those wires and cables are not used in the process of manufacture and, therefore, do not constitute capital goods for the purpose of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, as it stood in the year 1994. Though the Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-31-2000
Reported in : AIR2000Mad356; 2000(2)CTC698; I(2001)DMC104; (2000)IIMLJ294
ORDER1. Petitioner in H.M.O.P.No. 64 of 1992 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi is the appellant. She filed the said petition before the sub Court under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence and after holding that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 27.7.83 according to Hindu rites and customs and she gave birth to a child on 13.10.83, allowed the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent-husband filed appeal in District Court. Tirunelveli. The lower appellate court set aside the order of the trial court and allowed the appeal, against which the wife has filed the present second appeal before this Court under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 100, C.P.C.2. The case of the appellant is briefly stated, hereunder:- According to her, she is the wife of the respondent herein. Both of them belong to Kulasekaramangalam village. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-26-2000
Reported in : [2000]246ITR319(Mad)
N.K. Jain, Actg. C.J. 1. These cases have been placed before us on a reference made by the Division Bench of this court vide order dated December 3, 1997. The question under reference was as follows : 'Whether it is a pre-requisite or a condition precedent for a firm to own or hold property to get assessed under the Act in the capacity of a registered or unregistered firm ?' 2. The brief facts which gave rise to these tax cases are as follows : Two firms. Warwick Estates Syndicate and Kesaria Nilgiri Hills Tea Plantations are the assessees. The facts and law involved are identical. The impugned order is also a common order passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax. For the convenience, we deal with the facts of the case in T. C. (R.) No. 893 of 1990, Kesaria Nilgiri Hills Tea Plantations' case. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Coonoor, finalised the assessment for the years from 1980-81 to 1983-84 on February 24, 1986, and for the assessment year 1984-85 on August 29, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-24-2000
Reported in : 2000(121)ELT609(Mad); 2006[2]STR295
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This is an appeal filed. against the order passed in W.P. No. 773 of 1999 dated 21-1-2000.2. The appellant herein has filed the writ petition for the issue of a writ of declaration to declare some of the provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 and the Rules framed thereunder and the Finance Act, 1994 (Act 32 of 1994) as amended by Notifications issued thereunder levying service tax on the persons carrying on the profession of architecture as ultra vires of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioner is the Indian Institute of Architects, Prospects Chamber, Annexe, 5th Floor, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai, represented by its President.3. This Court in W.P.M. No. 1028 of 1999 in W.P. No. 773 of 1999, by order dated 22-1-1999, granted interim stay of the operation of the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 (Act 32 of 1994). The petitioner herein has taken out a contempt application on the ground that the authorities in other States have not chosen ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-10-2000
Reported in : 2000(2)CTC41
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J.1. The above three writ appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment inasmuch as these writ appeals have been filed against the same order of a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.1407 of 1998, dated 19-11-1999.2. For the purpose of discussion, we intend to refer to the cause title as given in the first case i.e. Writ Appeal No.2371 of 1999.3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed Writ Petition, viz., W.P. No.1407 of 1998 against respondents 4 and 5 (respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition) and the appellant (the third respondent in writ petition), questioning the order, dated 27-2-1998, of the Executive Director of the Reserve Bank of India granted approval by virtue of powers conferred under Section 35(B)(i)(h) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred as the B.R. Act) to the fifth respondent herein viz., Bharat Overseas Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the fifth respondent bank) to appoint the appellant as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-03-2000
Reported in : 2000(3)CTC257; (2000)1MLJ506
ORDER1. Tenant in RCOP No.143 of 1995 on the file of Rent Controller/XIV Small Causes Court, Madras is the revision petitioner.2. Eviction petition was filed by landlord under section 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Controller) Act alleging that the scheduled building is required for immediate demolition and reconstruction. Tenant filed counter stating that the claim is not bona fide.3. On 22.2.1996, the case was posted for evidence on which date PW1 was examined and petitioner's witness was called absent and consequently he was declared ex parte and an order of eviction was also passed. Tenant moved an application to set aside the ex parte order with an application to condone delay of 267 days as per M.P.No.780 of 1996. In the affidavit in support of the application tenant said that they along with other members of family went to their native village where they met with an accident on 20.2.1996 and consequently they could not appear in court when the case was called. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-29-2000
Reported in : 2000(3)CTC423
ORDER1. The defendants in O.S.No.7876 of 1986 on the file on of the Fifth Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, are the revision petitioners. The respondent herein, who is plaintiff in the suit, has filed the suit for recovery of possession of the land site forming part of the premises bearing Municipal Door No.199, Broadway, renamed as Prakasam Salai, George Town, Madras 600 108, excluding the south west corner portion of two rooms etc., bounded on the north by Door No. 199 east by Pophams Broadway and west by Meera Labbai Street comprised in R.S.No.2344 situate within the sub-registration district of Sowcarpet and the registration district of North Madras.2. The ownership of the property is not disputed. The revision petitioners claim that they are entitled to claim the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1922 as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The allegations on this in the plaint are as under:Originally the first revision petitioner was the sole prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-24-2000
Reported in : I(2001)ACC55; 2000(2)CTC567
ORDER1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 and made in O.S.No.167 of 1983 on the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Madurai. The second defendant is the appellant herein.2. The case of the plaintiff is concisely narrated below:-The suit is one for a recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000 being the value of the damaged consignment with subsequent interest at 12% per annum. The plaintiff entrusted 45 bags of cotton yarn on 8.5.1980 to the second defendant-appellant for safe carriage from Madurai to Bombay intended to be delivered at their sales depot at Bombay plaintiff who booked the consignment also insured the consignment with the second plaintiff under the marine insurance open policy under policy No.125000/3/1/00470/79 to compensate the first plaintiff against any loss or damage caused to the consignment during transit under Ex.A.1 and as such, the plaintiff is insured and the second plaintiff is the insurer. On 15.5.1980, the first plaintiff has received a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-11-2000
Reported in : 2000(1)CTC646
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.120 of 1998 in O.S.No.75 of 1996dated 17.4.1998 on the file of District Mursif, Thiruvarur, the petitionerplaintiff has filed the above revision before this Court.2. The petitioner-plaintiff by name Srinivasan through power agent has filed the above suit for recovery of plaint B schedule property from the defendants and for permanent injunction against the defendants/respondent;from in any manner interfering with the plaint 'B' schedule property. The plaint A' Schedule property is the whole property owned by plaintiff of which plaint 'B' schedule is a part. The suit 'B' schedule property is a lane measuring about 125 sq.ft. in T.S.No.166/1 No.2. Vijayapuram Vattam. It is the plaintiffs case that this suit property was owned and enjoyed by the plaintiff and that the defendants while constructing their house in 1992 trespassed into plaint 'B' Schedule property despite objections and police complaints by the plaintiff and have erected concrete pill...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-08-2000
Reported in : 2000(2)CTC609
ORDER1. All these writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act XIV of 1997). Hence, they are dealt with in a common judgment.2. For the convenience I shall refer the facts narrated by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4157 of 1998. The petitioner Thiru Muruga Real Estate started its business in the year 1984. Vast extent of properties were purchased and layout formed and sold to public for construction of houses. For the past few years, the Real Estate Market was going down by 30 to 40 per cent and there are no immediate purchasers. The petitioner's firm was formed on 18.4.1994 as a Sister concern for the Thiru Muruga Real Estate to accept deposit from the public. Deposits were accepted both by the petitioner-firm and also by the Real Estate entity Thiru Muruga Real Estate. From 15.4.1995 deposits were received and within a short span of time, a total of 2.75 crores were...
Tag this Judgment!