Chennai Court July 2001 Judgments
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Madanagopal Lakshmi and Anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2001
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ130Mad
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, J.1. Challenging the judgment of acquittal of the respondents, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation has filed this appeal.2. The appellant filed a complaint against the respondents/accused for the offence under Section 85(a) punishable under Section 85(1) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 alleging that the respondents accused did not pay the employees' contribution charges along with the employer's share of contribution within the time stipulated.3. Though the said case was contested by the respondents on the ground that it was barred by limitation, the trial Court upheld thecontention of the prosecution that the complaint was within time. However, the trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the sanction granted under Section 86(1) of the Act was not a valid one. This finding has been challenged by the appellant before this Court in this appeal.4. I heard the counsel for the appellant.5. Despite the fact that the appeal is pending from...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Athmanathaswamy Devasthanam, Avidyarkoil by Its Hereditary Trustee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ624
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The appellant filed suits in S.S. Nos.29 of 1963, 31 of 1963 and 1 of 1964 on the file of the Sub-Collector, Pattukottai under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act for recovery of arrears of rent.2. According to the appellant/ plaintiff, they are the owners of the lands situated in three villages, namely, Kalagm, Arasalankarambai and Palayanagaram. The 1st defendant Sri Gopalaswamy Ayyangar was inducted into possession of large uncultivated blocks of lands situated in the said village. The said lands were handed over on lease by the then Pandara Sannadhi to the 1st defendant on the basis of the letter given by the 1st defendant, and the appellant- Devasthanam agreed not to claim any amounts from the 1st defendant in respect of the said three villages. A suit in O.S. No. 22 of 1951 was filed for damages for use and occupation for faslis 1357 to 1360 on the ground that the transaction inducting the 1st defendant into the lands was invalid as the lease was grant...
Tag this Judgment!Tower Steels (India) Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus., Madu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: 2002(140)ELT5(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. The above writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in C. No. IV/16/2/2000/Adjn. (Vol II), dated 8-5-2001 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law and further direct the respondent to assess and permit clearance of the imported materials covered under Bill of Entry No. 00006, dated 13-3-2001 on accepting the assessed customs duty as per Bill of Entry.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has imported light melting scraps (misprint sheets and sheet cutting scraps) that the petitioner classified the goods as Light Melting scraps falling under sub-heading 7204.49 of Customs Tariff Act and the rate of duty applicable is 10%, but however the Department on suspicion seized the goods under Mahazar that the petitioner by his letter dated 2-4-2001, 11-4-2001 and 26-4-2001 requested for the release of the goods unde...
Tag this Judgment!Tiruchengode Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR64]; (2002)ILLJ1105Mad
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of P.C. Appeal No. 20 of 1994 on the file of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, and to quash, the same.2. According to the petitioner, the Tiruchengode Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., the third respondent filed P.G. Case No. 71 of 1993 before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The said proceedings were initiated under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act claiming Rs. 12,000 from the petitioner-society as due towards the third respondent as though he was employed for about 40 years with the wages of Rs. 1,200 per month. It was also stated that the third respondent had resigned with effect from June 28, 1993.3. Considering the nature of the disposal of the writ petition, I do not propose to take into account the various claims made by the pet...
Tag this Judgment!S. Priyadarsan Vs. Jt. Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)73TTJ(Chennai)738
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 24-7-2000, and relates to the assessment year 1997-98. The main issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is regarding the addition of Rs. 25 lakh as income to the returned income of the assessee.Both parties were heard in detail regarding their stands in respect of issue raised in the appeal.The admitted facts that are necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that the assessee is a famous film director and he is receiving advances from the producers and whenever he works for the said producer who paid the advance he used to offer a part of advance as income for the relevant period and showing the balance advance as due to the producer showing it in the list of sundry creditors. The assessee has filed this return for the present three years admitting an income of Rs. 20,72,730 and this was processed by the assessing officer under section 143(1)(a) adding an additional sum of Rs. 25 lak...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.S. Karuppasamy and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR591(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu , J.1. The Tribunal has held that the conduct of the assessee was bona fide and the mere fact that the additional income was declared by filing a revised return would not by itself warrant an inference that the assessee had deliberately concealed the income, with the consequence of being penalised. No question of law requiring any consideration arises. We see no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Owning Southern Railway Rep. by Its General Manager, Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ635; (2001)3MLJ244
ORDERK. Narayana Kurup, J.1. One Samishankar along with his wife Krishammal, their son Saravanan and his brother in law Panchavarnam was traveling from Dadar to Madras on 22.9.1990 in Dadar Express. After the train left Renigunta Railway Station, Samishankar went to the toilet, where a sharp rusted iron plate protruding from the toilet wall struck him, as a result of which, he sustained bleeding injury on the neck and later succumbed to the same, giving rise to claim petition as O.A.No.93 of 1995 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai.2. Before the Tribunal, the Railways contended inter alia that the claim petition is barred by limitation; that the incident in question is neither an 'accident' nor an 'untoward incident', as defined under Sections 123 and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and in that view, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal, while condoning the delay in preferring the claim petition, after rendering a finding that there is sufficient cause for ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Tamilselvan, Rep. by the Power of Attorney Agent J. Rajendran Vs. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ241
ORDER1. The petitioner who was a minor on 5.12.1989 was travelling along with his father and mother in their car and proceeding towards Tirupathi. The car met with an accident at Pudur Village. While the petitioner and his father sustained injuries, the mother died. The petitioner's father filed three claim petitions. First one for injuries on the minor, second one for injuries on himself and the third one for the death of his wife. The said claim petitions were filed on 11.1.1991 beyond the period of limitation of one year as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and hence in M.C.O.P.SR.NOS.337, 339 and 341 the petitioner's father had also filed petitions under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the claim petition. The Tribunal dismissed the petition namely, I.A.Nos.337, 338 and 339 of 1991 on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 beyond the prescribed period....
Tag this Judgment!Bharathi Ammal Vs. Jayaraman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ391
K. Sampath, J.1. The second appeal in S.A. No. 183 of 1990 arises out of A.S.No. 50 of 1989 on the file of the learned Second Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, which was against the decision of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge at Pondicherry in O.S.No. 336 of 1981.2. The second appeal in S.A.No. 184 of 1990 arises out of A.S.No. 48 of 1989 on the file of the learned Second Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, and it was against the decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge in O.S.No. 289 of 1981.3. The appellant in both the second appeals is the same. She was the plaintiff in O.S.No. 289 of 1981 and the seventh defendant in O.S.No. 336 of 1981. The suit in O.S.No. 289 of 1981 was filed by her for cancellation of the agreement dated 9.1.1980 executed by one Manjini Naicker in favour of the defendant Jayaraman. The suit in O.S.No. 336 of 1981 was filed by Jayaraman against the legal representatives of Manjini Naicker as defendants 1 to 6 and the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!A. Tamilselvan Vs. Senthil Constructions and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2001
Reported in: I(2003)ACC218
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner who was a minor on 5.12.1989, was travelling along with his father and mother in their car and proceeding towards Tirupathi. The car met with an accident at Pudur Village. While the petitioner and his father sustained injuries, the mother died. The petitioner's father filed three claim petitions. First one for injuries on the minor, second one for injuries on himself and the third one for the death of his wife. The said claim petitions were filed on 11.1.1991 beyond the period of limitation of one year as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and hence in M.C.O.P. SR. Nos. 337, 339 and 341 the petitioner's father had also filed petitions under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the claim petition. The Tribunal dismissed the petition namely, I.A. Nos. 337, 338 and 339 of 1991 on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »