Chennai Court December 2000 Judgments
Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ287Mad; (2000)IIMLJ721
T. Meenakumari, J. 1. The writ petitions are for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in I.D. No. 591 of 1990 and I.D. No. 638 of 1989, dated January 18, 1993 and August 24, 1992, respectively and quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 13679 of 1993 is that the second respondent was employed as a conductor. When the bus was taking the trip to Anuppanadi at 16.30 hrs., it was checked by the checking Inspector at Sourashtra Colony stop. When the second respondent saw the checking inspector he rushed towards the passenger and after receiving the tickets from the passenger, he punched the tickets. The checking inspector after noticing this recovered the tickets from the passenger to verify the tickets. While verifying the tickets, it was found that 3 tickets for Rs. 1.35 were punched in the down II stage instead of up I stage. During the time of enquiry one passenger told the checking inspector that she along with two others wer...
Tag this Judgment!Divakaran, P.R. Vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ6Mad
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This writ appeal challenges the order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated February 5, 1993, dismissing the writ petition No. 3557/1984 filed by the appellant herein for a writ of certiorari to quash the award made by the first respondent in I.D. No.241 of 1982.2. The appellant who was working as a watch regulator in the second respondent-Management was served with the charge memo stating that he was guilty of misconduct. In the domestic enquiry he was found guilty. On the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the appellant was dismissed from service on November 2, 1981. Following his application under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication, of the issue relating to his non-employment. The same was taken on file by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 241 of 1982 wherein a claim statement and counter statement were filed by the respective parties. The Labour Court, after considering the e...
Tag this Judgment!Publisher, Sport Star Magazine Vs. Girish Sharma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1863
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The Publisher, Sportstar Magazine is the petitioner herein.2. This Sportstar Magazine dated 8-3-1997 published a photograph showing that Chess Grand Master Viswanathan Anand playing chess, against V. Topalov in the Tournament in Linares in Spain. In the photograph, the Stop Watch and the Flag of the countries of the participants, which were displayed by the Organisers, were also depicted. While the chess play began, the Organisers had placed the Indian Flag upside down. Within a few minutes, the same was corrected by the Organisers by putting the flag in a proper position. Thereafter, the play continued.3. Below the photograph published in the Magazine, the writer of the article had written a short report on the Chess Tournament as under :-Things went badly for Anand from the word go. He usually starts very well in such competitions. This time, he started with a defeat against Kasparov and ended the championship with a victory over Alexey Dreev. The India...
Tag this Judgment!Amalorpava Mary Ammal (Died) and ors. Vs. S. Gopalarathinam, S/O. Sund ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ282
C. Nagappan, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli passed in O.S.No. 1 of 1984 dated 27.2.1987. The defendants are the appellants.2. The plaint averments are summarised. The defendants professed to be the owners of the suit property and they derived title to suit property under the Will executed by Sornathammal in favour of her daughter, the first defendant herein for life and to be taken by her four sons, the defendants 2 to 5 herein absolutely. Defendants entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff on 11.7.1983 to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 2,62,500 and after the execution, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1,40,000 in cash and the defendants received the same. As per the sale agreement, the defendants have to receive the balance of sale price, namely, Rs. 1,22,500 from the plaintiff and execute the sale deed. Since the defendants derived title to the suit land under the Will of the Christian lady, the...
Tag this Judgment!U. Palani Vs. the Registrar, Annamalai University and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ340
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge whereby, the claim of the petitioner for enhancement of his pension by adding his earlier services in various other institutions to his qualifying service was refused.2. Petitioner retired from the post of Lecturer in Tamil in Annamalai University on 6.5.1979. Once his pension was fixed, he not being satisfied with that pension, represented to the University that his earlier service rendered as Lecturer in other educational institutions should also be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of computation of his pension. He calculated the total service to be 26 years, 10 months and 15 days whereas, as per the University, his qualifying service was calculated at 10 years, 10 months and 17 days only. Petitioner based his claim on the resolution passed by the University in a meeting held on 29.11.1980, whereby Statute 3(ii) was amended so as to count as qualifying service the service r...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Marco Brandolin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR43(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assesses is an employee of an Italian com-pany--Italviscose Eastern Trading S. P. A. Milan, which had entered into an agreement with South India Viscose Limited in connection with the expansion project of the latter company's pulp plant. Under the terms of that agreement out of the sums paid by the Indian company to the Italian company, the employee of the Italian company was to receive the amounts specified in that agreement, the rate being 75,000 Italian lira per day payable in an Italian bank. No payments were made by the Indian company to the assessee directly. The Indian company was only to provide the boarding and lodging facilities and allowance for his day-to-day expenses while in India. 2. The Indian company, as required by Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, at the time of making payments to the Italian company deducted tax thereon, and remitted the same to the Government. The Income-tax Officer construed that the remittance as indicating the payme...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chemical Holdings Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Mad)339; [2001]249ITR540(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee is a dealer in shares. For the assessment year 1980-81, it reported a dividend income of Rs. 3,61,500. It claimed a deduction under Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it then stood. Section 80M of the Act in so far as it is applicable to the case of the assessee provides for the deduction of 60 per cent, of the income received by way of dividends from other domestic companies. The computation of the deduction under Section 80M is required to be made in accordance with Section 80AA.2. Section 80AA captioned as computation of deduction under Section 80M reads as under :'Where any deduction is required to be allowed under Section 80M in respect of any income by way of dividends from a domestic company which is included in the gross total income of the assessee, then, notwithstanding anything contained in that section, the deduction under that section shall be computed with reference to the income by way of such dividends as computed in accord...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Soft Beverages P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR552(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee was carrying on business in soft drinks sold under the name 'Torino'. The assessment year involved is 1980-81. It had earlier been also carrying on the business as bottler of Coco-Cola and Fanta. The bottles meant for the same were required to be manufactured by the assessee according to the specification given by the American company. Some time prior to 1980-81, the Government of India having declined permission to market Coca-Cola in India, a large number of bottles, which had been manufactured and kept for use could no longer be used. The American company was under no legal obligation to purchase those bottles. It, however, agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,80,000 if 38,000 of empty bottles were to be destroyed in the presence of the representative of the American company. That amount was paid. That receipt was not, however, considered as income by the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner, in a suo motu revision, held that it should have been included...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR695(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Tribunal has held that the reopening of the assessment was fully warranted by the observation which had been made in its order in relation to an earlier assessment year as it constituted infor-mation for the purpose of reopening the assessment made for the year 1975-76. It had been held by the Tribunal in its order in relation to the assessment year 1974-75 that the excess physical stock could not be set off against the deficit in the books.2. The assessee contends that the Tribunal should not have taken that view, as according to the assessee that order of the Tribunal was not in existence on the date the original assessment was made for the year 1975-76. The reopening of an assessment need not necessarily be on the basis of information available on the date or prior to the date of the assessment order. Information, which though subsequently received shows the defects in the order, can, so long as it does constitute information form the basis for the reope...
Tag this Judgment!Devakumar L.M.V., Senior Manager, Canara Bank, District Co-ordinator V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ358Mad
ORDERMs. T. Meenakumari, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings No. IRS:DP: MC:CHF/262.91 dated February 6, 1991 and of the second respondent dated August 19, 1991 sent through proceedings in MC. DAC. 1074 E. 37 Disciplinary Action Cell, Circle Office, Canara Bank, Madras dated September 10, 1991, quash the same and direct the respondents to restore the petitioner to his original place of seniority in the Canara Bank and to pay the petitioner the arrears of pay and other consequential benefits from the date of petitioner's suspension.2. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in support his contention and stated that he has entered into the service in 1967 as Officer-on-Contract in Canara Bank; that he was regularised in service in the year 1968; that he was promoted as Manager, Grade III in September, 1972; that he was brought to Manager Grade, II in 1976 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »