Chennai Court October 2002 Judgments
Cit Vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN64(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.Two questions have been referred to us by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which read as under :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing the assessing officer to exclude the expenditure incurred by the assessee on maintenance of the building owned by the assessee and used by the Managing Director as residence in computing the disallowance under section 40(c) of the Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the excise duty incentive should be included for the purpose of computing relief under section 80HH ?'2. As far as the first question of law referred to us is concerned, it is for the assessment year 1986-87. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee has submitted that the issue raised in the said question is liable to be answered in favour of the assessee, in view of the decision in the case of CI...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Cements Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-2002
Reported in: [2004]265ITR479(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In compliance with the directions of this court in T. C. P. No. 142 of 1996 dated July 11, 1997, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified in taking recourse to Section 154 to make disallowance under Section 43B of the sales tax collected by the assessee and was shown as outstanding liability as on March 31, 1984 ?'2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1984-85. In the original assessment made by the Income-tax Officer, it was found that he did not make any disallowance under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act on certain amounts collected by way of deposits. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under Section 154 of the Act on the ground that the deposits were collected towards the sales tax, if any, ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oxygen Employees Union, Rep. by Its General Secretary and V. Sr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR100]; (2003)IILLJ222Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The writ petition praying to issue a writ of declaration that Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is unconstitutional to the extent it does not require the consent of a workman for transfer of the services on the transfer of an undertaking and consequently direct the second respondent to continue the second petitioner in service from 01.10.98 and pay him all the wages and other dues as before 01.10.98 or in the alternative issue a writ of declaration that the sale by the second respondent to the third respondent vide the second respondent's notice No. PD/ID/002 dated 30.09.98 does not constitute a transfer of undertaking as per the proviso to Section 25FF of the Act and consequently direct the second respondent to continue the second petitioner in its service in the same manner as before 01.10.98 without any interruption and pay all his arrears and wages and other benefits.2. In the affidavit filed in support ...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjappan Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC642; 2004ACJ690; (2003)1MLJ187
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The appellant was travelling in a goods vehicle on 15.09.1990 when on account of the rash and negligent driving of that vehicle by it's driver the vehicle dashed against another goods vehicle. The appellant sustained injuries in that accident. The Tribunal awarded a compensation in the sum of Rs.2,95,000/- with interest at 15%. The insurer appealed contending that in terms of the policy that had been issued on 05.12.1989, though that policy was issued after the date on which the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had come into force, it's liability was limited only to Rs.10,000/- as that was the figure mentioned in that policy. The learned single Judge acceded to that argument of the insurer and limited it's liability to Rs.10,000/-. He took the view that the liability does not arise under the statute, but under the contract of the insurance and therefore, the limitation provided in the contract would bind the insurer as also the claimant.2. Section 147 of the Motor Vehic...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliathal and ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ51
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The appellants are legal representatives of the deceased, who was the owner of the tractor, which hit him resulting in his death. The appellants made a claim for compensation for the death of the deceased. The insurance company resisted the claim on the ground that the insurance policy covers only third party risk and not the risk to the life of the insured himself. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the owner of the vehicle should be construed as a third party, as he was walking along the road at the time of the accident and, therefore, awarded compensation. The question before the learned single Judge was as to whether the legal representatives of the insured can claim compensation from the insurer. Relying on Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the liability of the owner, for the death of a person who himself is the insured. The learned single Judge also h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Monarch Tools Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Mad)463; [2003]260ITR258(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The common question referred for opinion of this court pursuant to the order dated January 17, 1997, made in T. C. P. Nos. 99 and 100 of 1996 is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the interest from fixed deposits in banks should be treated as business income ?'2. The facts from which the above said question arose are as follows :The assessment years are 1985-86 and 1986-87. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of design, fabrication, erection and commissioning of plant and machinery of paper mills and, inter alia, received advances from the customers. Since it was not necessary to employ the entire funds so received immediately for the purpose of business, the excess fund available with the assessee was deposited with the banks as fixed deposits for varying periods. The interest income earned by the assessee in a sum of Rs. 3,37,390 for the assessment year 1985-86 w...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. India Cements Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN190(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. In compliance of the directions of this court in T.C.P. No. 142 of 1996, dated 11-7-1997 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law for our consideration :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessing officer was not justified in taking recourse to section 154 to make disallowance under section 43B of the sales tax collected by the assessee and was shown as outstanding liability as on 31-3-1984?'2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1984-85. In the original assessment made by the Income Tax Officer, it was found that he did not make any disallowance under section 43B of the Income Tax Act on certain amounts collected by way of deposits. Subsequently, the Income Tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 154 of the Act on the ground that the deposits were collected towards the sale tax, if any, payable by th...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Niyamathullah Vs. V. Sahitha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC747; (2003)1MLJ47
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The facts, in the both the revision petitions, are similar and therefore, both the revision petitions are taken together and disposed of by this common order.2. The revision petitioner is the landlord, who has filed the petitions, under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for eviction of the tenant, on the ground that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent. Incidentally, it is also stated that the tenant has sublet the premises.3. The respondent/tenant filed a counter, giving some explanations for non payment of rent.4. As the respondents/tenants have not paid the rent, the petitioner/landlord filed a petition under Section 11(4) of the Act, to direct the tenants to pay the arrears of rent, due for the period set forth in the petition, failing which to stop all further proceedings and to direct the respondents/tenants to put the petitioner in possession of th...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P.R. Govindarajulu Vs. Srinivasa Vyas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ758
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 5450 of 1996 is the revision petitioner in both the petitions. He has filed petitions before the court below in I.A. No. 7517 to permit the Petitioner / Plaintiff to examine himself and to let in further evidence and I.A. No. 7518 of 2002 to re-open the evidence on the side of the plaintiff and to recall PW1. Both the petitions were dismissed by the court below, hence the present revision petitions. 2. The facts of the case is that after completion of the plaintiff's side evidence, the respondent/defendant has filed a petition in I.A. No. 5963 of 2002 to condone the delay in filing 17 documents and the same was allowed as the petitioner herein has not opposed the same. Later, the petitioner herein has filed the applications in I.A. Nos. 7517 and 7518 of 2002 stated above. 2. Mr. Natanasabapathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein has filed a petition under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC, but the...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Officer, Ayyalur Town Panchayat Vs. A. Mahalakshmi, M. D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ41
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The defendant, in OS. No. 134/2000, on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, is the revision petitioner.2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed an application in IA. No. 389/2000 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and value the suit property, with the help of a Chartered Engineer and to file a report, with regard to the value of the buildings demolished and left undemolished in the suit property and the same was allowed by the court below, by order dated 5.9.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this civil revision petition. 3. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, not to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they and 40 others put up constructions, in the suit property about 50 years ago and they have been enjoying the same. The defendant, without followin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »