Chennai Court February 1995 Judgments
Kalyanasundaram, Proprietor, K.P. Lorry Transport Vs. Indrani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ113
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, in LA. No. 7 of 1993 in W.C. No. 174 of 1990.The facts shortly are as follows:W.C.No. 174 of 1990 was filed by the defendants of one Balraj claiming compensation on the ground that the said Balraj died of heart attack while driving lorry No. TCT.4988 belonging to the petitioner herein. The petitioner was impleaded in the said case. The case was dismissed for default on 27.12.1989 but subsequently restored to file by an order dated 25.7.1990. According to the applicants in the said case, the deceased Balraj was employed under the petitioner herein and he died while he was in the service of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a counter before the Deputy Commissioner stating that the said Balraj was never under his employment in any capacity and he did not own the lorry till 6.8.1988 whereas the said Balraj died on 29.2.1988. An application was filed by the applicants i...
Tag this Judgment!Yaxon Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(50)ECC88
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. Pursuant to the notice of motion, the 1st respondent has put in appearance, hence the appeal is admitted and heard for final disposal, as it involves a short point.2. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 2812 of 1992 dated 24.11.1993. Learned Single Judge has directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-within two months from the date of the order and if such deposit is made; the appeal should be taken on file and decided in accordance with law.3. It is contended before us that the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal has rejected the application, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner; that the facts and circumstances of the case deserve that the requirement as to deposit should be waived.4. We do not consider it necessary to go into the question. It is for the CEGAT to consider the contention. It is not in dispute that the CEGAT passed the order on 3rd January, 1992 rejec...
Tag this Judgment!R. Gurunathan Vs. the District Collector of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ98
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. At the stage of admission, learned Government Pleader was directed to take notice and obtain the records and ascertain as to whether an order under Section 59(3) of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act was passed by the Collector. Accordingly, learned Government Pleader has secured the records.2. The appeal is preferred against the order dated 5.7.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 11388 of 1994. In the writ petition, the petitioner/appellant sought for quashing the order dated 3.9.1993 passed by the District Collector directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 36,641 being the additional court-fee payable in O.P. No. 241 of 1992.3. Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that there is a delay in filing the writ petition, hence the petitioner/appellant is guilty of laches. Accordingly learned single Judge has declined to exercise the jurisdiction.4. We have heard both sides. This is a case in which, demand for...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to Government, P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3252
Janarthanam, J.1. In between 20-8-1992 and 2-3-1994, one Raju (petitioner) revelled in transactions of pick-pocketing on six occasions at various places in the Metropolitan City Madras, which resulted in cases being registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code by the concerned jurisdictional police stations and recovery being effected of the money pickpocketed either in full or partial. Investigation in most of the cases had been completed and final reports filed and the trial in those cases is not yet over.2. While so, the occurrence in the ground case took place on 6-3-1994 at about 05-00 hours at Doveton bus stop.(a) One Kothandaraman working in M/s. Drakes (India) Limited situate at Avadi, Madras was waiting at Deveton Bus Stop for the Bus No. 34-J to go to New Washermenpet and when the said bus came and halted at the bus stop, he was getting into the bus. At that time, he noticed the petitioner picking his right side pant packet. He immediately caught hold of ...
Tag this Judgment!Amalgamations Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR102(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following common question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in disallowing a sum of Rs. 60,000 during 1977-78 and Rs. 55,000 during 1978-79 as representing the pension paid to the widow of Anantharamkrishnan in computing the income of the assessee-company ?' 2. The assessee is a company whose shares were held by the estate of the late S. Anantharamakrishnan. The assessee-company paid a pension of Rs. 60,000 during 1977-78 and Rs. 55,000 during 1978-79 to one Valli Anantharamakrishnan, wife of the late Anantharamakrishnan, who was the chairman of the assessee-company from 1952 till the date of his death on April 18, 1964. The board of directors of the assessee-company resolved to pay a pension of Rs. 5,000 per mensem to the widow taking note of the services rendered by Anantharamakrishnan. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim for ded...
Tag this Judgment!Bonaventure Estate Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: [1999]239ITR215(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J. 1. The assessee, a coffee planter is the petitioner in this tax case revision under section 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The relevant assessment year is 1981-82. The only question involved in this revision is whether the disallowance of interest claimed by the assessee to the extent of Rs. 2,91,664 by all the authorities below is justified. The Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority disallowed the same on the ground that the borrowal, with reference to which the abovesaid interest claimed is made, itself is not genuine. But, the Tribunal reversed this factual finding and held that the said borrowal was genuine. But, according to it, all interest claim should only come under section 5(k) and cannot come under section 5(e) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act. 2. Section 5(k) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act runs as follows : 'any interest paid in the previous year and any amount borrowed and actually spent o...
Tag this Judgment!New India Maritime Agencies P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Mad)543; [1995]216ITR76(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following questions of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest under section 139(8) is leviable 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the decision of : [1978]114ITR28(Guj) - Bharat Textiles Works does not apply to the facts ?'2. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1976-77, the Income-tax Officer found that there was delay in the filing of the return by the assessee and, therefore, interest is leviable under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act. According to the Income-tax Officer, the delay is from July 1, 1978, to November 24, 1978. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer levied interest amounting to Rs. 25,536. On appeal, th...
Tag this Judgment!Wheels India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Mad)350; [1996]218ITR293(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following questions of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenses incurred by the applicant amounting to Rs. 9,000 fall within the provisions of s. 80VV 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the actual expenditure on house rent of employees should be taken into consideration for the purpose of disallowance under s. 40(c)/40A(5) ?' 2. In computing the disallowance under s. 40(c) of the Act relating to the managing director, S. Ram, and the director, V. R. Srinivasan, the ITO, inter alia, included the actual rent paid by the assessee in respect of the rent-free accommodation provided to these persons in the sums of Rs. 13,400 and Rs. 9,000, respectively. Before the CIT(A...
Tag this Judgment!J. Dhanraj Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ931Mad
Srinivasan, J. 1. The petitioner is an Assistant Operator, belonging to the regular work establishment category in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. He was served with a charge memo on 14 May 1982 by the Superintending Engineer (Operations), Ennore Thermal Power Station, who is the appointing authority that he contracted second marriage, when the first wife was alive and that he claimed M.R.I. bills in the name of second wife. He was also called upon to submit his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. He gave his explanation on 9 August 1982 setting out the circumstances under which he happened to live with the woman order than his wife. Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against him and it has found that he was guilty of bigamy. A show-cause notice, dated 5 August 1983, was issued to him, directing him to show cause as to why he should not be punished by reverting him to the post of 'helper' for a period of three years, from the rank of the 'A...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Sugar and General Industry Export and Import Corporation Limite ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: [2003]133STC161(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. These two appeals are preferred against the common order dated January 2, 1995 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 21185 and 21186 of 1994.2. In the writ petitions, the petitioner sought for quashing the orders dated December 13, 1994 passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.P. Nos. 255 and 256 of 1994 in T.A. Nos. 1040 and 1041 of 1994 and for directing the Tribunal to pass fresh orders under Section 36(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in accordance with law.3. Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that there is no good reason to interfere with the order of the Appellate Tribunal, at the same time permitted the appellant to approach the Tribunal, if there is any difficulty in the matter.4. The following facts are not in dispute :The petitioner/appellant is assessed to tax in a sum of Rs. 89,51,693 and a penalty of Rs. 1,46,42,259 has been levied. Out of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »