Chennai Court February 1999 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.
T.i. Cycles of India Prop: Tube Investment of India Ltd. 28 Rajaji Sal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC605; 1999(66)ECC604
ORDER1. The Writ Petition is for the issue of writ of mandamus to direct the first and third respondents to grant refund of countervailing duty of Rs. 1, 76, 798.70 ps. wrongfully collected from the petitioner in respect of import of bicycle components made under bill of Entry No. 912 dated 13.5.1988 together with interest thereon at 18% from the date of collection till the date of repayment. 2. The writ petition is filed by T.I. Cycles of India represented by its Taxation Manager. The petitioner Company is a manufacturer of bicycles. It had imported bicycle components from Taiwan vide invoice and bill of lading dated 23.3.1988. The case of the petitioner is that on 7.4.1988 the goodsarrived at Madras and a bill of entry No. 912 dated 13.5.1988 was filed. The goods were valued at Rs. 3, 60. 814 and the total duty paid thereon was Rs. 4,99,979. On this amount, the countervailing duty was fixed at Rs. 1,76,798.70 ps. On 27.10.1988, the petitioner filed a refund claim for Rs. 3,697.30 bei...
Ahamad HussaIn Vs. Management of Swadeshi Cotton Mills and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR645]; (1999)IILLJ672Mad
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner seeks to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records connected with the order issued in C.P. No. 5 of 1991, dated August 9, 1991 and to quash the same.2. In brief, the order of dismissal dated November 11, 1987 passed by the first respondent-management was ultimately set aside by the second respondent-Labour Court by its order dated April 28, 1989 in L.D. No. 9 of 1988 and the same was subsequently confirmed by this Court.3. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a claim petition in C.P. No. 5 of 1991 before the first respondent claiming the salary for the period from February 9, 1987 to November 10, 1987 which period is prior to the order of dismissal dated November 11, 1987 and also claimed bonus for the years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90, The Labour Court, by the order dated August 9, 1991, which is impugned in this writ petition, rejected both the claims. Hence, the above writ petition.4. Mr. R. Ganesan, learned counsel for the petitioner,...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›