Chennai Court June 1994 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sree Andal and Co. Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ400
ORDERS.M. Ali Mohamed, J.1. The petitioner herein Sree Andal and Company is a partnership firm. The Managing Partner in the affidavit filed in support of his petition has averred that he is the Managing Partner of Sree Andal and Company, Komarapalayam, manufacturer of superior quality powerlooms, spindle tapelooms, Dropbox Looms, Nepal Pedal Looms, Blowroom scutcher, Hopper Feeder, Hopper Bale Breaker, Mono-cylinder, Step Cleaner etc., and it is a SSI Unit and as such participated in the tender called for by the Chairmanand Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Textile Corporation on 13.7.1992 for the purchase of 56' Reed space Drop Box Powerlooms 100 Nos. 72' R.S. plain Powerlooms-50 Nos. and 72' R.S. Powerloom with Drill Motion attachment 58 nos.2. The respondent's lender was accepted with regard to 43 looms out of which 4 looms were supplied by the petitioner. Subsequently, the balance was cancelled by G.O.Ms. No. 43, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, on the recommendation of th...
M/S. Southern Textiles Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ano ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad11
ORDERK. A. Swamy, C. J.1. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from levying and demanding any market fee in respect of cotton, which has been stored without processing in the petitioners' mills for more than 30 days, or, in respect of the rejected cotton and returned to the Up-country cotton seller. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Textiles Commissioner, under the provisions of the Cotton Control Order, 1986, has permitted the petitioners to store cotton for over a period of 30 days. Therefore, the storing of cotton beyond the period of 30 days, under the order issued by the Textiles Commissioner, does not come within the proviso to S. 24(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). We have already held in our judgment in the case in W.P. No. 2429 of 1991 etc. (Raja-palaym Paruthi Panju Sangam v. ...
Southern Structurals Staff Union Vs. Management of Southern Structural ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1994
Reported in: [1994]81CompCas389(Mad); (1994)IILLJ1243Mad
Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Can the State be compelled not to disinvest from a Government company at the instance of the employees of the company either on the ground that the industrial unit though presently sick is capable of being made viable with the aid of further substantial investments by the State, or on the ground that such disinvestment would deprive the employees of the rights conferred by articles 14 and 16 or of the right to approach this court under article 226 or the Supreme Court under article 32 - is the question that arises for consideration in this petition filed by the Southern Structurals Staff Union representing 250 of the 1600 workmen employed in Southern Structurals Limited, respondent No. 1, in this petition. 2. Southern Structurals Limited which was incorporated in 1956 as a public limited company was under private management and was closed in 1970 after it became sick. In 1971, the State Government of Tamil Nadu stepped in and took over the management of the company...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.S.K. Rathinasamy Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR527(Mad)
Mishra J.1. After hearing learned counsel for the Revenue, we are constrained to observe that the Revenue has made an unnecessary exercise before the Tribunal for making a reference of a question which does not appear to arise in the case and before us in the instant case which has remained pending for more than a decade and it has been placed for hearing us only now. 2. The statement of the case discloses that after the Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, 'A', disposed of the proceeding, the Revenue sought a reference to this court, and the Tribunal declined to make a reference, the Revenue approached this court in T. C. P. Nos. 140 and 141 of 1980 under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and this court directed, in the said proceeding, the Tribunal to refer the question to it for determination whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and had valid material to hold that the claim f...
A. Prakasam Pillai and Sons Represented by Its Managing Partner P. Val ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ541
Srinivasan, J.1. Defendants are the appellants. First defendant is a partnership firm. Defendants 2 to 6 are partners. Defendants 3 to 6 are sisters of the second defendant. 7th defendant is not a partner of the first defendant-firm, but a brother of the second defendant. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 54,634.60. It is not in dispute between the parties that they were having dealings in the matter of purchase of jaggery and jaggery powder. The first defendant-firm was purchasing jaggery and jaggery powder from the plaintiff on credit and was making payments. On 26.7.1978 the parties looked into the accounts and on a complaint made by the second defendant that since some of the goods supplied by the plaintiff were not of good quality, they had to incur loss, the plaintiff, gave a remission of Rs. 50,000. On that date, the amount due by the first defendant was Rs. 52,231.91. According to the plaintiff, second defendant wanted a loan of Rs. 38,000 on 1.12.1978 and sent his broth...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Diamond Finance
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR472(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'D', has referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following two questions : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 37(3) read with rule 6B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Income-tax Officer was not correct in disallowing Rs. 2,750 and Rs. 6,188 being the advertisement expenses (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that the provisions of section 40A(3) alone should be applied to the assessee's case and not rule 6B(3) to regulate advertisement expenses is sustainable in law ?' 2. Since the two questions overlap and when we see the statement of the case, we are of the opinion that the questions aforementioned should be addressed in all aspects of the scheme of the law on the subject of deduction of expenditure in computing the income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession', we propose to first not...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Rajram Cloth Stores
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR262(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. We are not going into any details of examining whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the question under reference for answer, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee had not concealed particulars of income and accordingly in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 78,600 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1965-66, is one of law, or a pure question of fact, for we shall presently notice that the answer to the question by the Tribunal, in our opinion, reflects a true and correct appreciation of the law as engrafted under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Act has made elaborate provisions for the submission of returns of income, assessment, etc., and in Chapter XXI provided for penalties for the failure to furnish returns, etc. 2. Section 271 in this Chapter in particular is the provisio...
Parry and Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1994
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ169Mad
Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 24.12.1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 5912 of 1987. Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, hence the petitioner therein has come up in appeal. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner/appellant sought for quashing the order dt. 2-4-1987 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeal), Madras, in T.S.E.S. No. 31 of 1984. It may be pointed out that the said appeal was preferred under section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the second respondent against the order dated 19-4-1984 passed by the Chairman of the appellant company, dismissing him from service. 3. It is not in dispute that the appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under section 41(2) of the Act was maintainable. The scope of the appeal is stated in sub-section (2) of section 41 of the Act which provides that the person employed shall have a r...
Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Thangammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-05-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC323
Srinivasan, J.1. There is no error in the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent, driving of the appellant bus. The appellant denied the accident in question. The claimant has given evidence as P.W. 1. Another eyewitness has given evidence as P.W. 4. According to their version, when the claimant was about to board into the bus, the conductor gave the whistle and the driver started the bus rashly at great speed, with the result the claimant fell down and got injured. It is admitted that the tip-sheet and the log sheet maintained by the conductor and the driver would show the accident or the absence thereof. The have not been produced in this case. No explanation was offered before the Tribunal. But before us, learned Counsel for the appellant states that those records would be maintained only for a period of one year and they will be destroyed after the period of one year. It is seen that the accident occurred on 25.1.1990 and the origina...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›