Chennai Court August 1997 Judgments
Chamundi International Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1997
Reported in: 1998(97)ELT227(Mad)
ORDER1. Both these Writ Petitions are filed for similar relief against the respondents to release the Bank Guarantee and for bear them from enforcing the Bank Guarantee.2. W.P. 12152 of 1997 is filed by Bhavani Exporters represented by it proprietress Bhavani Devi, and the other Writ Petition is filed by Chamundi International represented by its proprietor Babulal. Bhavani Devi and Babulal are wife and husband, and it is seen that for the purpose of their business, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank and Indian Overseas Bank have given bank guarantee.3. In the Writ Petition filed by Bhavani Enterprises, i.e., the concern run by the wife, the husband Babulal has filed an affidavit, stating that the petitioner is an export-oriented firm carrying on business in the manufacture of brass artware mainly meant for export. It is said that the main business of the firm consists of importation of raw materials and exportation of the end-product manufactured out of those raw materials, popularly called as...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Kovilpatti Muncipality, Kovilpatti Vs. Tamilarasan and 3 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ876; 1997(2)CTC449; (1998)IIIMLJ342
ORDER1. The appellant in this appeal was the respondent in W.C. No. 63 of 1987 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour for the Workmen Compensation, Tirunelveli. The respondents herein are the petitioners in that proceedings. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties to this appeal are referred to in the rank in which they are described in the proceedings before the lower Court. 2. One Subbiah was a workman employed by the respondent was not in dispute. The said Subbiah died on February 14, 1985 on account of injuries sustained by him due to an attack by some miscreants is also not disputed. Though, he was assaulted on February 14, 1985, he died only on February 15, 1985 is also not in dispute. Alleging that Subbiah died as a result of the injuries sustained by him arising out of and in the course of his employment, a petition for compensation claiming a sum of Rs. 33,360 was filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal. Among other things, the claim was opposed ...
Tag this Judgment!Seelan Raj R. and 14 Others Vs. P. O., I Addl. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC317; (1997)IILLJ972Mad
R.R. Jain, J. 1. Both these Writ Appeals are directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3133 of 1993 decided on May 16, 1995. Writ Appeal No. 806/1995 is filed by original respondents whose claims were rejected by the Single Judge. Though the Judgment in Writ Appeal went in favour of the original petitioner, still, feeling aggrieved by some of the observations, the original petitioner has also preferred W.A. No. 117/1997. Thus since both these writ a peals arise from the same judgment, and are Between the same parties involving identical questions of law and facts, they are decided by this common order. 2. In order to appreciate rival contentions, it would be worthwhile to briefly state the facts giving rise to these appeals. For the sake of convenience the status of parties as impleaded in W. A. No. 806/1995 is referred to herein under : The appellants, about 15 employees were in service of the second respondent TIAM House Service Limited, Madras-1. H...
Tag this Judgment!The District Collector and anr. Vs. N. Sathyamurthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1997
Reported in: II(1998)DMC63
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The writ appeal is filed against the order of Shivaraj Patil, J., dated 10.10.1995 in W.P. No. 9796 of 1995, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants herein. 2. The respondent filed the writ petition to quash the proceedings of the 1st appellant in R. Dis. No. 100224/94 (JB) dated 19.7.1995 and consequently direct the 1st appellant to issue community certificate in favour of the respondent as belonging to Hindu Irular forthwith. 3. The case of the respondent is that he was born on 3.3.1976, that his father M. Narayanamurthi was then an employee working in the Indira Gandhi Atomic Research Centre at Kalpakkam, that his mother Parimala is also working in the same department, that his natural parents belong to Hindu Thuluva Community, which is declared as Backward Class in the State of Tamil Nadu and that his natural father M. Narayanamurthi died during 1982 when he was only six years old, leaving behi...
Tag this Judgment!R. Munia Pillai Vs. Meenakshi and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC424
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the first respondent in M.CO.P.No. 64 of 1986 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court). Srivilliputhur. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants and the fourth respondent herein was the second respondent in the above claim proceedings before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, in this judgment, the parties are referred to in their rank in which they were described in the proceedings before the Tribunal.2. One Mahalingam, husband of the first claimant and father of claimants 2 and 3 died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 22.11.1985 at a place called Sulakkarai which is at Madurai Virudhunagar road before mid-night. The deceased was going in his motorcycle on that day with a pillion on his back, who is examined as P.W.2, from north to south. At that time, the lorry bearing No. KRE 1446 owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent came in the opposite direct...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rathnaswamy Vs. the State Bank of India Represented by the Chief Ge ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ57
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved against the order of dismissal dismissing the petitioner from first respondent's service, he has filed the present writ petition to quash the said order.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:- The petitioner joined the service of the first respondent bank on 17.1.1958 as cashier. He was promoted as Head Cashier in the year 1974 and subsequently promoted as Chief Cashier on 26.12.1979. While he was discharging his duties, he received a show cause notice from the first respondent why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for certain alleged acts of commissions and omissions. He has submitted his explanation denying all the charges levelled against him and requested personal hearing. As per the Service Rules, the petitioner is entitled to have the assistance of a defence representative in the domestic enquiry. Hence he authorised one S. Kaliappan, J.M.C. Madurai Kamaraj University Branch of State Bank of India to be his ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Kasi Rao Vs. the University of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ572
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of all the parties the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents not to appoint the third respondent to the post of Deputy Librarian in the first respondent University and consequently direct the first and second respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Deputy Librarian in the first respondent University.3. According to the petitioner, he belongs to the Scheduled Caste Adidravida community andworking as a 'Documentation Officer' in the Central Leather Research Institute, Adyar, Chennai-600020 for the past 13 years, before that he worked as 'Li-brary Assistant' in the Guindy Campus Library of the University of Madras. He passed M.A., (History) degree and masters Degree in Library Science (M.L.I.S.) from the Madras University. He has also completed certificate course in computer science in Data base Management Sy...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Stanes Amalgamated Estates Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR443(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In pursuance of the order dt. 10th December, 1984 by this Court the Tribunal referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sale proceeds of eucalyptus oil extracted by the assessee from the leaves of the eucalyptus trees grown by it was in the nature of agricultural income and hence it was not assessable to tax ?' 2. The assessee-company grows eucalyptus trees as shade trees and extracts eucalyptus oil from them. In the course of assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1978-79 the assessee contended that the sale proceeds of oil represented its agricultural income. The ITO rejected this plea and treated the sale proceeds of the oil as miscellaneous receipts. However, on appeal, the CIT(A) held that the extraction of oil was a process to render the leaves fit to be taken to market and, therefore, yielde...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniammal Vs. Sappani Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ1098; (1998)IMLJ517
R. Balasubramaniam, J. 1. The appellant in this appeal was the applicant in W.C. No. 92 of 1986 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Trichy. The respondent is the respondent is the above proceedings. For the purpose of convenience in this order the parties in this appeal are referred to in their rank in which they were described in the order of the court below. 2. The case of the applicant before the lower authority was as follows : Her husband Periasamy was employed by the respondent for constructing a protective wall to an existing well and in the course of that employment on 22.9.1988 he fell into the well and then ultimately died. Alleging that there was an employer-employee relationship between the respondent and her husband, the petition for compensation was filed before the lower Authority. A defence was taken by the respondent that the deceased never worked in the well belonging to the respondent nor worked under him at any point of time. In suppor...
Tag this Judgment!K.L.N. Krishnan Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1997
Reported in: [2003]133STC402(Mad)
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant filed W.P. No. 14999 of 1990 seeking a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings in R.O.C. No. 3177/83-A2 dated August 20, 1990. The learned single Judge of this Court by an order dated July 3, 1992 dismissed the writ petition. This writ appeal is directed against the said order of the learned single Judge.2. The learned counsel for the appellant urged as follows :(1) On an earlier occasion when a writ petition was filed challenging the recovery of the amount due from the appellant, in W.P. No. 2150 of 1984 the learned Government Pleader stated that the notice issued on January 27, 1984 in form No. 1 was withdrawn. Recording the said submission, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence it was not open to the respondent again to issue a notice for recovery, on the very basis, when no liberty was reserved for the respondent to take proceedings again for recovery of the amount due towards tax.(2) In the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »