Chennai Court May 1990 Judgments
Rane (Madras) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-23-1990
Reported in: [1990]34ITD473(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan, Judicial Member - These appeals are directed against the orders of the CIT (Appeals) relating to the computation of the capital base for the purpose of surtax.2. The assessee is a company. For the assessment year 1982-83, corresponding to the previous year ended 31-3-1982, the Assessing Officer made a reducting of a sum of Rs. 7,871 under Rule 1 of the Second Schedule in computing the capital base. No reasons were given in his order for the reducting. For the assessment year 1983-84, corresponding to the previous year ended 31-3-1983, a similar reduction of Rs. 7,871 was made. However, in the note at the bottom of the assessment order it was mentioned.'(X) Capital computed is reduced by excess depreciation allowed in earlier years applying Rule 1(3) of the II Schedule as clarified by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd. : [1978]112ITR215(Bom) .'3. On appeal the CIT (Appeals) followed the decision of the Bombay High Court...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Fabrics and Others Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR413(Mad)
Mrs. Padmini Jesudurai, J. 1. On the ground that Departmental appeals are pending, the petitioners seek to have the prosecution for offences under sections 193 and 193, IPC, and sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act quashed. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Jayappan v. S. K. Perumal, First ITO : [1984]149ITR696(SC) . The above decision, far from supporting the petitioner, would indicate the principles the Supreme Court has laid down in matters such as this. The Supreme Court has made it clear that no criminal prosecution can be quashed merely because pending proceedings under the tax laws is pending. The criminal court is to decide the case on the evidence before it, no doubt giving due weight to findings which could have been rendered by the departmental tribunals and, if need be and if a request is made. To postpone its decision by a short period. The Supreme Court has also categorically stated that such a postponement ought not to frustrate the c...
Tag this Judgment!P. Manickam Vs. State Bank of India and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1990
Reported in: (1991)ILLJ547Mad
Padmini Jesudurai, J. 1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7062 of 1983 is the appellant herein and the respondents there are the respondents here. 2. The petitioner (ranking of parties as in the writ petition) sought a writ of mandamus against the respondents requiring them to appoint him as permanent watchman with continuity of service by paying the petitioner all arrears of pay and other benefits from 16th December, 1982. 3. The above prayer was sought on the following averments made in the writ petition. The Petitioner was an ex-serviceman and on release from army service got his name registered for reemployment with the Secretary, District Sailors', Soldiers' and Airmen's Board, Palayamkottai. The Secretary of the Board sponsored him and he was appointed on 2nd July 1981 as watchman in the first respondent branch at Palayamkottai on temporary basis. He worked continuously for a period of 93 days in the said branch and on 28th December, 1981 he was ousted from service. The said o...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Devon Estate Vs. Nabeesa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ489
T. Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the management of Devon Estate, Devarshola Post, Nilgiris District against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, dated 29.7.1982 in W.C. Case No. 9 of 1982 awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 18,000/- in favour of the first respondent herein. W.C. Case No. 9 of 1982 is an application filed by the first respondent herein claiming a compensation of Rs. 18,000/-for the death of her husband Mohamed while he was working under the appellant herein on 9.6.1981.2. The case of the first respondent in W.C. Case No. 9 of 1982 is as follows: The husband of the first respondent, Mohamed, a workman employed by the appellant herein on 9.6.1981 received personal injuries in an accident arising out of and during the course of his employment resulting in his death on 9.6.1981. The cause of the injury was that on 9.6.1981 the late Mohamed, during the course of his employment while working, suffered acute chest pain as a result o...
Tag this Judgment!The President, Kanyakumari District Mineral Worker's Union Vs. the Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ271
Maruthamuthu, J.1. This writ appeal arises from the common order of the learned single judge in W.P.Nos.8840 and 8950 of 1982 dated 4-2-1983.2. The brief facts which gave rise to the filing of this appeal are:(i) The Indian Rare Earths Limited, Minerals Division (the first respondent) is an undertaking of the Government of India and it is hereafter mentioned as the company. The first respondent has got a plant at Manavalakurichi which is 16 km. west of Nagercoil in Kanyakumari District for mining and processing beach sands and for producing minerals like monasite, ilenite etc. for which the company has taken on lease large areas along the sea-coast In or about 1969, the old plant was closed down and a new plant was commissioned. As a result, about 400 workmen both in the plant and mining area who were engaged as casual labourers were rendered surplus and were proposed to be retrenched from service. The workmen are represented by four trade unions, viz., the second respondent (Union No....
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Vanniar Estate Highways Vs. Kamatchi and the Commiss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1990
Reported in: II(1991)ACC633
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This Appeal coming on for hearing on Wednesday the 25th day of April 1990 upon perusing the petition of Appeal, the order of the lower court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. T.S. Gopalan, Advocate for the appellant, and of Mr. C. Smatharma Arasu, Govt. Advocate on behalf of the respondent No. 2, and the 1st respondent not appearing in person or by Advocate and having stood over for consideration till this day, he court made the following order:This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai in W.C. Application No. 96/80 dated 28.7.1982, awarding a compensation of a sum of Rs. 18,000/- to the 1st respondent. W.C Application No. 96/80 is an application filed by the first respondent herein under Section 10 of the work-men's Compensation Act claiming compensation from the appellant herein on account of the death of the workman Kalimuthu by an accident arisin...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1990
Reported in: (1991)146MLJ1
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This civil revision petition is against the order dated 12.3.1987 in C.M.A. No. 200 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, reversing the dismissal order of the trial Court in I.A. No. 587S of 1986 in the suit and granting injunction prayed for in the said I.A. No. 5873 of 1986. The injunction prayed for in the said I.A. is to restrain the petitioners, the State and the Director of Collegiate Education, from interfering with the plaintiff-respondent's management and administration of Salem Sowdeswari College in any manner and to restrain them from enforcing Sections 5, 11 to 14, 14-A, 18(2), 19 to 22, and 30 of the Tamil Nadu Private College (Regulations) Act, 1976 (Tamil Nadu Act 19 of 1976)(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Rules 12(3) and 4, 13 and 14 made thereunder and any order made in relation to Section 18(2), 19, 20 to 22 against the said college and to restrain them from taking any steps in pursuance of show cause noti...
Tag this Judgment!R. Parimala Vs. the Accommodation Controller (Collector of Madras) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ51
ORDERK.S. Bakthawatsalam, J.1. The petitioner challenges an order of the first respondent herein dated 28.10.1987 by which she has been asked to vacate and handover the premises to the third respondent herein.2. The short facts leading to the writ petition are : The third respondent herein is the owner of the premises at No. 11, Sydoji Lane, Triplicane, Madras-5. The said premises was taken over by the first respondent herein and allotted to the petitioner herein on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- per month. The owner of the building, the third respondent herein filed a petition on 1.11.1972 for the release of the building and the Government referred the matter to the Accommodation Controller, the first respondent herein. The purpose for which the said building was asked for is for his own occupation. On 15.9.1984, an application was filed by the third respondent herein for the release of the ground floor portion occupied by the petitioner herein. The petitioner sent her objections on 25.2....
Tag this Judgment!G.R. Krishna Vs. S.K. Venkatachalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ260
Bellie, J.1. The plaintiff who lost his case for recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,705 in the trial Court is the appellant in this appeal.2. His case is as follows:The first defendant was due to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.15,000 and in respect thereof he executed a promissory note Ex.A.4 in favour of the plaintiff on 1.12.1971 repayable with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum. On the same day with intent to create a security for the said debt the first defendant deposited title deed of the properties, Ex. Al--Registration copy of a Partition deed, with the plaintiff at Coimbatore and he also gave a memorandum in writing Ex.A.5 detailing the particulars of the document deposited. Inspite of demands the first defendant failed to pay the amount. The second defendant obtained a decree against the first defendant on the foot of an alleged mortgage in O.S. No. 211 of 1973 and the third defendant has purchased the property from the first defendant on 21.11.1973 and therefore these two defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Vimala Ammal Vs. C. Suseela and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad209
1. This Civil Misc. Appeal is against the dismissal order dated 12-1-1990 in E.A. No. 4250 of 1986 in E.P. No. 523 of 1986 in O.S. No. 3244 of 1983 on the file of the Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. In the said suit in C.S. No. 3244 of 1983 the first respondent obtained ex parte decree on 23-3-1984 for a specific performance of Ex. A.5 & sale agreement dated 25-10-1982 executed in favour of the first respondent for a sale consideration of Rs.48,125/-. The said Ex. A.58 was by the second respondent, the mother, and her children, the respondents 3 to 8.2. Subsequently to the decree, through E.P. No. 2297, 1984 she got the sale deed in her favour and in the abovesaid E.A. No. 523 of 1986 got possession on 7-11-1985 of the property sold, through the court-bailiff. But the appellant has filed the abovesaid E.A. No. 4250 of 1985 under O. 21, R. 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure for redelivery of the suit property to her on the ground that she had purchased the said property from t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »