Chennai Court October 2000 Judgments
Mayfair Knitting Industries Limited, Chennai Vs. G.P. Vijaykumara
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)119
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J. 1. The petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No. 3068 of 1997 on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and he initiated the proceedings against the respondent/accused by way of a private complaint for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the 'Negotiable Instruments Act' (hereinafter called 'the Act') on an allegation that the cheque issued by the respondent, when presented with the Bankers, was relumed unpaid on account of insufficiency of funds and that, the notice sent subsequently also did not evoke any response. The respondent appeared before the learned Magistrate and after the examination of one witness, filed a petition for discharge stating that the petitioner has not issued any statutory notice to the drawer of the cheque and that the notice dated 28.1.1997 is not in conformity with the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. There was also another contention that the company, to whom the cheque was issued, was no lon...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise, Madras Vs. Union Carbide India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2000
Reported in: 2001(129)ELT40(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The respondent is a manufacturer of dry cells which is an excisable final product had availed the benefit of Notification No. 100/69-C.E., dated 22-3-1969 as amended by Notification No. 97/86-CE., dated 10-2-1986 under which dry cell batteries falling under Heading No. 85.06 of the Sechedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, removed for laboratory tests under exempt from the whole of the duty leviable thereon subject to a certificate from the laboratory in which the samples are tested showing that the samples have been destroyed in test. In respect of the quantity of the final product so removed for the purpose of testing on which no duty was paid, a demand was made for expunging the Modvat credit, that had been taken for the inputs used for manufactured the quantity of the cells which had been removed for testing on which excise duty had not been paid. The Tribunal which considered the claim of the assessee that it is not required to expunge the credit so...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division Ii) Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC586
ORDER1. Since the question involved in both the writ petitions are identical, the same are taken up for joint disposal with the consent of the respective counsel.2. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the proceedings of the first respondent. Admittedly the appeal was presented with certain defects. The papers were returned to rectify those defects, granting a week's time to the petitioner. The appeal papers were not represented within the time granted by the Tribunal for rectification. Some delay occurred in representation of the papers and hence the petitioners filed a petition to condone the delay of 15 days in representing the papers in both the cases.3. The Tribunal under the impugned proceedings rejected the appeal on the ground that there is no valid and acceptable reason to condone the delay of 15 days in representing the papers.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no delay in presenting the papers...
Tag this Judgment!Tamilnadu Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: [2001]251ITR843(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The petitioner has filed both the writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1,961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Income-tax Act', relating to the assessment of the petitioner's income for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88. 2. The only point that arose before the Commissioner of Income-tax was whether the purchase tax subsidy received by the assessee, which was returned as part of total income had to be excluded treating it as a capital receipt, and the Commissioner held that it was a revenue receipt and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner herein. It is against the said order, the present writ petitions have been filed, 3. The assessee, a writ petitioner herein, filed revision petitions before the Commissioner of Income-tax for two assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 and the point that was raised by the petitioner was that the purchase tax subsidy given to the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Sholingur Textiles Ltd. Vs. Arbitrator (Commissioner of Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ182Mad
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the award of the first respondent namely Arbitrator (Commissioner of Labour, Madras), in Industrial Dispute No. A4/73555/86, dated January 31, 1988, the workmen of Sholingar Textiles, Ltd., represented by the North Arcot District Textile Workers Union, Sholingar Branch, have filed the above writ petition.2. The case of the petitioner-union is briefly stated hereunder:The second respondent-mill have the spindlage capacity of 42620 spindles and they do not implement all the labour welfare legislations. The petitioner-union took up the issue of non-employment of certain employees by a letter dated April 22, 1985, to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Madras, and talks were held before him in the conciliation proceedings B4/5007/85. When majority of workmen were in the petitioner-union, the management entered into a settlement in November 1984 with the other unions increasing the workload without increase in wages. Again withdrew strike and in view of t...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2269
N. Dhinakar, J.1. The appellant who hereinafter will be referred to as the first accused (Al) for the sake of convenience, was tried before the learned Sessions Judge, Chengleput, in Sessions Case No. 99/1990 on a charge of murder with an allegation that at 10.00 p.m. on 19-1-1989, he caused the death of his wife Devi alias Deivanayaki by smothering her. The other accused, who was tried along with Al in the said Sessions Case, was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge and in this Judgment he will be referred to as the second accused (A2) for the sake of convenience. The learned Sessions Judge convicted Al and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Hence, the present appeal.2. Facts necessary to dispose of the appeal can be briefly summarised as follows: The deceased is the daughter of P.W. 7 and the second wife of Al. Al married the deceased by misrepresenting to the mother of the deceased that he is a widower. The marriage was solemnissed at the office of the Registrar of Marriages...
Tag this Judgment!Tamilnadu Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonam Division Ii) Ltd., Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ107
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. Since the question involved in both the writ petitions are identical, the same are taken up for joint disposal with the consent of the respective counsel.2. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the proceedings of the first respondent. Admittedly the appeal was presented with certain defects. The papers were returned to rectify those defects, granting a week's time to the petitioner. The appeal papers were not represented within the time granted by the Tribunal for rectification. Some delay occurred in representation of the papers and hence the petitioners filed a petition to condone the delay of 15 days in representing the papers in both the cases.3. The Tribunal under the impugned proceedings rejected the appeal on the ground that there is no valid and acceptable reason to condone the delay of 15 days in representing the papers.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no delay in pres...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Mad)276
ORDERN. V. Balasubramanian, J.The petitioner have filed both the writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Commissioner under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Income Tax Act'), relating to the assessment of the petitioner's income for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88.2. The only point that arose before the Commissioner was whether the purchase-tax subsidy received by the assessee, which was returned as part of total income had to be excluded treating it as a capital receipt and the Commissioner held that it was a revenue receipt and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner herein. It is against the said order, the present writ petitions have been filed.3. The assessee, writ petitioner herein, filed revision petitions before the Commissioner for two assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 and the point that was raised by the petitioner was that the purchase-tax subsidy given to the petitioner by the Government of Tamil Nadu whi...
Tag this Judgment!Subbian Vs. Siva Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC205
ORDER1. The above civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and directed against the order of the Court ofthe District Munsif, Thiruppur dated 17.7.2000 and made in E.A. No.121 of 2000 in E.A.No.19 of 2000 in E.P.No.72 of 1996 in O.P.No.256 of 1973. The facts of the case leading upto the filing of the above revision petition are as follows:The petitioner herein Subbian, and one Rengasami are brothers and sons of one Muthusami Naicher, who had four daughters besides the above said two sons. Kannammal, one of the daughters is the mother of Siva Kumar, the respondent herein. Muthusami Naicker died on 21.3.1973. Subbian filed a suit in O.S.No.256 of 1973 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Thiruppur, for partition. The preliminary decree was passed. It was followed by the passing of the final decree on 10.2.1993 by compromise. It seems, there was no appeal against the said decree, obviously, because the said decree was one of compromise. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Arulmighu Sri Ranganathaswamy Devasthnam, Srirangam by Its Executive O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC525
ORDER1. The petitioner herein filed suit O.S.No.1188 of 1978 for recovery of possession and for recovery, of a sum of Rs.1,269 being the rent or damages for use and occupation till the date of the suit and also for future profits till the date of delivery of possession by making a provision for enquiry under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said suit was decreed on 30.12.1989. The respondent herein also delivered possession of the property on 7.3.1990. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the application I.A.No.713 of 1994 claiming the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.50 per month from the date of the plaint till the date of delivery of possession deducting therefrom the amounts received for two fasli years. The said application was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that the decree is dated 30.12.1989 and the application was filed in 1994 and since it is more than three years, the application is barred by limitation. Hence, this revision.2. Learned counsel fo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›