Chennai Court July 1998 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.
Madras Aluminium Co. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1329Mad
ORDERT. Meenakumar, J. 1. This writ petition is filed seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorai calling for the records of the first respondent in Gratuity Appeal No. 6 of 1987 and quash the order of the first respondent dated March 13, 1989.2. The case of the petitioner Company is that it is engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium and Aluminium products. The petitioner Company has taken up on lease Bauxite Mines at Yercaud, The petitioner Company has got itself registered as principal employer under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act. (herein after referred to as the 'Act'), The contractors were engaging their own men for attending to work in connection with the execution of the contract and they had also taken out licences under the Act. It is also the case of the petitioner that the third respondent was employed by a contractor R. Raghupathy who was supplying labour to the petitioner mines at Yercaud. The third respondent served under the contracto...
Sambandasami Mudaliar Vs. Ramaswamy Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ497
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in A.S. No. 38 of 1984 dated 25.6.1985, confirming the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Cuddalore, in O.S. No. 1206 of 1980 dated 21.1.1984.2. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant in the above second appeal. The plaintiffs filed the suit for holding that the suit mortgagee created on 14.6.1972 be redeemed and discharged on the plaintiff's depositing a sum of Rs. 900 and ordering delivery of possession of the property to the plaintiffs through Court.3. According to the plaintiffs the property belonged to the plaintiffs and the third defendant, the first plaintiff being the father and plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the third defendant being his sons. On 14.6.1972 the plaintiffs and the third defendant had executed a simple mortgage in favour of the first defendant in respect of the suit property for a sum of Rs. 4,500. Even though the document ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. I. Miller and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1998
Reported in: (2000)160CTR(Mad)51
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J:The question raised at the instance of the Revenue which question arises out of the assessment of the income of the respondent- assessee for the assessment year 196263 is as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the terms of the agreement dated 15-12-1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the receipt of Rs. 50,000 by the assessee- company for the use of the licence and trade mark 'Miller' by the Indian company was a capital receipt, and therefore, not taxable in the assessee's hands 2. The assessee is a foreign company which entered into agreements with Tube Investments Ltd. and later with T.I. Miller Ltd., Madras. These agreements were entered into in the year 1961. Under the agreement between the assessee and Tube Investment Ltd., it was provided that the assessee would receive a sum of Rs. 50,000 from the company to be incorporated in the form of equity shares of that company as consideration for allowing t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. Rita Joseph and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Mad)475
JAYASIMHA BABU, J. :The Revenue has come up with this appeal against the order made by the Tribunal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under s. 269G of the IT Act.2. The respondents purchased an extent of about 9 grounds 1,239 sp. Ft. (sic) in a residential locality adjoining the Boat-club in the city of Madras for a sum of Rs. 4,28,000, Rs. 90,000 as Rs. 1,30,000 respectively under the sale deeds dt. 6th June, 1980. Possession of that area had been handed over to them much earlier in June, 1979 and the entire consideration had also been paid earlier. The sale deeds were registered on 21st July, 1980.3. The Revenue initiated proceedings under s. 269C alleging that the property had been sold at a value which was less than the market value by a margin of 15 per cent. In support of that assertion sales effected in areas which were about 5 kilometers from the plots purchased by the respondents, and which showed the value at a rate much higher than the one paid by the respondents wer...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›