Chennai Court December 1993 Judgments
Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-29-1993
Reported in: (1994)49TTJ(Mad)500
ORDERS. KANNAN, A.M. :Common issue No. 1 - Treatment to be given to depreciation differential/Aggregate depreciation differential in the context of r. 1(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.This issue is common to all the six assessment years.2. This issue given rise to the following two common questions :(i) Whether the excess of the amount allowed as and by why of depreciation allowance in the income-tax assessment over the amount of depreciation charged in the books of account of the assessee (the differential for short) will go to reduce the capital base for purposes of surtax; and(ii) Whether the capital base for the purpose of surtax must be reduced by the depreciation differential as on the first day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year or by the aggregate of such differentials (the aggregate differential for short) relevant to the first day of the previous year(s) relating to the earlier assessment year(s) ?3. These common ques...
Tag this Judgment!Parry and Co. Ltd. by Its Director, K.V. Ramachandran, Madras Vs. Dy. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1993
Reported in: (1994)IMLJ500
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. Parry and Co. Ltd.'Dare House', Madras 1 (petitioner) commenced a new line in marketing portable Honda generating sets imported from Japan around April, 1982. These portable minigenerators were imported directly from Japan against special import licences by other agencies and sold to Parry and Co., for marketing. The petitioner Company had two sources of importers-one is perfect power system/Kamal Engineering Co., New Delhi & other is M/s. Ambadi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Madras. The market response was initially extremely good and many a customer, it is said, were pouring into the office enquiring about the price, availability etc. In order to answer to such personal enquiries and also to submit quotations execute order etc., it was found that the existing manpower in the Genlite Section was inadequate. Therefore, one K. Ramaswamy (Second respondent), hitherto working in Administration section was transferred to Genlite section with effect from 31.5.1982. With effe...
Tag this Judgment!Mgt. of Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Vs. P.O., Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1993
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ328Mad
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. M/s. Southern Roadways Private Limited was a Transport Company operating with Head Quarters at Madurai. Under the Nationalaisation Programme, the same had been taken over and the petitioner Corporation - Pandian Roadways Corporation had been formed. Under the Standing Orders of M/s. Southern Roadways Private Limited, the retirement age of its employees had been fixed at 55 years or completion of 30 years of service whichever was earlier. The same had been adopted by the petitioner Corporation also till the year 1974 when modified Standing Orders raising the age of retirement to 58 years were proposed for certification before the Certifying Officer. In the proceedings before the Certifying Officer, the Unions proposed the age of retirement to be fixed at 58 years, whereas the petitioner management wanted to retain the age of retirement at 55 years. The certifying Officer by his Order dated January 16, 1975 accepted the demand of the Unions and modified the Standi...
Tag this Judgment!G. Lakshmi Vs. S. Murali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ421
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. The petition is under Sections 24 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for transfer of O.P. No. 819 of 1991 from the file of the Principal Family Court at Madras to any other Family Court near Madras City.2. Short facts are: the respondent has filed O.P. No. 819 of 1991 against the petitioner for divorce under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner had resisted it. The trial had commenced and examination of the witnesses was over. At that stage, this petition is filed for transfer.3. The allegations in the affidavit in support of the application are briefly as follows: Certain things have taken place during the course of the trial. On occasions, the learned Judge prompted the husband/respondent to tell that the petitioner is suffering from 'Mental disorders the learned Judge had threatened her that he would spoil her career and forced her to settle the issue. The learned judge denied her the opportunity to expl...
Tag this Judgment!T. Anandan Vs. Noorjahan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ657
Thanikkachalam, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner. The petition for eviction was filed under Section 10(2)(ii)(b), 10(2)(iii) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973. Ultimately, the only one ground that arises for consideration in this revision is the eviction sought for under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.2. The respondent herein is the owner of the entire premises at No. 7, Thayar Sahib Road, Mount Road, Madras-2 and the petitioner herein is the tenant under the landlady is respect of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 200. According to the landlady, though the petition premises was let out to the tenant for the purpose of his residence, the tenant is using the same for non-residential purpose. According to the landlady, the tenant installed in the petition premises a commercial banking even deliberately and thereby caused damage to the ceiling of the building. The landlady is residing at premises No. 34, Veerasami Pillai Street, Egmore, Madra...
Tag this Judgment!First Leasing Company of India Ltd. and Others Vs. Additional Registra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1993
Reported in: [1997]89CompCas635(Mad)
Arunachalam, J. 1. The petitioners are A-1 to A-6 in E.O.C.C. No. 1659 of 1989 pending on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (O.I.), Egmore, Madras. They are being prosecuted, on a private complaint, preferred by the respondent, the Additional Registrar of Companies, Madras, for alleged violation of the provisions contained under section 297 of the Companies Act, 1956, punishable under section 629A of the same Act. 2. In this petition preferred under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to call for the records and quash the pending prosecution as not maintainable and an abuse of process of court, two grounds were urged by Mr. N.T. Vanamamalai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Contention No. 1 : Contravention of the provisions of the Act, was within the knowledge of authorities concerned, during inspections made in May, 1988, and December, 1988. Contraventions have occurred on November 30, 1985, November 30, 1986, and Novem...
Tag this Judgment!V. Srinivasa Chettiar and ors. Vs. G. Selvanambi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)MPLJ550
Abdul Hadi, J.1. Defendants 5 to 8 are the appellants in this appeal against the decree in O.S. No. 906 of 1978 on the file of Subordinate Judge's court, Tiruchirapalli, setting aside the order dated 16.10.1976 of the 1st defendant 2nd respondent herein, viz., the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras and declaring that the suit trust is not a religious institution' under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), but that it is only a private trust of the plaintiff-1st respondent's family. Originally the 1st respondent filed C.A. No. 6 of 1974 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R.& C.E., Trichy, under Section 63(a) of the Act for declaring that the suit Trust is not a religious institution under the Act. But, that application was dismissed by order dated 28.8.1975 (marked as Ex. B-2 in the suit) by the Deputy Commissioner, holding that the suit trust was only a religious institution. There...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mahaboob Jan Vs. Dayakaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1993
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas369(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. The accused in C.C. No. 8762 of 1993, on the file of the XIVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. The short facts are : the respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (which I shall hereafter refer to as 'the Act'). The allegations in its are briefly as follows : The accused borrowed Rs. 40,000 on May 11, 1992, and executed a pronote and deposited his title deeds. He borrowed another sum of Rs. 20,000 on June 25, 1993. The accused did not pay any amount towards the above. Towards the above loan, the accused gave a cheque for Rs. 60,000 on July 21, 1993. At the time of issuing the cheque, the accused told that the cheque will be duly honoured on presentation. The complainant presented the cheque on July 21, 1993. It was retur...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Enterprises Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1993
Reported in: 1997(57)ECC151; 1994(71)ELT22(Mad)
ORDER1. The issue raised in all the writ petitions is one and the same. Before setting out the facts in each case the common facts leading to each of the writ petitions can be noticed. The Scheme relating to 'Exim Scrip' was introduced with effect from 3-7-1991. Under this scheme a new instrument called 'Exim Scrip' calculated at the rate of 30% of the Foreign Exchange earned by an exporter is issued. The whole idea was to enable the exporters to get the incentives faster and in an easier manner. There were also several circulars to simplify verification procedures and a number of branches of the State Bank of India were authorised to purchase the 'Exim Scrip'/REP Licence to facilitate easy negotiation of such 'Exim Scrip'. The exporters should file their claim for 'Exim Scrip' in respect of their exports for which foreign exchange had been released. The applications were disposed of, on what is called 'fast track basis'. Under the terms of Paragraph 199 Import-Export Policy for the ye...
Tag this Judgment!Majestic Match Works Vs. C.E.G.A.T., Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1993
Reported in: 1994(70)ELT529(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a small unit manufacturing safety matches. They had been availing of benefit of Notification No. 22/82 dated 23-2-1982 and paying Excise Duty at the rate of 1.60 per gross on the matches cleared from the factory. On 27-12-1985 the officers of the respondents inspected the premises and on the basis of inspection a show cause notice was issued on 1-2-1987. In the cause notice it was pointed out that the petitioner has suppressed the production of matches for the year ending March, 1986 and called upon the petitioner to show cause why the penalty should not be imposed under Rule 9(2) and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, and why Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') should not be invoked in respect of the claim for differential duty for the year 1985-86 to the tune of Rs. 19,237.50. The petitioner submitted her explanation, but by an order dated 7-7-1987 the second respondent rejected the explanation. Consequently he impos...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »