Chennai Court July 2001 Judgments
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. C.E.G.A.T.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(134)ELT348(Mad)
ORDERR . Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Having heard Counsel, we are satisfied that a question requiring our consideration does arise.2. The Tribunal is directed to refer the following question:'Whether the export of exempted goods will entitle the assessee to claim the benefit of Modvat credit on the inputs?' 2. The Tribunal is directed to submit a statement of the case together with the relevant materials for the purpose of deciding the question....
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep S. Shah Vs. Income-tax Officer, City Ward Iv(4)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR146(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The appeal is admitted and is also being disposed of finally by this order as counsel for the Revenue who was present took notice and she has also been heard.2. The question raised concerns proper construction of Section 88(2)(xv)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment year is 1994-95. It is useful to set out Section 88(2)(xv) of the Act before we consider the question.'88. Rebate on life insurance premia, contribution to provident fund, etc,-- (2) The sums referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be any sums paid or deposited in the previous year by the assessee out of his income chargeable to tax--. . . (xv) for the purposes of purchase or construction of a residential house property the income from which is chargeable to tax under the head 'Income from house property' (or which would, if it had not been used for the assessee's own residence, have been chargeable to tax under that head), where such payments are made towards or by way of-- (a) any instalmen...
Tag this Judgment!Kanagavalli and 4 Others Vs. Saroja and 3 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad73; II(2001)DMC603; (2001)3MLJ360
ORDER1. The substantial question of law that arises in the second appeal is with regard to the application of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to the appellants 2 to 5 herein and the construction of documents for deciding the paternity of these appellants. The appellants' case is that they are the legal heirs of one Natarajan. This Natarajan was originally married to the 1st respondent herein. The 2nd respondent is their son. The 3rd respondent is the mother of Natarajan. The relationship between the said Natarajan and the 1st respondent was not good and she was living separately and even after Natarajan obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, there was no reunion between the two. Subsequently, the 1st appellant claims to have married the said Natarajan in 1976 and the appellants 2 to 5 were born to them. Natarajan was working in Cholan Roadways Corporation when he died on24.02.1993. Therefore, the suit was filed for a declaration that the appellants are the leg...
Tag this Judgment!Wankanner JaIn Social Welfare Society Rep. by President, No. 7, First ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ445
ORDER1. The dismissal of the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has given rise to the revision. The respondent filed O.S.No.8628 of 1998 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and office bearers of the petitioner Society from conducting the foreign joy tour and for other reliefs. The respondent is a member of the petitioner Society. The objectives of the Society inter alia are to help the members of the Society by way of loan or other assistance, to promote business, trade etc. The bye-laws of the petitioner Society provides for an arbitration clause whereby, all matters, disputes etc. arising in the course of the conduct of the Society affairs or arising in the course of or out of transaction between members inter se shall be settled only be arbitration by a sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator was a nominee appointed by the Managing Committee of the petitioner Society. The respondent filed the above suit and prayed for interim injunction restr...
Tag this Judgment!Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Principal Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ111Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. This writ appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent has been preferred againstthe order of the learned single Judge, dated October 27, 1993, made in Writ Petition No. 534 of 1995 on the file of this Court.2. Heard Ms. Narmada Sampath for Sri Vijayanarayanan for the appellant. Ms. Kalaiselvi learned Special Government Pleader for the second respondent and Ms. Kamala Priya for Sri D. Saravanan for respondents 3 to 70.3. The appellant is a State Transportundertaking and there is no dispute that it isamenable to the writ jurisdiction as otherauthority under Article 12 of the Constitution. Respondents Nos. 3 to 70 are the workmenemployed in the appellant-Corporation. Thesaid workmen relied upon G.O. Ms. No. 28Transport Department, dated January 7, 1981,and G.O. Ms. No. 26, Transport Departmentdated January 5, 1982, claimed performanceincentive while other workers are being paidperformance incentive for the period in dispute.The quantum of performance incentive ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Hajee A.M. Abdul Rahiman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(133)ELT23(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal has held that the question of unjust enrichment has not arisen for consideration and that restrictions imposed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act with regard to refund of duty will not apply to claims for refund when the matter is still at the stage of provisional assessment, and no final assessment to duty has been made.2. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, in the majority judgment at paragraph 95 has made the following observations :'Rule 9B provides for provisional assessment in situations specified in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-rule (1). The goods provisionally assessed under Sub-rule (1) may be cleared for home consumption or export in the same manner as the goods which are finally assessed. Sub-rule (5) provides that 'when the duty leviable on the goods is assessed finally in accordance with the provisions of these Rules, the duty provisionally assessed shall be ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Kasimuthu Veerapandian Vs. V. Guruvammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ467
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The successful plaintiff in O.S.No. 343 of 1985 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti, has preferred the second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, made in A.S.No. 20 of 1980 dated 19.3.1991 reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 21.12.1987.2. The case in brief is as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that item 1 of the property is endowed to the II Schedule Trust and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from purchasing the properties. The suit properties originally belonged to Veerabagu Chettiar and his wife, the first defendant. They executed two Trust Deeds under Exs.A-1 and A-2. They founded the Trust as mentioned in the II Schedule and the properties covered under the first schedule were absolutely dedicated. The trust and the Charity has to be carried on with the funds realised from the first schedule. After their lifetime, the eldest male membe...
Tag this Judgment!Manikkam Ammal and ors. Vs. Appavu Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ420
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Plaintiffs in O.S.No. 37 of 1981 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam are the appellant herein. They filed the said suit for passing a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of their 3/5th share in Schedule A, B, C and D properties. The learned Subordinate Judge on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 1.9.1988, dismissed the suit; hence the present appeal by the plaintiffs.2. The case of the plaintiffs as set out in the plaint are briefly stated hereunder: The plaintiffs are the daughters and defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of one deceased Ponnia Mudaliar and his wife Unnamalai Ammal. Third defendant is the son of the first defendant. Unnamalai Ammal, mother of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 died intestate on 20.5.1978 leaving behind her surviving husband Ponnia Mudaliar, plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 as her legal heirs. Ponnia Mudaliar died intestate on 23.4.1979 leaving behind...
Tag this Judgment!Vaiyapuri Vs. M. Sundaresan and 10 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad28; (2001)3MLJ219
ORDER1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 221 of 1979 by the subordinate Judge, Karur on 14.8.1984.2. The sixth defendant is the appellant herein.3. The plaint averments are summarised as follows: The plaintiff, third defendant and one R.S.Vasantha were the partners of the business run by M/s. MS SV Traders. The business is to purchase and sell cottons, cotton wastes and yarn. Subsequently, Vasantha retired on 7.7.1978 and the plaintiff and the third defendant continued the business under the same name and style in the same place with same assets and liabilities. Thereafter, the third defendant also retired from the partnership relinquishing the rights under the said partnership in favour of the plaintiff. The third defendant is impleaded as a party to avoid any technical difficulty and no relief is prayed for against him. The first defendant purchased goods from the plaintiff on credit basis from 26.7.1978 and he has made various payments. The ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Subramani Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Govt. F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ255
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the employee of the Judiciary praying therein for a writ of certiorari quashing the communication dated 13.12.1999 by the second respondent Registrar and directing the respondents to provide medical aid of Rs.50,000 to the petitioner. Following facts will highlight the controversy.2. Petitioner who was at the relevant time working as a junior bailiff, was suffering from diabetes for a long time and on his condition becoming worse, he was admitted to J.M.Hospital, Trichy. It was diagnosed that his kidneys were affected and surgery had to be performed to save his life and accordingly two surgeries were performed; one on 15.4.1997 on the right kidney and on 10.6.1997 on the left kidney. These surgeries were performed in a private hospital.3. The State of Tamil Nadu had floated a scheme called 'Government Employees Health Fund' by its order dated 9.1.1992. Under that, the government employees were to receive the medical help from a h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »