Chennai Court May 2000 Judgments
M.A. Ramakrishnan and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-30-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad508
ORDERY. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have filed the present writ petition, seeking for a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to the proceedings in Memo. No. 85842/ 13/90 dated 30-9-92 and to quash the order made therein by the second respondent and further forbear the respondents from preventing the petitioners to function as licenced document writers and copy writers.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, though no counter affidavit has been filed, the learned Government advocate appearing for the respondents argued the matter and pleaded that the writ petition has to be dismissed for want of merits.3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learne...
Tag this Judgment!D.E.i. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-29-2000
Reported in: 2001(74)ECC322
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J1. The issue to be considered is as to whether the firm contract was required to be backed by irrevocable letter of credit in order to entitle the appellant to have the benefit of the import licences dated 21.1.1988 and 27.7.1987 of which, the appellant had taken an assignment on 3.9.1989. Prior to the said assignment, orders were placed by the original licensees on 4.1.1988 and 6.6.1988 and those orders had been accepted by the suppliers in Singapore on 11.1.1988 and 21.6.1988. The goods to be imported were Faximilo Transmission Equipment, 39 numbers, valued at Rs. 7,20,379. The import was actually effected on 16.8.1989 and 31.12.1989.2. The import trade control policy for the period April-March, 1988-91 only required that the licensee should place a firm order on the foreign supplier within six months from the date of issue of licence. The licence also contains only that stipulation. It is not a requirement either in the licence or in policy, that in addition...
Tag this Judgment!Devanath R. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ54Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus after calling for all the records relating to the award dated October 14, 1991 in I.D. No. 128 of 1987 on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition prayed for per contra, though no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent, the learned counsel; appearing for the second respondent argued the matter and justified the award passed by the first respondent and requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of m...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Mineral and Trading Agency Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC359
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The present petition is directed against the order dated 30th March, 2000 of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in APOT No.146 of 2000 under which a direction was issued to the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition and an affidavit-in-reply. It further ordered, until further orders, the operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge shall remain stayed and the arbitration proceedings shall go on. This order was passed by the Division Bench as against the aforesaid interim order passed by the learned Single Judge who granted stay of further proceedings before the Arbitrator. The Division Bench simultaneously referred the question to Full Bench, whether under 1996 Act the Court has any jurisdiction to remove any Arbitrator, where arbitration proceedings are going on.4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We do not feel it appropriate to stay the proceedings before the Arbitrator. T...
Tag this Judgment!Goodwill Engineering Works Vs. C.B.E. and C.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(121)ELT599(Mad)
ORDERA. Raman, J.1. The petitioner was issued with a private bonded warehouse licence by the 2nd respondent. It was periodically renewed and the last renewal was on 28-7-1998. The 2nd respondent granted permission to the petitioner to manufacture boats and launches in bond under customs supervision using imported parts and raw materials, by virtue of the power vested in the 2nd respondent under Section 65 of the Customs Act. The petitioner has been availing the exemption from payment of import duty on the raw materials and parts imported from time to time as per notifications. On 22-3-1999, the 2nd respondent issued a notice under reference C. No. VIII/23/7/99, asking the petitioner to show cause why a duty of Rs. 34,98,749/- should not be imposed on certain items used in the manufacture of survey launches on the ground that they are not covered by Notification 23/98. An addendum was issued on 1-4-1999, alleging that in terms of Board's letter in F. No. 473/61/94LC, a manufacturer of g...
Tag this Judgment!First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)75ITD197(Chennai)
These appeals are filed by the assessee, a limited company and are instituted against the orders of the Commissioner Central-II, Chennai.The Commissioner had invoked his powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and had withdrawn the extra-shift allowance granted by the assessing officer on the machinery's that are leased by the assessee company to various lessees.The Commissioner applied the decision of the Tribunal in Shri Leasing & Industrial Finance Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (1989) 31 ITD 163 (Del-Trib) and held that the extra-shift allowance is permissible to a concern that has worked double or triple shifts and because the assessee does not satisfy this condition, he set aside the order of assessing officer. The appellant company is aggrieved by these order of the Commissioner and has challenged the said order both on legal validity and on merits.The proposal for the formation of a Special Bench to resolve the controversy ...
Tag this Judgment!Anna Co-operative Spinning Mills Vs. Additional Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ836Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The Anna Co-operative Spinning Mills, Andipatti, Madurai has filed this writ petition against the Additional Labour Court, Madurai and an individual employee praying to issue the writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in respect of the Award dated May 18, 1992 made in I.D. No.400 of 1990 and quash the same.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that the second respondent was working in the Simplex Department of the Mill as a worker and at times, he would be asked to work as a Maistry also, that in February 1989, he was paid as wages a sum of Rs. 135.96 for which a register is maintained by the timekeeper; that after entering all the wages due to each of theworkers, the Register is taken to the petitionerManagement and the cashier makes thedisbursement to all the workers on the basis ofthe figures given in the register.3. The further case of the petitioner-Management is that the second re...
Tag this Judgment!Management, Sri Balasubramanian Lorry Service Vs. Paramasiva Nadar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ575Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner management has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent relating to the award dated August 5, 1992 made in C.P. No. 440 of 1989 and to quash the same.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that the petitioner management was a proprietary concern and the first respondent herein is an ex-employee of the petitioner concern; that while he was working as an attender in the year 1978, he was terminated for want of vacancy that against the order of termination, he filed a petition under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act as per the proceeding in the TNSC. No. 26 of 1978 on the file of Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai; that the learned Commissioner passed an award reinstating the first respondent in the service of the petitioner as per its order dated July 13, 1990 and against this ord...
Tag this Judgment!First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: [2001]75ITD197(Mad)
ORDERV Dongzathang, Senior, V. P.These appeals are filed by the assessee, a limited company and are instituted against the orders of the Commissioner Central-II, Chennai. The Commissioner had invoked his powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and had withdrawn the extra-shift allowance granted by the assessing officer on the machinery's that are leased by the assessee company to various lessees. The Commissioner applied the decision of the Tribunal in Shri Leasing & Industrial Finance Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (1989) 31 ITD 163 (DelHI) and held that the extra-shift allowance is permissible to a concern that has worked double or triple shifts and because the assessee does not satisfy this condition, he set aside the order of assessing officer. The appellant company is aggrieved by these order of the Commissioner and has challenged the said order both on legal validity and on merits.2. The proposal for the formation of a Special Ben...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Pitchammal Vs. the Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC636
ORDER1. The writ petition is filed by the elected President of the Sucheendram Selection Grade Town Panchayat, to quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 9.3.2000 in R.No.289/2000/P.III and to permit the Town Panchayat to collect the entry fee including the parking fee from the owners of the vehicles entering Sucheendram. 2. It is stated that a representation was submitted by the public of Sucheendram to the petitioner, stating that the person who has been granted the license to collect the fees is collecting from the owners of the vehicles at higher rates and that it has given rise to lot of complaints and therefore the Panchayat itself undertake the collection on 22.3.2000 a meeting of the Town Panchayat was held. In the said meeting, it was decided that the right to collect fee from the vehicle entering Sucheendram Town shall not be put up for auction and that the same shall be collected directly by the Town Panchayat and that the Town Panchayat shall appoint ex-service me...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›