Chennai Court November 2001 Judgments
General Insurance Employees, Association (South Zone) Rep. by Its Gene ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2001
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ855Mad
ORDER1. The General Insurance Employees, Association (South Zone), aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras dated 30.11.1993 made in I.D.No.39 of 1984 has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and prays consequential direction to the second respondent-management to categorise T.S. Santhanam, as an Officer with retrospective effect and other monetary benefits.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:T.S. Santhanam, a member of the petitioner Association was employed by the Madras Motor General Insurance Company Ltd., in 1961 as Junior Assistant at their Madras office. Subsequently, he was promoted and made as a Senior Assistant. During 1972, the business of General Insurance was nationalised by the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act. 1972 and the said Company was also nationalised. Subsequent to the nationalisation, the unit in which T.S. Santhanam was working came to be attached to the second respondent, which is one of the subs...
Tag this Judgment!India Meters Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2001
Reported in: [2004]136STC285(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee sold the electric meters manufactured by it to the State Electricity Board. In the contract it was provided that 'the ownership of the goods will remain with the supplier till they are delivered at the destination station in good and acceptable condition as per the despatch instructions'.2. The clause in the contract dealing with payment, provided that 'payment for 100 per cent value of each consignment together with full excise duty and sales tax will be made in Central payment, Madras, immediately on receipt of certified copies of acknowledgment of delivery challans from the chief store keepers of the systems concerned, subject to purchase order terms'.3. It is clear from these clauses in the contract that the transfer of title to the goods was to take place only on delivery to the customer at the customer's place and that the customer's obligation to pay would arise after the delivery had been so effected.4. The contract also provided in the...
Tag this Judgment!Kothandapani and ors. Vs. State and Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2001
Reported in: 2003CriLJ151
A. Packiaraj, J.1. The appellants are A-1 to A-4 in S.C. No. 240 of 1990 on the file of the Sessions Judge, South Arcot, Vallalar Division, Cuddalore. A-4 alone has been convicted for an offenee under Section 302 and 324 IPC and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and six months imprisonment respectively, whereas A-1 to A-3 have been convicted only for an offence under Section 324, IPC and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been preferred.2. Cri. R.C. No. 737 of 1995 has been preferred by one Krishnamoorthy (PW. 1), son of the deceased against the acquittal of A-1 to A-3 of offence under Section 302, IPC and has also raised a ground that though these three respondents namely A-1 to A-3 has been convicted for an offence under Section 324, IPC, has been lightly let off with the sentence of Rs. 500/- fine, while A-4 has been awarded six months...
Tag this Judgment!Kma Finished Leather (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2001
Reported in: [2004]134STC185(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Misconstruing the scope of the law laid down by the apex Court in relation to REP licences, the assessing officer appears to have let loose his imagination to regard the drawback of customs duty allowed to the petitioner-exporter, of the customs duty that had been paid by it at the time of export.2. The drawback which is effected by issue of cheque by the Government for the amount of the drawback, or by crediting the amount to the bank account of the exporter, is in effect a refund of the monies that had been paid by the exporter towards customs duty. What is refunded is only money. The amounts refunded are not traded and there is no sale of those monies.3. The utter confusion in the mind of the assessing officer who issued the impugned pre-assessment notice proposing to levy sales tax on the sums aggregating to over two crores received by the petitioner from the Central Board of Customs as duty drawback during the years 1994-95 to 1998-99, is evident from ...
Tag this Judgment!Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ600
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Sivakasi, preferred this appeal as against the award dated 1.3.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal, District Judge), Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, in M.C.O.P. No. 354 of 1999.2. The deceased was a load-man, aged 18 years and was unmarried. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the claimants, are the widowed mother and unmarried sister. The Tribunal fixed the monthly dependency at Rs. 2,100 and adopted a multiplier of 14 and arrived the compensation payable at Rs. 3,52,800. The only grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal has not deducted any amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased.3. But, however, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the deceased was a bachelor and he would not have any personal expenses.4. We are not in a position to accept the case of the respondents-claimants. Even though the deceased was a bachel...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Fab Exports (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2001
Reported in: [2001]258ITR56(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Section 115J(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads thus :'Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall affect the determination of the amounts in relation to the relevant previous year to be carried forward to the subsequent year or years under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 32 or Sub-section (3) of Section 32A or Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 72 or Section 73 or Section 74 or Sub-section (3) of Section 74A or Sub-section (3) of Section 80J.'2. The words employed in this provision make it clear that the determination of the amounts in relation to the relevant previous year to be carried forward to the subsequent year or years under the provisions referred to therein is not to be affected by anything contained in Sub-section (1). The opening words 'nothing contained in Sub-section (1)' in effect mean anything and everything contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 115J.3. Section 115J is a special provision relating to certain companies. Su...
Tag this Judgment!Ssm Processing Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2001
Reported in: 2003(161)ELT87(Mad)
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the impugned circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, dated 27-2-1999.2. The petitioners are engaged in the process of cotton fabrics. According to the petitioners, the final products of the petitioners had been subjected to ad valorem levied under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act).3. No tax shall be levied or collected except by an authority of law as contemplated under Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Under Section 4 of the Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to their value and such value shall be the duty to be normal price thereof, that is to say, the price at which such goods will be ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal. Even the rate of excise duty can be fixed only by notification. Under Section 4 of the Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Industries Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2001
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Mad)229
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and fitting of bus and truck bodies. It undertakes that work on the chassis with the engine and controls brought to it by its customers. What rolls out at the end of that process is a commercial vehicle, complete in all respects, though the assessee is not the manufacturer of the chassis on which the body is built, nor is the assessee the owner of the chassis. The assessee's claim in the assessment year 1977-78 that it is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A(2)(b), as according to it, it is engaged in the business of manufacture or production of 'commercial vehicles' being Item No. 14 of the Ninth Schedule to the Income Tax Act, having been negatived by the Income Tax Officer as also by the appellate authority and the Tribunal, the following question has been brought before us, at the instance of the assessee :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai Div.-i) Ltd. Vs. K. Shanka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2001
Reported in: 1(2002)ACC488
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. In a road traffic accident which took place on 14.2.1989,18 years old youth who was working as helper in a Lathe suffered serious injuries resulting in amputation of right leg above knee causing 80% permanent disability as certified by P.W. 4 doctor, giving rise to claim petition in M.A.C.O.P. No. 624/1989 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge), Court of Small Causes at Chennai. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence passed an award only for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under 'No-Fault Liability', on the ground that the accident took place solely on account of negligence on the part of the injured. However, on appeal by the claimant, this Court passed an award for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. Hence this appeal by the owner of the bus.2. Having heard learned Counsel appearing on both sides, we are not persuaded to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in this appea...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Fab Exports (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2001
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Mad)129
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu,J. Section 115J(2) of the Income Tax Act reads thus:'Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall affect the determination of the amounts in relation to the relevant previous year to be carried forward to the subsequent year or years under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 32 or sub-section (3) of section 32A or clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A or sub-section (3) of section 80J'.The words employed in make it this provision make it clear that the determination of the amounts in relation to the relevant previous year to be carried forward to the subsequent year or years under the provisions referred to therein is not to be affected by anything contained in sub-section (1). The opening words 'nothing contained in sub-section (1)' in effect mean anything and every thing contained in Sub-Section (1) of Section 115J.2. Section 115J is a special provision relating to certain companies. Su...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »