Chennai Court June 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Cit Vs. New India Maritime Agencies (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR732(Mad)
Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, J. At the instance of the revenue, the following questions have been referred to us :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the properties at No. 4, Nungambakkam High Road, Madras, and Balmal Apartments, Bombay, are business assets and no notional income from such properties should be estimated and assessed under the head 'Income from house property' ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that depredation and other expenses relatable to the properties in question occupied by the directors as their residence, should be allowed as a deduction under the head 'Business' ?'2. Identical questions have been decided by this court in the case of CIT v. New India Maritime Agencies (P) Ltd. : [1994]207ITR392(Mad) , wherein it has been held thus :'When a company gives its house as residence to its director, it i...
A. Radhakrishnan Vs. Ito
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR676(Mad)
N. Dhinakar J. This revision is directed against the orders of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-1), Chennai, allowing the petition filed under sections 246(6) and 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the respondent-complaintant The proceedings against the petitioner-accused were initiated by way of a private complaint.After the complaint was taken on file, the witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 5, mentioned in the complaint, were examined and thereafter, the petitioner was questioned. The learned magistrate finding that there is a prima facie case framed a charge and the trial proceeded. After completion of the trial, the petitioner was questioned under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. After the questioning of the petitioner, the prosecution filed a petition under sections 246(6) and 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, with a prayer that witnesses Nos. 6 to 10 mentioned in the complain...
Cit Vs. D.K. Nambudripad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR601(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The revenue contends that because the assessee was born, though long prior to the independence of this country, in the area that subsequently formed the State of Kerala, the assessee is bound by all the enactments passed by the State of Kerala in the field of his personal law, more than 25 years after independence. The statute on which the revenue relied is the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975.The facts noticed by the Tribunal show that the assessee had, when the princely States of Cochin and Travancore had existed and the composite Madras Presidency was also in existence prior to Independence, obtained a certificate of naturalisation on 17-9-1940, by which he became a British subject, which status he had till the country gained independence. The assessee joined the Madras Government Service in 1941 and retired from that service in 1969. Throughout his service he had worked within the Madras Presidency, State of Tamil Nadu only. After his reti...
S.S. Ramaswamy Vs. the Special Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Cons ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad33
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner and his wife are registration certificate holders under the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order 1973. Pursuant to the policy of the Government issued in G.O. Ms. No. 202 Food and Co-operation Department dated 23-3-1982, the State Government directed that the wholesalers in the district shall henceforth supply the kerosene only to the following categories of retailers :-(a) Retailers operating under the publicdistribution system i.e., the fair price shops run by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and Co-operatives; (b) The private retailers holding kerosene retail registration certificate and who arc exclusively dealing with kerosene for their livelihood and were attached with family cards not exceeding 500 for distribution of kerosene to the cards; and (c) Hand cartmen holding retail registration certificate and were doing street vending in Kerosene. The said guidelines were challenged before this Court and this Court in the ju...
Management of Fenner India Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1643Mad
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Having heard the learned counsel and perused the award, as also the evidence of the witnesses referred to therein, it is clear that the Labour Court has not considered all the evidence that had been placed before it before reaching the conclusion that the claimant before it was a workman and was not a supervisor.2. The tests, viz, whether the claimant had the power to grant leave to and take disciplinary action against the other workers are wrong tests applied by the Labour Court for deciding as to whether the claimant was a supervisor or a workman.3. Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, defines 'workman' as including persons performing supervisory work, in the category of workman. However, they are excluded from that category, if their monthly salary exceed the limit specified in that definition. The work performed by a supervisor, clearly, is different from the work performed by a Manager, Managers are excluded from the category of workmen in the defin...
L and T. Mcneil Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1655Mad
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. These two batches of writ petitions are filed against the award by which the claim of seven persons, who are admittedly casual workmen for reinstatement was rejected, monetary compensation however was awarded to them.2. The record before the Labour Court was an extremely slender one, the oral evidence being only that of the workmen who merely stated that they had joined in the year 1989, and their services were terminated in April 1991, after a period of roughly 14 months during which they were paid a sum of Rs. 750 per month. According to them, that amount was calculated for the days for which they had actually worked, no payment being made for Sundays. It was admitted by them that they were not given work on all days, and they were free to stay away from work, if they did not want to work. It was further admitted by them that numerous benefits available to the permanent workmen were not available to them by reason of their being casual workmen. It is their fur...
K. Chithra and ors. Vs. K. Muthuperumal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ265
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 11.12.2000 made in I.A.No. 469 of 2000 in O.S.No. 116 of 2000 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai thereby allowing the application filed by a third party under Order 1, Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Tracing the history of the case it comes to be known that the petitioners herein have filed the suit in O.S.No. 116 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge. Devakottai against the respondents 2 and 3 herein for a bare injunction wherein the suit property is a terraced house constructed in an area of 2,358 1/2 sq.ft.3. During the pendency of the said suit, the first respondent herein, who is a third party to the proceedings, filed an application before the lower Courts under Order 1, Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to implead him as a party-defendant to the suit being an interested party.4. In the af...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Essan Investments Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR83(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1 .The two questions referred to us concerning the assessment year 1983-84 under the Income-tax Act, 1961, are required to be, and is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in the lightof the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. : [1998]231ITR308(SC) . The assessee is admittedly engaged in the business of leasing of earth-moving equipment. The fact that such earth-moving equipment was utilised in industrial activity was not in dispute. As held by the apex court, it is not necessary in order to claim this allowance, that the assessee himself should be engaged in the manufacture. The fact that the machinery owned by the assessee is leased to manufacturers and used for manufacture is sufficient.2. The reference is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR360(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Counsel have agreed that the question referred to us is covered by a judgment of this court in the case of CIT v. Sholinger Textiles Ltd. : [1999]240ITR908(Mad) , wherein, an identical question was considered by this court and the answer was given by this court against the Revenue, and in favour of the assessee.2. The question referred to is answered in favour of the assessee....
The Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras, Rep. by Its Chairman, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad413; (2001)3MLJ195
ORDER1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 3016 of 1984 by the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras on 1.9.86,2. Plaintiff is the appellant herein.3. The plaint averments can be summarised as follows: The ship 'ZARATHUSTRA' of which the first defendant is the Shipping Agent, arrived at Madras on 6.6.78 and amongst other goods a consignment of 100 bales second-hand refugee clothings under mark Mr. Ramachandran, Madras-1/100 was landed. The plaintiff as usual on the defendant's request, received and rendered the necessary services therefor. No one filed any import application with defendant's delivery order for clearance of the consignment and as it was lying in the plaintiff's transit area uncleared for a considerable time, the same was removed to the Uncleared Goods Warehouse. The plaintiff thereupon gave notice to the defendants on 14.2.79 that application is being made to the Customs for the sale of the goods under Section 61 of the Ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »