Chennai Court December 2000 Judgments
Sundaram Clayton Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: [2001]252ITR330(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Appropriate Authority declining to grant no objection certificate for the purchase of approximately 13.1 grounds in an area known as Boat Club, one of the sought after areas in the city of Madras. The total consideration for which it was proposed to be purchased was Rs. 5,85,01,540. This area is part of a larger area measuring 46.945 grounds which the petitioner had agreed to buy under an agreement dated October 11, 1999, from Binny Limited, which being a sick company, had been permitted to sell this valuable property with a view to realise its cash equivalent2. The agreement with Binny Limited provided for the sale of that larger area of 46.945 grounds to the petitioner or its associates for a consideration of Rs. 2,565 lakhs. The petitioner nominated five of its associates to purchase parts of that areas--T.V.S. Suzuki Limited 8.576 grounds, Lakshmi Auto Components-6.166 grounds, T.V.S. Electronics Limited-6.138 ...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union Vs. Nuclear Power Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ192Mad
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the first respondent dated July 26, 2000, in and by which, the first respondent declined to refer an issue relating to the change in the shift pattern of the workmen of the second respondent as raised by the petitioner for adjudication on the ground that the said change was sought to be introduced by the second respondent after due notice under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. According to the petitioner, which claims membership of substantial section of workmen working in the first respondent, that it was a recognised union representing the workmen of the second respondent, that from its inception, the working hours in the second respondent Power Station is by way of round the clock working in three shifts namely,1. Night Shift: 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. (First Shift) 2. Morning Shift: 6.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. (Second Shift) 3. Evening Shift: 2.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. (Third Shift) It is cl...
Tag this Judgment!Elango P. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1675Mad
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. By an award, dated April 26, 1993 of the first respondent Labour Court, Madurai in I.D. No. 16 of 1989, which is impugned in the above writ petition, the order of dismissal, dated January 19, 1985, passed by the second respondent-management dismissing the petitioner was confirmed. Hence the above writ petition seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in I.D. No. 16 of 1989, dated April 26, 1993, and to quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and other benefits.2. The petitioner was charged for the violation of Clauses 16(12) and 16(26) of the Standing Orders of the company which read as follows:'Clause 16(12): ... Drunkenness, riotous or disorderly behaviour inside the premises or use of abusive language or any act likely to cause breach of peace or any act subversive of discipline...Clause 16(26): ... Threatening, abus...
Tag this Judgment!Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madurai-ii
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: 2002(141)ELT320(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. In this Writ of Certiorari, it is prayed for quashing the impugned proceedings dated 26-2-1993, the show cause notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, the first respondent herein and the proceedings dated 7-4-1993, the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Division, the second respondent herein. 2. The short facts which are required for the disposal of the writ petition are given below :- '(a) M/s. Madura Coats Limited, Ambasamudram, the petitioner herein is a leading manufacturer of various varieties of threads, made out of multifolding and twisting the Cotton, Nylon, etc. Single strands of Nylon Polyester and Polypropylene filament yarns are twisted and made into 'Threads'. The physical properties of Nylon render the threads get loosened at the ends, which reduce the strength of threads to a certain level. The petitioner came to know that an American Company had invented a Resin called 'ELVAMID...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. K. Shanthasundari Vs. S.S. Mani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ690
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The suit is for recovery of money due on a mortgage.The plaint averments are as follows:The defendant borrowed various sums of money from the plaintiff on different dates, namely on 1.11.1979, 2.3.1981, 19.4.1981, 22.7.1981, 30.9.1981, 18.1.1982, 10.3.1982, 11.11.1982, 1.8. 1985 and 20.1.1986. The loans were for different sums and except for the last two loans the other eight loans were to bear an interest of 24% per annum. The loans on the last two dates were to bear an interest of 30% per annum and 36% per annum respectively. The money was borrowed for business purposes. The first defendant had paid the interest upto date on all the loans till 3.12.1985, except for the last loan which was availed of on 20.1.1986. Since the total amount borrowed was quite huge, the plaintiff asked the first defendant to furnish security. Therefore, on 12.9.1985, he executed a mortgage deed by depositing the title deeds of the suit property. Though there are two door numbers, sinc...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees' Union, represented by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ608
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the orders of the first respondent dated 26.7.2000, in and by which, the first respondent declined to refer an issue relating to the change in the shift pattern of the workmen of the second respondent as raised by the petitioner for adjudication on the ground that the said change was sought to be introduced by the second respondent after due notice under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. According to the petitioner, which claims membership of substantial section of workmen working in the first respondent, that it was a recognized union representing the workmen of the second respondent, that from its inception, the working hours in the second respondent power station is by way of round the clock working in three shifts namely,1. Night Shift: 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. (First Shift)2. Morning Shift: 6.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. (Second Shift)3. Evening Shift: 2.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. (Third Shift)It is claimed ...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Stamp Act) Vs. Kamala Sugar M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ726
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The short and interesting question that arises in the reference is whether the document in question should be classified as a deed of debenture or whether it should be treated as a deed of mortgage. The document in question is styled as 'single debenture' executed by Kamala Sugar Mills, Coimbatore in favour of a single debenture holder to the value of Rs. 30,00,000. According to the deed, the respondent company was desirous of creating a single debenture to the value of Rs. 30 lakhs in favour of the debenture holder and the debenture holder was willing to pay the value of the debenture., viz., Rs. 30 lakhs on the terms and conditions contained in the said deed. The recitals in the deed show' that in consideration of payment of Rs. 30 lakhs paid by the debenture holder, which was admittedly received by the company on 14.12.1981, a demand promissory note was executed by the Managing Director and two other directors of the company in favour of the debenture hold...
Tag this Judgment!Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Mad)450
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.The above writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Commissioner passed under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and for a direction to the Commissioner to grant waiver of interest levied under section 215 of the Act for the assessment year 1975-76.2. The above writ petition was heard along with other writ petitions, viz., M.P. Nos. 21111 to 21113 of 1994, 10022 and 10024 of 1996.3. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of typewriters and manufacture and supply of defence equipments/components to various defence establishments in the country. There were raids in the premises of the petitioner by the Income Tax Department during December, 1966 and December, 1976. The petitioner approached the Settlement Commission (IT & WT), Additional Bench, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as 'the Settlement Commission') and filed applications under section 245...
Tag this Judgment!Alwar Chettiar Etc. Vs. Natarajan Pillai and ors. Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ238
C. Nagappan, J.1. All these appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore in O.S.No. 214 of 1985 O.S. No. 218 of l986 andO.S.No, 220 of 1986 and they are dealt with together,2. One Natarajam Pillai and his wife Kasturibai Animal along with their minor son Ramasami brought suit in O.S.No. 214/ 85 against Jayalakshmi Ammal, Ramamurthi Reddy and Alwar Chettiar for a decree for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' 2/3rd share of the suit property against defendants 1 and 2 and for a decree of a mandatory injunction against third defendant to restore the damaged wall and for a prohibitory Injunction against the third defendant from trespassing on the suit property. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property was a portion of the house-site carved out of a private pathway and they had purchased 2/3rd undivided share of the original owners of the suit property and the first defendant had purchased 1/3rd undivided share of the same...
Tag this Judgment!V.A. Narayanan, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Subramania ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR558(Mad)
K. Natarajan, J.1. This criminal revision case has been filed against the judgment dated May 17, 1996, in C. C. No. 181 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Salem, for not awarding the minimum sentence as stipulated under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The short facts are : The first respondent, first accused, is a partnership firm in which respondents Nos. 2 and 3/accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners. For certain violations committed, the company as well as the two partners were prosecuted under Section 277 read with Sections 278B and 276C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It appears that accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are the managing partners of the company represented the company and also themselves and pleaded guilty. On the plea of guilty, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Salem, imposed a sentence of Rs. 500 each and also directed accused Nos. 2 and 3 to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court. The fine amount has been paid.3. In t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »