Chennai Court March 2001 Judgments

M/s Standard Literature Co. (P) Ltd. rep. by 1st Branch Manager, P.N. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2001)IILLJ62Mad

ORDERA. Kulasekaran J.1. Appellants impugne in these appeals the common order passed by the Learned Single Judge dismissing the two writ petitions in W.P.Nos.8910 of 1998 and 8911 of 1998 filed by them against the recovery of proceedings of the first respondent herein one for the period from 1.1.83 to 28,2.83 and the other for the period from 1.3.83 to 30.11.89.2. The appellant company is engaged in distributing and marketing education and reference books. A notice dated 9.1.1990 was issued by the first respondent herein to show cause why the Employees' State Insurance Contribution should not be demanded in view of Section 38 of the Act. Ultimately the first respondent passed order dated 25.10.1991 under section 45-A of the Act determining the contribution at Rs. 1,60,670.30 for the period from 1.3.83 to 30.11.89 and contribution of Rs.2,772 for the period from 1.1.83 to 28.2.83. Aggrieved by the said orders the appellant herein filed two applications under Section 75 of the Act before...

Paramasivam Vs. Kaliyan and Another

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2001)2MLJ544

ORDER1. The petitioner in this civil revision petition is the third party to the K.C.O.P.N0.78 of 1985 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Thanjavur. The 1st respondent filed the said R.C.O.P. against the 2nd respondent and obtained an order of eviction during the year 1982. Thereafter, an application for execution in E.RNo.6 of 2000 was filed by the 1st respondent and the same was also ordered. In the meantime, the revision petitioner filed UFCFR No.321 of 2000 on 22.1.2001 objecting the execution proceedings on the ground that he entered into an agreement with the 1st respondent for sale in respect of the petition mentioned property and has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000 and the 1st respondent has also put the petitioner in possession and therefore the 1st respondent should not be given possession of the property. Since the 1st respondent denied the very agreement for sale, the petitioner filed O.S.No. 11 of 2001 before the learned Principal Sub Judge, Tha...

Sree Padmalaya Movies and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-ta ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2001]251ITR632(Mad)

A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. The accused in C. C. No. 44 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EOII), Chennai, have preferred the revision aggrieved against the orders passed in M. P. No. 166 of 1997 dated December 22, 1998. 2. The case in brief is as follows : On March 25, 1992, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 276C(1) and 277 read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1982-83 and under Sections 120B, 193, 196, 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alleging that subsequent to the search on December 17, 1983, and pursuant to the notice under Section 148 of the Act for the said year on July 21, 1986, and later a revised return on October 28, 1987. In the course of the assessment proceedings, it was conceded the royalty of Rs. 60,000 received by the firm for exploitation of the rights of the two pictures was not disclosed and was asse...

D.S. Mariappan and anr. Vs. N. Manoharan and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2001)3MLJ235

ORDERV. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. The revision petitioners in C.R.P.No. 3257 of 2000 are the defendants in the suit. The revision petitioners in C.R.P.No. 3548 of 2000 are the plaintiffs in the suit. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No. 718 of 2000, both the plaintiffs and the defendants have filed these two separate revisions.2. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No. 718 of 2000 for appointment of a fresh Commissioner under Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C. The averments contained in the affidavit are as follows:- The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and possession. A Commissioner was appointed in I.A.No. 244 of 1992. Against the order passed in the said I.A., a revision was filed in the High Court. The High Court has directed the Commissioner to measure the properties with reference to old survey numbers and identify the extent of the suit properties i.e., 91 cents. When the plaintiffs filed a memo of instructions to the Commissioner to measure the properties in accordance with th...

Balu Alias Balakrishnan Vs. Minor B. Sasikumar and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2001)3MLJ15

E. Padmanabhan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the writ defendant in O.S.No. 136 of 1984 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai. Heard Mr. T.R. Rajaraman, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Mr. R. Dhamodharan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, M/s. Iyer and Dolia appearing for the 7th respondent Mr. S. Sundaragopal, learned Counsel appearing for the 8th respondent and Mr. N. Visakamurthy, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 11.2. For convenience, the parties to this appeal shall be referred as arrayed before the trial Court.3. The case of plaintiffs: The minor plaintiffs 1 and 2 through their mother and next friend instituted the suit O.S.No. 136 of 1984 seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of 2/5th share in items 1 and 2, 2/3rd share in items 3 and 4 of the plaint schedule and for a direction to pay mesne profits. The first defendant is the father of the plaintiffs. The minor plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 are members ...

M/S. Smr Parcel Service, Rep. by Its Administrative Manager, Mr. V.O. ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M.S. JANARTHANAM. J 1. The jurisdictional facts giving rise to the present action may in brevity be stated for understanding the crux of the issue arising for consideration. 2. P.L.C Lakshmanan and Brothers, Cloth Merchant (complainant) is a proprietory concern. Its proprietor is one Mr. P.L.C. Lakshmanan. 3. SMR Parcel Service, Pan Transport and Carriers Ltd. (third opposite party) is located at Chennai-600 056. One Mr. S. Ankappan(first opposite party) and one Mr. N.G. Ravichandran(second opposite party) are respectively agents of the third opposite party at Sankarankoil and Ottanchatram. 4. The second opposite party apart from being an agent of the third opposite party, was also running a business in textiles going by the name Super Textiles. The second opposite party approached the complainant to send Lungis for his business through SMR Parcel Service. On 13.09.1997, the complainant sent the requisite parcel through the first opposite party to the second opposite party through the ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. C.E.G.A.T.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2001(133)ELT319(Mad)

ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel and perused the order of the Tribunal. We are satisfied that a referable question of law requiring decision of this Court does arise.2. The Tribunal is directed to refer the following question of law and submit a statement of the case together with the material documents required for answering the question referred :-'Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the Revenue was in error in resorting to Rule 57-1 and that the proper course for the Revenue was to resort to Rule 57C for recovery of the credit taken by the manufacturer on the inputs which had admittedly been used in the manufacture of the product for which exemption had been availed such exemption having been availed under General Exemptions granted to the Small Scale Industries ?' ...

Appadirai Vs. State, Rep. by the Station House Officer, Cid Branch

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2001CriLJ3129

ORDER1. The petitioner stands accused of offences under Section 409, IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in Special C.C. No. 4/90 in the Court of the Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge) at Pondicherry. The petitioner filed a Cri. M.P. No. 974 of 1999 before the learned Sessions Judge to discharge him from the case on the ground that there was no sanction for prosecuting him. The learned Special Judge dismissed the petition holding that the accused is a public servant and as per the decision reported in 1995 Cri LJ 963 (Kerala) rendered in the case of R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State, no sanction is necessary inasmuch as he ceases to be a public servant on the date of taking cognizance of the offence against him by the said Court. Aggrieved by the order of the Special Judge, he has filed this revision, which has come up for admission.2. The petitioner was a Government Pleader at the time of the alleged commission of offence, but su...

Smithkline and French Laboratories Ltd., Represented by Its Constitute ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2001)2MLJ557

ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this appeal against the order declining to grant have to sue. The suit was for an injunction to prevent infringement as also to prevent passing off of the defendant's product as that of the plaintiffs, the product being a tablet named as 'FESOV1T. There is no dispute about the fact that this is intended for the average consumer to whom such goods were sold through chemical shops. The defendant is based in Bombay, whereas one of the two plaintiffs has an office at Madras.2. The plaintiff produced the invoices under which it had purchased the product manufactured by the defendant, such purchase having been take place at Madras. The purchase was effected from chemists who normally deal in medicines. This tablet, it is stated, is an iron tonic and is sold through chemists and druggists shop. The fact that it is manufactured by the defendant was not disputed by the defendant.3. The only ground on which the defendant wanted the leave not...

Madras Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2001]250ITR761(Mad)

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner by which the assessee's request for waiver of interest, under Section 220(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1979-80. 1980-81 and 1981-82 was rejected. The order of the Commissioner is a very elaborate order.2. Counsel for the assessee contended that for the assessment years in question, it was necessary to compute the extent of relief available under Section 80J and as that Section has been amended with retrospective effect from 1972 and the validity of the amendment had been under challenge before the Supreme Court and the law had remained uncertain till the judgment of the Supreme Court was pronounced in the case of Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India : [1985]152ITR308(SC) , upholding the validity of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, in so far as it amended Section 80J by incorporating the provisions of rule 19A, as sub-Section (1A) in Section 80J, with retrospective effect from ...