Chennai Court October 2001 Judgments
E. Ramesh and anr. Vs. P. Rajini and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ216
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. 1. The appeal has been filed against the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the learned single Judge dated 7.10.1999 in C.S.No. 384 of 1999.2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the said suit claiming partition and for allotment of 2/5th share on the ground that the suit property originally belonged to one Ethirajulu and Andal - the parents of the appellants and the respondents. The appellants herein -defendants 1 and 2 in the suit had no objection for the share of the first respondent herein -the first plaintiff in the suit. So far as the second respondent herein is concerned, the appellants objected on the ground that she married a Muslim by converting herself into Islam and as such, she is not entitled for the share. The other objection of the appellant's that B-Schedule property being a residential house and the appellants herein being the male members of the Hindu Joint Family, till they opt for partition, it is not open to respondents 1 and 2 herein ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ponnambalam Vs. the District Collector, Tiruchirapalli and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ411
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J, 1. 1. This writ appeal is against the order of dismissal of W.P. No. 4329 of 1988, dated 26.2.1997. The writ petition was filed to quash the order of the first respondent in RC.M2/60313/87, dated 1.2.1988. 2. The case of the appellant is that he belongs to 'Konda Reddy' community which is included in the list of Scheduled Tribe, under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950 passed by the President of India exercising the powers conferred under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. The appellant applied for grant of community certificate in the year 1977. The Tahsildar after due consideration issued the community certificate on 5.11.1977 that the appellant belongs to 'Konda Reddy' community. Thereafter, through employment exchange, he appeared for the interview for the post of Assistant/Typist in the third respondent insurance company in the year 1978 and was selected; he was appointed as Assistant/Typist in Tiruchirapalli branch of the third respondent. B...
Tag this Judgment!P. Mariappan Vs. the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC124
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The writ petition is directed against the award of the first respondent- Deputy Com-missioner for Workmens Compensation, Palayamkottai in W.C.No. 83 of 1991 dated 21.5.1992, wherein the authority has passed an award for Rs. 34,445 as compensation in favour of the workman second respondent herein.2. The petitioner is the owner of a cinema theatre, which was under construction. The second respondent herein workman, employed by the petitioner for construction of the cinema theatre, sustained injuries during the course of his employment on 22.2.1989. According to the second respondent, he had taken treatment nearly for 2 1/2 months i.e., from 22.2.1989 to 3.4.1989. He was aged 50 years at the time of accident. He was earning Rs. 1,800 per month. For the injuries sustained in the course of employment, the second respondent made an application in W.C.No. 83 of 1991 before the Deputy Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Palayamkottai- first respondent herein, claim...
Tag this Judgment!P. Hariappan Vs. Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 1(2002)ACC344
ORDERP. Sathasiva, J.1. The writ petition is directed against the award of the first respondent -Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Palayamkottai in W.C. No. 83 of 1991 dated 21.5.1992, wherein the authority has passed an award for Rs. 34,445/- as compensation in favour of the workman - second respondent herein.2. The petitioner is the owner of a cinema theatre, which was under construction. The second respondent herein workman, employed by the petitioner for (sic). According to the second respondent, he had taken treatment nearly for 2Vi months i.e. from 22.2.1989 to 3.4.1989. He was aged 50 years at the time of accident. He was earning Rs. 1,800.00 per month. For the injuries sustained in the course of employment, the second respondent made an application in W.C. No. 83 of 1991 before the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Palayamkottai -first respondent herein, claiming compensation amount of Rs. 78,235.00.3. The said application was resisted by the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!V.C. Ramalingam and Sons, Represented by Its Partner V.R. Jagannathan, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: [2002]127STC382(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Petitioners have questioned in this petition the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal rejecting the petitioner's O.P. which was one for quashing the assessment order dated 16.08.1996 for the assessment year 1994-95 and also for a declaration that the Explanation to Serial No.I of Part F of First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act reading 'Any of the item listed above even if medicated or as defined in Section 3 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Central Act XXIII of 1940) or manufactured on the licence issued under the said Act will fall under this item' and the words 'excluding products capable of being used as creams, hair oils, tooth paste, tooth powders, cosmetics, toilet articles, soaps and shampoos' found in parenthesis in Entry 20 in Part C of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India. That Explanation as also the impu...
Tag this Judgment!A. Durairaj Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ704
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge arising out of the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. 2. The unsuccessful writ petitioner had challenged the order of eviction issued by the respondent - Tamil Nadu State Housing Board, hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'. 3. Notice dated 29.3.2001 was sought to be served on the petitioner/appellant, but as it could not be served, the same was affixed on the outer door of the premises. The second notice dated 7.6.2001 was issued to the petitioner seeking his eviction from the property in question and the receipt thereof is not disputed. As there was no response to the notice, the petitioner was evicted on 19.6.2001. That is recorded and that is also not disputed and it is so held by the learned single Judge. 4. Mr. D. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the learned single Judge has erred in holding that the ...
Tag this Judgment!E.i.D. Parry (India) Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Ct) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC449(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee has been subjected to levy of interest under Section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, on the ground that though the assessee filed supplementary returns for the relevant assessment years, the years being 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, the assessee had failed to remit the interest for the period of delay between first of April of the relevant assessment year and the date on which the supplementary returns were filed. The supplementary returns for all these years were filed on September 12, 1995.2. The items covered under the supplementary returns were freight charges and transport subsidy, both of which are amounts paid either to sugarcane grower who delivered sugarcane to the factory or to the third party transporters who transported sugarcane from the field to the factory at the instance of the assessee. The cane so transported was cane which was the subject-matter of the agreement between the growers and the...
Tag this Judgment!Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Mad)517; [2002]254ITR562(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Two questions have been referred to us for the assessment year 1981-82. The first question1 referred is the assessee's entitlement to deduction under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act 1961, in respect of the sale of scraps, gunny bags, interest receipt, etc. The Tribunal has held that the assessee is not entitled to that deduction. So far as interest receipt is concerned, in a case concerning the assessee for an earlier year, it was held that no deduction can be claimed in respect of that item for the purpose of calculating deduction under Section 80HH of the Act. That case is the case of CIT v. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 497. So far as the other items mentioned such as scraps and gunny bags, no details have been given. There is nothing to show that these items were necessary by-products in the process of manufacture and that the amount realised from the sale were capable of being regarded as income from the industrial undertaking. The Tribunal was, ...
Tag this Judgment!Jayam Traders Vs. Tamilnadu Taxation Special Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: [2004]136STC302(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Petitioner sought a clarification from the Commissioner invoking Section 28-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The clarification sought was with respect to the product manufactured by the assessee called 'Makka Poha'.2. It was the assessee's contention that the product is not a food item as it is in raw form, and it required frying before it can be consumed. The assessee also claimed that the product is properly taxable under item No. 8 of Part B of the Third Schedule which deals with all products of millets, rice, flour, brokens and bran of cholam, cumbu, ragi, thinai, varagu, samai, kudiraivali, milo and maize. Those products mentioned in item No. 8 are exempted from the levy of tax under the Act.3. In that application the dealer sought an opportunity of personal hearing. Without affording him any such hearing, an order was passed by the Commissioner holding that the item is classified as 'food' falling under entry 12, Sub-clause (iii) in P...
Tag this Judgment!K. Marappa Gounder Vs. Cgt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Mad)403
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in fixing the value of the land at Rs. 75,000 per acre without considering the sale deed dated 11-7-1975, wherein the value of 18 cents lying just opposite to the above said gifted land and comprising in a different sub-division of the same survey number as the gifted land was sold only for Rs. 1,600 per acre '2. The assessment year is 1974-75. The gift made by the assessee to his son was on 29-3-1974, The extent of the gift by the assessee to his son is 2.325 acres of dry lands. The value of that property was shown to be Rs. 46,500, The Tribunal determined the true value of it at Rs. 75,000 after taking note of sale which the donor had effected on 26-3-1975, of 0.93 acres for Rs. 94,000. The Tribunal found that the rate per acre on that basis would be Rs. 1 lakh but that needed to be discounted as the sale was to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »