Chennai Court March 2000 Judgments

L.Palaniappan Vs. the Additional Registrar, (Marketing, Planning and D ...

Court: Chennai

T. Meenakumari, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent made in RC.No.153745 of 1990/SF-1 dated 21.2.1991 and RC.No.253098 of 1989 SF-a dated 26.4.1990 and that of the second respondent made in RC.No.305 of 1982 (G) dated 11.4.1986 and Rc.No.305 of 1982 (G)-A dated 30.9.1985 and quash the same.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Supervisor in the Co-operative Central Bank Kumbakonam and was posted at Kolapadu Village of Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk, Thanjavur District. Thereafter he was transferred to the Thiruvaimoor Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society as the Secretary and as on the date of filing of the writ petition he was working as Secretary. Aymoor Primary Co-operative Land Department Bank, Aymoor. Vedaranyam Taluk, Thanjavur District. According to the petitioner, while he was working as Secretary in the Thiruvaimoor Agricultural Co-operative Credit Socie...

D. Bhickam Chand Sowcar Vs. B. Dhilipkumar and 3 Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2000(3)CTC43

ORDERJudgment pronounced by B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J1. The appeal has arisen in the instant case against the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in C.S.No.1419 of 1994 dated 7.7.1999. The first defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of the first defendant. Item No.1 of the suit properties is a lodging house which is run under the name and style of Brindavan Lodge is an ancestral property of Bhikam Chand Sowcar. In a partition effected between Bhikam Chand Sowcar and his brothers, items 1 of the suit property was allotted to him along with some cash and certain other properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 and 2 are in management of the lodging house and from out of the surplus earnings available from the lodging house, Bhikam Chand, who is the kartha of the family purchased items 2 to 5 of the suit properties. In fact he constructed a Kalyana Mandapam under the name and style of Santhi Kalyana Mandapam be...

Patel Roadways Ltd., No.173, Broadway Chennai-108 Vs. Indo Matsushita ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2000(3)CTC129; (2000)IIMLJ209

ORDER1. The defendant is the appellant who is a common carrier. The appeal has arisen out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in C.S.No.640 of1993, dated 7.6.1999. One M/s Ameteep Machine Tools Private Limited entrusted to the defendant/appellant herein a consignment of TUX 63 ton Blanking Line Press in good condition at Faridabad for carriage by road from Faridabad to Madras, the consignment was insured by its owner who the first plaintiff with the second plaintiff. Enroute, at Gramanapalli village near Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh on 21.3.1990 the vehicle met with accident, as a result of which the consignment was damaged. A surveyor appointed' by the second plaintiff visited the spot on 30.3.1990 and on 31.3.1990 and made a detailed examination of the consignment at the spot. He had submitted a report on 2.4.1990 with regard to his spot findings. The damaged consignment was sent to first plaintiff's destination. A second survey was conducted by the same surveyor along with th...

India Pistons Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2000(121)ELT589(Mad)

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner, a manufacturer of motor vehicle parts and accessories, against a show cause notice issued by the Central Government under Section 35EE(4) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 was dismissed.2. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that unlike the other statutes such as Income Tax Act, Sales Tax Act and numerous other Acts, which give suo moto revisional powers to the Revisonal authorities specified in these enactments, subject to such powers being exercised with a specified period. Section 35EE(4) of the Central Excise and Salt Act has not prescribed any time limit. Counsel submitted that notwithstanding the absence of the specification of time limit, the Court must view that provision as procedural provision, and the time limit prescribed elsewhere in the Act should be read into that provision in order to make the pow...

The Licensee, Krishna theatre, Palanichettipatty, theni Vs. the Collec ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2000(2)CTC143; (2001)2MLJ570

ORDER1. The petitioner is the licensee of a permanent Cinema Theatre viz., 'Krishna Theatre' in Palanichettipatty. The said theatre was subjected to surprise inspection by the Sub-Collector, Periyakulam on 27.11.92 at 4.30 P.M. On enquiry the inspection officer found that the petitioner has collected exceed fare from some of the spectators and 346 persons had occupied in the first class; while the accounts revealed that only 35 tickets were sold. Apart from this, certain other violations of the license conditions have also been noticed. The conduct of the licensee amount to clear evasion of Entertainment Tax and the petitioner has compound the offence by paying Rs.1,500 as compounding fee. 2. On the basis of the compounding of the violations committed by the licensee, the respondent herein passed an order under Section 9 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regntation) Act, suspending the C-Form licence for 30 days in his proceedings dated 9.7.93. As against which the present writ petition ha...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hansa Cine Equipments

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2000]245ITR676(Mad)

N.K. Jain, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-IV, Madras, seeks direction of this court to refer' the question.2. The assessee-firm, Hansa Cine Equipments; No. 87, Mount Road, Madras-2, filed returns for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1990-91. The Income-tax Officer rejected its claim for investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment was confirmed by the Commissioner. On appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the case of the assessee's firm for the assessment year 1985-86 passed in I. T, A, No. 1203/Mds, of 1990, dated May, 1994, and held that the assessee would be entitled to investment allowance if it were a small scale undertaking and remanded the matter. Aggrieved against the order, the Department has preferred this tax case petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act.3. We have heard learned counsel and perused the materials on record. The Tribunal has only remanded the issue without any...

Management of Panchamalai Estate Vs. D. Gnanasekharan

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2001)ILLJ279Mad

Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.1. The management who was the respondent before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation), Coimbatore, has come forward with the instant civil miscellaneous appeal.2. This C.M.A. has arisen in this way:The respondent herein, Gnanasekharan, was employed as a worker under the appellant herein for pruning work in the estate. He sustained injury over his left thumb and index finger on July 22, 1995. He filed an application under the relevant provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, claiming compensation of Rs. 51,062/-. The management refuted the claim and contended that after the accident, the workman is getting the same emoluments which he was drawing at the time of the accident and, therefore, no loss or damage was caused to the workman as a result of the injury. The learned Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, after considering the evidence, directed the management to pay Rs. 32,237/- within thirty days from...

Management of Bhavanji Mills Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour and anr ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2002ACJ141; (2000)IILLJ568Mad; (2000)IIMLJ467

ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The Management of the petitioner Mills has filed this writ petition against the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and an individual praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent dated August 24, 1992 made in W.C. No. 249 of 1990 and quash the same.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that the petitioner Mill was established in the year 1982, when the area in which it was located was not covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act (ESI Act) that by Notification dated March 27, 1986, the said Act was extended to the area; that by notice dated April 24, 1987, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation informed that the petitioner's establishment was covered under the E. S.I. Act with effect from April 1, 1986 and a code number was also allotted to the petitioner's establishment and on and from the date of coverage, the petitioner was making contribution to the Corporation in ...

Kinjal Electricals Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2000(121)ELT294(Mad)

ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. From the above batch of writ petitions, W.P. No. 15054 of 1992 has been filed praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records before the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Customs House, Madras-1 ending with its order bearing Nos. C. 3/1644 to 1648 of 1989 dated 20-10-1989 and quash the same.2. The other writ petitions in W. P. Nos. 15055 tol5059 have been filed by the same petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent, the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund), Customs House, Madras to refund the sums of Rs. 73,229/-, Rs. 82,624.64, Rs. 81,054.84, Rs. 78,944.19 and Rs. 1,90,237/- respectively collected in excess without jurisdiction or without the authority of law in respect of Bill of Entry Cash Nos. D. 922 dated 19-10-1984, C. 735 dated 26-6-1984, C. 638 dated 18-10-1985, D. 1334 dated 23-1-1986 and D1535 dated 1986 respectively.3. So far as the W.P. No. 15054 of 1992 is concerned, what the petit...

National Insurance Company Limited, Pudukottai Vs. V. Velammal and 4 O ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2002ACJ706; 2000(3)CTC291

ORDER1. All these three appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ariyalur, in MCOP.Nos.406,407 and 413 of 1991. They are filed by the Insurance Company regarding an accident which took place on 24.8.1988 at about 3.00 p.m. on Tiruchy - Madras Highway near Eraiyur village. A mini lorry - goods vehicle bearing registration Mo.TNP 4941 was being driven by its driver Balasubramanian, carrying the household articles belonging to one Vellaichamy, Forester. The said Vellaichamy and his wife were also travelling in the vehicle. The lorry skidded from the road and fell into a river after breaking the parapet wall of the bridge, resulting in the death of the driver Balasubramaniam and Vellaichamy. Velammal wife of Vellaichamy sustained injuries. While M.C.O.P.No.413 of 1991 was filed by the legal representatives of the driver, O.P.No.406 of 1991 was filed by the legal representatives of Vellaichamy and M.C.O.P.No.407 of 1991 was filed by Velammal. It is ...