Chennai Court October 2000 Judgments
Smt. S. Mariyammal and 4 Others Vs. Sri Vaithyanathaswami, Koil Devast ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC665
ORDERJudgement pronounced by F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla1. This Special Tribunal Appeal has been filed against the order of the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Sivagangai, dated 18.7.1996 in C.M.A.No.4 of 1983 which confirmed the order of the Settlement Officer, Madurai, dated 27.3.1983 passed in S.R.20/CU/Srivalli/68-R.A.126 of 1974.2. The land in question is situated in Padikasu Vatanpatti Village, Srivilliputhur taluk of Ramanathapuram District. It was covered by the title deed No.503 lying in S.No.78/2 covering a total extent 17.225 Hectors, of which, the claim is in respect of Ac.1.48 cents. The original claimant was one Late Sorimuthu Naidu and the present appellants are the legal heirs (wife and daughters) of the said Sorimuthu Naidu. The said Sorimuthu Naidu was examined as P.W.1, before the settlement officer. According to him, he purchased the land in question from one Subramaniya Pattar in the year 1949, that the father of Subramaniya Pattar by name Vidyanatha Pattar launched a suit aga...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Hari Krishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR343(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question required to be decided in this appeal is whether a court sale is subject to the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Chapter XX-C of the Act is intended to protect the interests of the Revenue by preventing evasion of tax in property dealings.2. When a sale is effected by the court by way of public auction, the value of the property is determined by the highest bid obtained at such auction. There is no question of the property being undervalued as the sale is by public auction, and any one interested in the purchase of the properly, is permitted to come and offer his bid. The sale so effected is further subject to the approval of the court. In the event of the sale being vitiated on any of the grounds referred to in Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the sale is liable to be set aside.3. The object for which Chapter XX-C was enacted in the Income-tax Act is in no way relatable to the disposal of the property by the co...
Tag this Judgment!Guruswamy M. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1521Mad
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge, by which, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant at the relevant time was in the service of the respondent. Two enquiries came to be inflicted against him on account of his misconduct. He has been found guilty in one of the enquiries while the other was found by the Labour Court not in keeping with the principles of natural justice. However, in the enquiry in which he was found guilty, the enquiry officer had held firstly that the employee had not handed over the stock list as on January 31, 1979 to the society and had suppressed the same. He secondly found that he had sent the goods by wrongful means to the retail section without showing in the books of account and effected the sales without bills. Thirdly, he found that certain goods were kept in a bureau in his custody without showing them in the books of account and when he was asked about it,...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1672Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. The order impugned in this writ petition is the one passed by the respondent in I.A. No. 782 of 1993 in I.D. No. 130 of 1993, dated February 10, 1993, sustaining the objection raised at the instance of the second respondent with regard to the appearance of one Sri B. Thangasamy on behalf of the petitioner in his capacity as an executive committee member of the chamber of Commerce as provided under Section 36(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The learned Counsel appearing on either side brought to my notice of a judgment of his Lordship Justice Sri P. SATHASIVAM rendered in R.M Duraiswamy v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem and Ors. (1998)-I-LLJ-176 holding that the said Sri B. Thangaswamy who was an executive committee member of the Indian Chamber of Commerce cannot be held to be an officer of an Association of Employers. The question involved in this writ petition is directly covered by the above referred judgment, following the ruling of the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Varadan K. Vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ95Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in C.P. No. 13 of 1990 on the file of the first respondent dated November 3, 1992, and to quash the same and to direct the second respondent to pay the sum of Rs. 35,419 to the petitioner.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the second respondent a counter- affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merit.3. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have pe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(129)ELT43(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Notice had been sent to the respondent by registered post acknowledgement due. The acknowledgement has not been received. That, however, does not necessarily warrant the inference that the notice has not been served. The cover has not been returned. In the circumstances, we consider it reasonable to inter that notice has been served on the respondent.2. We have heard the counsel for the Revenue. The Tribunal has held that despite a declaration not having been filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 a manufacturer is entitled to claim Modvat credit. This is a matter which gives rise to a question of law which requires our consideration.3. The Tribunal is, therefore, directed to refer the following question of law, and submit a statement of case together with the relevant records and documents :'Whether the Modvat credit can be extended on inputs even in cases where the manufacturer has not made the necessary declaration under Rule 57G...
Tag this Judgment!M. Guruswamy Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ55
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge, by which, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant at the relevant time was in the service of the respondent. Two enquiries came to be inflicted against him on account of his mis-conduct. He has been found guilty in one of the enquiries while the other was found by the Labour Court not in keeping with the principles of natural justice. However, in the enquiry in which he was found guilty, the Enquiry Officer had held firstly that the employee had not handed over the stock list as on 31.1.1979 to the Society and had suppressed the same. He secondly found that he had sent the goods by wrongful means to the retail section, without showing in the books of account and effected the sales without bills. Thirdly, he found that certain goods were kept in a bureau in his custody without showing them in the books of account and when he was asked about it, he g...
Tag this Judgment!M. Joseph and ors. Vs. the District Educational Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ84
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the first respondent in his D.Dis. No. 15993/A5/92, dated 3.11.1992 and that of the second respondent dated 28.10.1992 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint any one of the petitioners according to their seniority as P.G. Assistant in Mathematics in the second respondent's school with all attendant benefits and privileges.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant in Mathematics on 1.6.1962 and the second petitioner on 6.10.1986 in the second respondent school: that their services were regularised and got appointed on permanent basis: that the first petitioner is working as Assistant Head Master in the second respondent school.3. The further pleadings of the petitioners in the wri...
Tag this Judgment!M/S thermax Limited Having Its Regd, Office at No. D-13, M.i.D.C. Indu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC293
ORDER1. Writ Petition No.2360 of 1993 is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the first respondent bearing letter No.AEE/Gi/TI/D2/Maipractice/D/2840/92 dated 17.11.1992 confirming the order of the second respondent bearing proceeding No.Lr.EE/0&/ANR/AE/IER/C753 dated 4.7.1992 and quash the same and to forbear the respondents from in any way levying or collecting charges under the Tariff of Non-domestic purpose in respect of the service connection No.171.71.73 situated at Door No.27, Dr.Hegde Road, Nungambakkam (Ground floor), Madras-34. ;2. Writ petition No.20820 of 1993 is for the issue of writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent proceedings bearing Lr.No.EE/0&M;/ANR/AE/C.753/T3538/92 dated 31.10.1992 and quash the same.3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner Company entered into an agreement of lease with one Irshad Ahmed who is the present owner of the property namely the flat situated at No.27, ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Thanikachalam and Others Vs. Maduranthakam Agricultural Producers C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC556; (2001)ILLJ285Mad
ORDERJudgement pronounced by N.K. Jain, CJ.1. These W.P.Srs. have been posted before us to get an authoritative decision as to whether writ petitions, challenging the orders passed under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act are maintainable.2. We will now advert to the facts in detail, as to how the matter, now being referred to us, had been set at naught by two Full Bench decisions of this Court3. In the year 1989, a Full Bench of this Court, in R.Thamilarasan Etc., P.Kannan Etc., v. Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Madras and others,1989 (1) LLJ 588, while deciding the issue as to whether a writ will lie against Co-operative Society, rendered a finding in negative, holding that no writ is maintainable against Co-operative Society, because it is not a statutory body or an authority or agency or instrumentality of the State, under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Natarajan, A. v. The Registrar of Co-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »