Chennai Court September 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.
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Arumuganainar and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ1011Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, who is the petitioner in this writ petition, prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the award, dated December 12, 1994, made in I.D. No. 613 of 1992 on the file of the second respondent, Labour Court and quash the same.2. Heard Sri A.R. Ramanathan forRamasubramaniam and Associates for thewrit-petitioner and Sri Rahul. for the firstrespondent- workman. 3. For the convenience, the parties will be referred as the management, Labour Court and worker.4. In the award of the second respondent Labour Court bare facts have not even been set out to give a clear picture and there were material omissions. The counsel on either side requested this Court to refer to the documents marked on their behalf and examine the matter de novo.5. The workman claiming that he was employed by the petitioner- management, raised an industrial dispute. The workman mainly contended that without even following the...
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Co. Vs. Vani Vilas Snuff Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: 2003(27)PTC413(Mad)
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. O.A. No. 98/2001 has been filed for granting of interim injunction restraining the respondents from manufacturing, selling or offering & advertising for sale the snuff in pouches with similar get up and colour scheme of the applicants pouch and pass off the goods as the goods of the applicants or enable other to pass off pending disposal of the suit and O.A. No. 99/2001 has been filed for granting interim injunction restraining the respondents from committing infringement of the Copyright, which the applicants have in their artistic work contained in the pouches/sachets by distributing, printing or causing to be printed the work or in any manner infringe the applicants work pending disposal of the suit.2. The case of the applicants is as follows : The applicant has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from (1) infringing the applicants copyright in the Sachet, (2) passing off the respondents goods as those of the applicants using the ...
Sun Gas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: [2002]125STC496(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal has held that no personal hearing is required when a certificate of registration is cancelled on the ground that the renewal had not been sought. That view is correct, having regard to what has been set out in Section 21(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. That provision reads as under :'21. Procedure for registration.--(3) The certificate issued under Sub-section (2) shall be valid for one year or five years, as the case may be, and shall be renewed in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed on payment of the fee specified in Sub-section (1). The certificate shall be deemed to have been cancelled unless it has been renewed.'2. Rule 24 of the Rules framed under the Act deals with various details regarding registration. In Sub-rule (9) of that rule it is provided thus :'Every registered dealer shall, until his registration is cancelled, submit an application in form D and pay the fee of rupees two hundred only speci...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR68(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu , J.1. The assessment year is 1980-81.2. The questions requiring our consideration are as to whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction in the liability for payment of sales tax on the ground that the amount collected for payment of sales tax had not been paid over to the Government by reason of a dispute raised by the assessee regarding the taxability of the transaction; and as to whether the depreciation, extra shift allowance, interest on loan taken, and investment allowance in relation to the tele typesetter owned by the assessee, but installed in the premises of its associate concern at Bombay, should be restricted only to a proportion thereof, by reason of the product of that machine being used by the assessee as also by its associate company.3. As regards the first question, that has to be answered in favour of the assessee, having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jonnalla Narashimharao and Co. v. CIT : [1993]200ITR588(SC) . T...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Padma Narasimhan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR441(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessees were partners in the firm--T.T. Krishnamachari and Company, which came into existence on May 1, 1957. On June 30, 1976, one of the partners retired and the firm was reconstituted.2. The four partners of the reconstituted firm executed a memorandum of agreement on October 14, 1976, as follows :'This records the unanimous agreement of all partners to treat their personal assets consisting of shares in the joint stock companies as fully described in the annexure hereto, as the property of the partnership firm as on and from October 1, 1976. Adjustments of the value of shares will be taken at the face value or at the break up value of shares whichever is higher. The value of shares as worked out above shall be credited to the individual partner's current account and this will, therefore, be treated as investments by the firm entitling the firm to have all the benefits including dividend, bonus, shares, etc. Due intimation to the respective companies wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›