Chennai Court February 1996 Judgments
Vanavil Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex., Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(88)ELT318(Mad)
ORDER1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing. I have heard Mr. R. Sashidharan for the petitioner and Mr. K. Jayachandran for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed for a mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in his Order No.27/95, dated 9-8-1995 and quash the same and direct the respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 6,84,590/-, being the claim for rebate of duty due in terms of order in Appeal No.133/94(M), dated 16-5-1994 of the 3rd respondent. 3. The petitioner is a public limited company and a leading manufacturer of Dyes and Chemicals. They cleared a quantity of 2000 kgs. of Cresol Chloride falling under Chapter Heading 3204.29 on payment of duty of Rs. 5,35,500/- under GP 1 No.20 dated 29-12-1990 to M/s. Colour Chem, Thane. The abovesaid quantity was debited in their RG 23A Part II - vide Serial No.94 dated 29-12-1990, as prescribed under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. M/s. Colour Chem Ltd., Thane, receiv...
Tag this Judgment!South India Viscose Ltd. Vs. Labour Court Coimbatore and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)IIMLJ318
S. Kanakaraj, J.1. I am taking up the writ petition for final disposal, because the writ petition challenges the finding on preliminary issue by the first respondent. In and by the order, dated 25 September, 1995 made in C.P. 58 of 1993, the first respondent has held that the second respondent is a workman and therefore, entitled to maintain the application. That finding is challenged in this Court on the ground that the second respondent is not a workman at all, because he was employed in the scale applicable to the supervisors and his last drawn salary was Rs. 2,548.62. His work is in the nature of supervising the cutting, staking, loading and shipment of the trees cut by the contractors. The petitioner is aware of the fact that such preliminary finding should not be challenged in writ proceedings and thereby causing a delay in the disposal of the case. He has therefore referred to certain decisions in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition to suggest that in fit and pro...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Murugan, Prop ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC654
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant.2. The National Paper Caps Company have sent 216 bundles of caps and Roll caps in the lorry TMA 8955 belonging to the defendant from Sivakasi to Raipur and Nagpur. The consignment was insured with the plaintiff. On 25.9.1978, the entire consignment was destroyed in a fire - accident due to the negligence of the defendant. The lorry driver gave an information to the consignor. They made a claim with the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff has settled the claim of the consignor by making payment of the suit amount. But, the defendant has not sent any reply to the notice issued by the consignor. The consignor has given a power of attorney and letter of subrogation to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff has come forward with the suit.3. The defendant has resisted the suit by contending that he was only a lorry broker at Sivakasi who is engaged in booking and loading consignments of the various consignors at Sivakasi to other places in t...
Tag this Judgment!Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Santhamani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: I(1996)ACC531
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore, Cheran Transport Corporation, Coimbatore, respondent No. 1 in M.C.O.P. No. 64 of 1982 has filed the present appeal before this Court under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. For the death of the husband of respondent No. 1 herein and father of the minor respondent No. 2 herein, they claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The brief facts leading to the filing of the claim petition are as follow:On 2.8.1981 at about 9.45 a.m. after purchasing vegetables, when deceased Vasudevan was returning home on the scooter TNN 292 on the Avinashi Road, from west to east, the bus No. TMN 3873 belonging to the appellant herein and driven by its driver, respondent No. 3, herein, in a rash and negligent manner from east to west, dashed against the scooter, thereby...
Tag this Judgment!Andipatti Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam, Through Its President S. Armugham ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ324
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of the application filed by them under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for retention of the suit in O.S. No. 309 of 1994 for the purpose of joint trial along with O.S. No. 405 of 1994 on the file of Sub Court, Periakulam.2. The short facts are: Respondents filed O.S. No. 309 of 1994 on the file of Sub Court, Periakulam, for injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with their possession. The suit was valued at Rs. 16,000. The petitioners filed O.S. No. 405 of 1994 against the respondents and three others for specific performance of an agreement. That suit is valued at Rs. 25,00,000. By an order dated 27.7.1995 passed in I.A. No. 332 of 1995, the Subordinate Judge directed a joint trial of both the suits. Accordingly, the two suits are being tried jointly and one witness has also been examined.3. In the meanwhile, Tamil Nadu Civil Courts and Madras City Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1995, T...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalingam Vs. A.S. Narayanaswamy Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ542
Srinivasan, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 298 of 1975, having failed in the courts below, has preferred this second appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the two courts. The question turns upon the construction of Ex. A-1, the Will executed by one Rajalakshmi Ammal on 10.7.1972. The plaintiff is the adopted son of Srinivasa Iyer, husband of Rajalakshmi Ammal. The first defendant is the son of Gopala Iyer, brother of Srinivasa Iyer. Though it is not really relevant, it may be mentioned that the plaintiff was the natural son of Gopala Iyer and he was taken in adoption by Gopala Iyer's brother Srinivasa Iyer. Rajalakshmi Ammal died on 15.11.1974and the present suit was filed on 14.8.1975 Though the plaint schedule originally described one item of property in Survey No. 145/2C, later, it was amended by introducing a second item in Survey No. 145/4. As regards the second item there is no dispute between the parties as the first defendant conceded the title of the plaintiff to...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. K. Mahesh and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Mad)87
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two common questions in the cases of three assessees for the asst. yr. 1972-73 for the opinion of this Court under s. 26(1) of the GT Act, 1958.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for purpose of ascertaining the break-up value of the unquoted shares, the provision for gratuity should be treated as a liability and should accordingly be allowed as a deduction ?2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that a discount of 30% should be allowed from the break-up value as against 15% stipulated in r. 1D of the WT Rules ?'2. The assessee held certain shares in the following companies and gifted them away as detailed below :Name of the assesseeShares held inNo. of shares gifted and date of gift1. K. MaheshM/s T. V. S. & Sons (P) Ltd.3,00028-3-19722. K. Ramesh(1) Sundaram Industries80023-8-1972(2) T. V. S. & Sons (P) Ltd.3,00028-3-1...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugam Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2042
ORDER1. This revision has been preferred by the petitioner/1st accused against the Judgment dated 2-9-1992 made in C.A. No. 15 of 1990 on the file of Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner concerned by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Pattukottai in C.C. No. 398 of 1985, dated 29-12-1989. 2. Originally the Calendar Case No. 398 of 1985 was taken on file against two accused. The revision petitioner was the 1st accused. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/1st accused was the President of Co-operative Milk Society, Uloor village, Pudukottai from 1-6-1978, in which Society, 2nd accused was serving as Cashier. During the period from 1-1-1981 to 30-10-1984, the amount, as per the accounts, available in the Society, was Rs. 34,207-13, but the available amount shown by the accused was only Rs. 191-50 and since there was no proper explanation as to the account for the said amount charge sheet was filed alleging that the revi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Varadalakshmi Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR691(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the direction given by this court in T.C.P. No. 381 of 1979, dated January 5, 1979, the Tribunal referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the 'general reserve' as on the first day of the previous year should not be reduced by the amount of dividend declared at a future date at the general body meeting for the purpose of computing the capital base under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 2. A similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Tube Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT : [1992]194ITR102(SC) wherein the Supreme Court held, affirming the decision of the High Court, that though the general body of the shareholders resolved and appropriated the sum of Rs. 76 lakhs towards the dividend from the reserve of Rs. 90 ...
Tag this Judgment!Fenner (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR738(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that any interest payable for delayed payment of tax with the specific permission of the Income-tax Officer under section 220(2) should also be considered as levied on the basis of profits and gains just because the tax due was based on the profits or gains ?' 2. In respect of the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee claimed deduction of interest paid under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, amounting to Rs. 6,104. The Income-tax Officer pointed out that two installments of interest, namely, Rs. 3,155 and Rs. 2,949 paid by way of interest under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act cannot be allowed as deduction. Accordingly, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the same...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »