Chennai Court November 2000 Judgments
Mercury Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Labour and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1214Mad
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. This writ petitioner seeks for the issuance of the writ of prohibition prohibiting the first respondent from holding conciliation in respect of a dispute purported to have been raised by the respondents 2 to 85 under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. At the outset I wish to record the statement of Mr. Kamatchi Sunderasan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 24, 30, 31, 37, 38, 39, 44, 55, 56, 60, 72 and 77 who would state that in respect of those respondents disputes have already been withdrawn and that they have already reported for duty.3 The brief facts are that pursuant to a long term settlement dated March 30, 1998, there were certain requirements to be fulfilled by the workmen in the matter of production, that when the management insisted for reaching the norms fixed under the settlement and when the workmen failed to fulfil the norms, the petitioner wanted an undertaking to be given by the r...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukrishna Varadarajulu Vs. Chief Enforcement Officer, Enforcement D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1924
ORDERAkbar Basha Khadiri, J.1. The short point that arises in this Criminal Original Petition is whether refusal to receive the summons under Section 40(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') would attract offence under Section 56 of the Act.2. The brief facts necessary to deal with the instant controversy are as follows :--The petitioner Muthu Krishna Varadarajulu is a resident of Singapore. He is running several business concerns at Singapore. The petitioner is an Indian citizen. He is the holder of the Indian Passport issued by the High Commission of Singapore. He is a non-resident Indian. He is the Chairman of Mountamount Singapore Private Ltd., which was trading in cashew nuts in association with the other two companies known as Nagova Exim Private Limited and Sadeco Sari Private Limited. Both were incorporated at Singapore. Regarding trade, the respondent herein and various enforcement agencies conducted raids at the premises of the...
Tag this Judgment!Siv Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: 2001(76)ECC151; 2001(129)ELT48(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The issue requiring our consideration is as to whether Modvat credit is available to a manufacturer in this case a manufacturer of Viscose Rayon in respect of the wires and cables which are used for the transmission of the electrical energy from the Sub Station within the premises of the manufacturer to the blowers which are used to take out Sulphur dioxide gas generated in the manufacturing process employed in the factory, unless that noxious gas is removed, it will not be possible for the workmen to continue to work within the premises of the factory, as the gas is generated in the process of manufacture, the workmen being engaged in operating, the machines employed in that process.2. The Modvat credit so claimed was not granted on the ground that those wires and cables are not used in the process of manufacture and, therefore, do not constitute capital goods for the purpose of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, as it stood in the year 1994. Though the Comm...
Tag this Judgment!N. Janakiraman Vs. State and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1210
ORDERK. Natarajan, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Karur in C.C. No. 405 of 1996, dated 15-7-1997.2. The short facts are :--P.Ws. 1 and 2 are husband and wife. The accused are brothers. There is prior enmity between the P.Ws. and the accused regard-ing a vacant site. At the time of the occurrence, P.W. 1 was engaged in manufacturing rubber stamps and he was living at No. 10, Gurusamy Naidu Street, at Karur. At 10.00 p.m. on 15-1-1996, when P.W. 4 came down, from his house, the accused picked up a quarrel and beat P.W. 1 with a stick on his left cheek and lip. When P.W. 2, his wife came to prevent the same, the second beat her on the left leg palm with a stick and caused a grievous injury. Thereafter, P.Ws. 1 and 2 rushed to the police station and lodged a report, Ex. P-1, on which a case in Crime No. 358 of 1996 was registered by the Karur Police Station. P.W. 4, the doctor who examined P.W. ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Coats Viyella India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: [2002]253ITR667(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.For the revenue, it is contended that the contribution made by the assessee to the, government for building a new bridge in place of the old one which had become unserviceable, and which bridge was essential to provide access to the assessee's factory-as the workmen could not reach the factory, unless that bridge was available for their movement is in the nature of capital expenditure, and not revenue as held by the Tribunal. We do not find it possible to agree.The Supreme Court in the case of L. H. Sugar Factory and Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1980]125ITR293(SC) , held that when a road is constructed in order to facilitate transport of sugarcane to the sugar factory and the outflow of the manufactured sugar to the market, such construction facilitates the business operation of the assessee and enables the assessee to conduct the business more efficiently and profitably. Though the advantage may be of long duration as the roads would last long, nevertheless, it wo...
Tag this Judgment!S and S Industries and Enterprises Limited Represented by Its Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALD(Cri)757
ORDER1. Heard. Accused 2 to 12 and 14 in C.C. No.3767 of 1999 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai are the petitioners 1 to 12 in the present petition. They challenge the said proceedings pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by seeking a direction to call for the records in C.C.No.3767 of 1999 and quash the same. The parties are referred to as contained in the complaint. The complainant M/s Birla Finance Limited, a limited liability company incorporated under the Companies Act is having its registered office at Chennai. As per the complaint, the accused petitioners in all 14 in number including accused No.1 M/s S & S Industries and Enterprises Limited represented by its Managing Director and one Mr. T. Elangovan, Director of the Company A13 entered into bill of discounting facility with the complainant on 18.10. 97 for a total sum of Rs.25,05,000.Towards the repayment of the said amount the 1st, accused company issued two cheques signed by the 1...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Kamalahasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR726(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is a film actor. He had visited Singapore and according to the information which the Revenue had received from his sponsor there, certain amounts have been paid to him. That information was given after the tour to Singapore had proved abortive on account of the disputes that arose between the actor and his troupe and the people who had sponsored the arrangement in Singapore.2. Elaborate enquiry was hold by the Department which examined the actor, his brother as also his secretary. The sponsors in Singapore at whose instance the whole enquiry commenced were not examined. Nor was the complainant allowed to be cross-examined by the assessee.3. Though the Assessing Officer held that the amounts mentioned in the draft agreement between the parties had been received by the assessee and were to be taxed, the Commissioner limited the addition to the asses-see's income in the sum of 5,676.80 Singapore dollars on the ground that was the only sum which was rem...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Erinkadu Estate Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ352Mad; (2001)1MLJ232
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This Judgment shall govern W.A. Nos. 77 of 1997 and 78 of 1997, which arose out of the common order passed by the Labour Court. The learned single Judge has also passed a common order in respect of both. The first Writ Appeal is in respect of the reference made, while the second pertains to the order passed by the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, confirming the award passed by the first respondent/ Labour Court, the appellant/employer Company comes before us by way of these Appeals. In the aforementioned Award, the Labour Court has held that the order transferring the second respondent herein Thiru N.D. Talson from Coonoor to Madurai dated July 30, 1982 is illegal. The Labour Court has also decided the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, filed by the worker in his favour, and awarded a sum of Rs. 496.80 as the money value of th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. L.G. Balakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR578(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue two questions were referred to this court. The first question is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the advance tax payable under Section 210 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should not be reducedfrom the amount of provision for taxation which is deductible as a liability while ascertaining the value of unquoted equity share for the purpose of rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ?'2. The assesses is a Hindu undivided family holding shares in certain companies. Those shares were not quoted on the stock exchange. The assessce submitted that in his assessment for the assessment year 1981-82 before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Wealth-tax) (Assessment) for computing' the value of the aforesaid shares under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, the provision for taxation should not be reduced by the amount of advance tax payable by the companies co...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.C. Itty Ipe
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Mad)242; [2001]249ITR591(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. The question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the 'value of the land' and 'super structure' can be split up and assessed separately as 'long-term capital asset' and 'short-term capital asset', respectively, for assessing the capital gains tax.2. The land was purchased in the year 1968 by the wife of the assessee at a cost of Rs. 16,065 for which funds were provided by the assessee's husband. The building was put up in the year 1972 at a cost of Rs. 73,200 out of which Rs. 43,200 was contributed by the assessee. The total contribution of the assessee for the house property was Rs. 59,285 made up of Rs. 16,065 for land and Rs. 43,220 for house construction. The value of the total construction worked out to Rs. 89,285 made up of Rs. 16,065 for land and Rs. 73,220 for superstructure. The capital gain was computed at Rs. 40,715. Out of the total capital gain of Rs. 40,715 so determined the proportionate amount of Rs. 27,035, having regard t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »