Chennai Court October 2001 Judgments
Ayisha Beevi Vs. Dhanalakshmi and 5 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ637
ORDER1. The 1st defendant in O.S No.777 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chidambaram is the appellant in this second appeal The plaintiffs in the suit are the respondents in this second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the suit.2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement to reconvey the property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows: The suit property belonged to the first plaintiff was sold by him to the first defendant on 29.7.1971. On the very same day, the first plaintiff and the first defendant had entered into an agreement for reconveyance thereby on payment of Rs.15,000 by the first plaintiff after seven years but before the expiry of ten years from 29.9.1971 the first defendant reconveyed the said property. Though the first plaintiff has approached the first defendant, after the expiry of seven years but before the ...
Tag this Judgment!R. David Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Cus., Tiruchirapalli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2001
Reported in: 2002(140)ELT345(Mad)
ORDERP.K. Mishra, J.1. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 19-5-1995 passed by the first respondent and for a direction to the respondents topay reward of 20% of the estimated market value of the articles seized pursuant to the information furnished by the petitioners. This is third sojourn to the High Court and hopefully the last.2. A brief recount of the facts are necessary :-On the basis of the information furnished by the petitioners to the effect that contraband articles have been kept concealed in a ship which had come from Singapore and berthed in Tuticorin Harbour, contraband articles worth about Rs. 9,98,000/- had admittedly been seized. Since the petitioners were not given the reward, one of them, namely the first petitioner had filed W.P. No. 8857 of 1989. When the aforesaid case was taken up for hearing on 2-11-1989, it was stated on behalf of the respondents that question of reward was under consideration and accordingly the aforesaid writ petition was dis...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority Under Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ118Mad
D. Murugesan, J. 1. The management of Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Ltd., Karur, is the writ-petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order of the first respondent, the Appellate Authority under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Salem made in TNSI Appeal No. 6 of 1992, dated April 22, 1994.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:The second respondent is a person employed as per the definition of Section 2(12) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act under the writ-petitioner. The second respondent was suspended from services with effect from March 1, 1989, by order dated March 1, 1989 pending departmental enquiry, in regard to as many as eight charges framed under Regulation 17(c) of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Ltd. Officers Discipline and Disciplinary Action Regulations, 1987 (hereinafter called the Regulations. An enquiry was instituted into the charges and on the basis of the report of the ...
Tag this Judgment!E.i.D. Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC112(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of fertiliser. It had, during the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82, 1983-84 and 1990-91, received subsidies from the Government under a scheme formulated by the Government, under which manufacturers of fertilisers were enabled to receive subsidy at the time the goods were cleared from the factory.2. The subsidy so given was not given to the assessee by or on behalf of the purchaser of the fertiliser. It was not even payable at the time of the sale. The right to receive the subsidy was under the scheme formulated by the Government and not by reason of any act or omission on the part of the purchaser of the fertiliser.3. The Supreme Court has now settled the law regarding the includibility of the subsidy in the taxable turnover of the manufacturer of fertiliser, in the case of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Cuddalore : a decision rendered by a Bench of three learned Judges o...
Tag this Judgment!Arjunan M.(D) and ors. Vs. Executive Engineer, Twad Board and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ141Mad
ORDERP.K. Misra, J. 1. The writ petition is directed against that part of the award passed by the Labour Court which while directing reinstatement of the original petitioner, has refused to grant back wages. During pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner having been expired, his legal representatives have been substituted. Any reference to the expression 'petitioner' should be considered as original petitioner for convenience.2. The petitioner was initially appointed as N.M.R. employee and subsequently regularised with effect from January 1, 1983. The petitioner was suspended on August 30, 1990 on the allegation that a false certificate had been given regarding educational qualification. Subsequently the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from June 7, 1991. In the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, it was held by the Labour Court that dismissal order was not justified. According to Labour Court there was no material on record to indicate that the...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Refineries Ltd. Vs. Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Trib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2001
Reported in: [2006]143STC94(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee owns a refinery in which petroleum products are refined. It sells all the refined petroleum to other oil marketing companies, as it is, we are informed, bound to do so under a scheme by which it is governed. To meet the requirements of fleet of vehicles maintained by the company, it buys petroleum products such as petrol, diesel, oil, lubricants from the oil marketing companies. The petitioner also buys furfural which is used by it in the manufacture of goods for sale. Such purchase by the assessee of the petroleum products from the marketing companies, as also of the furfural, was made in circumstance in which no tax was payable.The assessing authority invoking Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, subjected the turnover of such purchases to purchase tax as the petroleum products bought by the assessee had been consumed by it in running the vehicles and furfural had also been consumed by it in the manufacture of other good...
Tag this Judgment!Pondy Chem Private Ltd. Represented by Its General Manager and anr. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ644
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The applicant in Diary No. 39221 of 2000 is M/s. Pondicherry Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and the applicant in Diary No. 39222 of 2000 is M/s. Silicate India Limited. It is stated that both the applicants are sister concerns.2. The applicant in Diary No. 39221 of 2000 namely M/s.Pondicherry Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., has entered into an agreement dated 16.11.1993 and the applicant in Diary No. 39222 of 2000 namely M/s. Silicates India Limited entered into an agreement dated 21.7.1994 with M/s. Gas Authority of India Limited, the first respondent herein. Article 13 of the said agreements are pertaining to arbitration.3. Dispute arose between the parties was referred to arbitral tribunal. On 18.11.1999, the arbitral tribunal passed two separate awards. It is alleged by both the petitioner that they have filed necessary petition under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the tribunal for reconsideration of the award. Inspite of repeated reminders no o...
Tag this Judgment!V. Madhu @ C.V. Maathesh Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(139)ELT497(Mad)
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel.2. The writ petition relates to textile business and the levy of Central Excise thereto. The writ petitioner is the lessee and had been running the business under the name and style of 'Tvl. Komalagowrie Textiles'. He held a licence for the period upto 31-3-1999. There are two assessment years before us, i.e., for the period from 1-4-1998 to 31-3-1999 and 1-4-1999 to 31-3-2000. In so far as the period from 1-4-1998 to 31-3-1999 is concerned, indisputably the petitioner is answerable to the show cause notice, which may have to be issued separately for the said year. Regarding the period from 1-4-1999 to 31-3-2000, as the petitioner had surrendered his previous licence and the licence afresh has been granted to M/s. Selva Ganapathy Textiles, as is evident from Page 7 of the typed set of material papers, which is a registration certificate, bearing Sr. No....
Tag this Judgment!Needle Industries (India) Limited Vs. Sanjay Jaiswal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(24)PTC646(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The appellant is the registered owner of the copyright in the 'pony label', theregistration number being A/346861/81 dated 2.11.1981. 2. The annexure to the Registration Certificate which sets out the label is asunder : 3. The appellant, which is the leading manufacturer in the country for all kinds ofneedles is also the owner of several trade marks with the name 'pony'. It holds seventrade mark registration certificates for goods under class 26, 4 certificates for goodsunder class 10, one under class 8 and two under class 4. It's marks, as also the marksused by the defendants which is practically a replica of the plaintiffs mark are asunder, 4. The earliest of the registration certificate is dated 7.7.1971. As the name of the appellant 'Needle Industries Ltd.' indicates, it's primary activities are manufacturing and marketing needles. The registration obtained for it's mark under class 26 relate to things used in knitting, stitching and tailoring primarily. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Sister-in-charge, Society of Servants of Mary Convent Vs. Assistant Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR398]; (2002)ILLJ508Mad
P.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the authorities under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is incharge of the Society of Servants of Mary Convent, Gudalur, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is stated that 31.79 acres of abandoned tea and coffee plantations land in Gudalur village were purchased by the Society. After such purchase, 10.50 acres of land had been leased out to Servants of Mary Convent, Bangalore, under a registered lease deed dated January 9, 1989, and 10.79 acres of land were leasedout to Sister Superior, Servants of Mary Convent, Gudalur, the present petitioner.3. Notices were issued by the provident fund authorities calling upon the petitioner to pay contribution. Objections were filed by the petitioner. It was decided that since the previous establishment had been found liable to pay provident fund contrib...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »