Chennai Court December 2002 Judgments
Cit Vs. Kanyakumari Distt. Co-op. Spg. Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: [2003]128TAXMAN544(Mad)
ORDERThe Director of Handlooms and Textiles has stated that according to the spin plan for seven days' working and 15 per cent for leave /absenteeism, thetotal number of labourers required in the Kanyakumari District Co-operative Spinning Mills is 912. At present 832 permanent workers are working in the Kanyakumari District Co-operative Spinning Mills. The total number of Adi Dravida workers in the Mill is only 90, which is below the prescribed reserved ratio of 18 per cent for Scheduled Castes. In order to fill up the shortfall and to strengthen the equity base, the Mills has proposed to recruit 70 additional workers from Adi Dravida community and to avail the financial assistance of Rs. 10.50 lakhs at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per head, under 'Special Component Plan'. The Director of Handlooms and Textiles has, therefore, requested the Government's permission to recruit 70 Adi Dravida workers under Special Component Plan and to sanction Rs. 10.50 lakhs at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per work...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Tamil Nadu Sugar Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: [2003]128TAXMAN179(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to adopt the value of its closing stock at a rate which was prevalent on 25-10-1983 whereas its previous year ended on 30-9-1983 ?'2. The assessee is a wholly owned undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu, and the assessment year with which we are concerned is 1984-85, with the relevant previous year ending on 30-9-1983. The assessing officer while completing the assessment, was of the opinion that there was an undervaluation of the closing stock of the free sugar held by it. The assessee valued the closing stock of the free sugar at Rs. 330 per quintal when its accounts were finalised on 25-10-1983, but whereas the assessee closed its accounts for the assessment year in question on 30-9-1983 and according to the assessing officer, the assessee ought to have taken the selling rate of sugar prevailing on 30-9-1983 w...
Tag this Judgment!R. Chandravelu Vs. the Superintending Engineer, World Bank Circle, Tam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR280(Madras)
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The appeal is directed against the order of the learned Judge dated 9.1.1998 in O.P.840 of 1995 wherein the Award of the Arbitrator passed in favour of the appellant was set aside.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are:The appellant entered into a contract on 29.7.1988 for the construction of a retaining wall. The estimate of the work was Rs. 16,84,631-70. The tender value was less by 24% at Rs. 12,79,553-25. Since the work was not completed even beyond the extended time, the contract was terminated. According to the appellant 70% of the work had been completed as on the date of termination i.e., in February, 1991. 3. The appellant raised a dispute for the enhanced claim in respect of the work completed. The matter was referred to the Arbitrator. Before the Arbitrator, the respondent raised an objection that the appellant signed the bill in full settlement of the claim and received the amount and as such it is not open to him to claim any en...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamad Asik and anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2468
V. Kanagaraj, J. 1. All these criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8-3-2001 made in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1999 by the Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee thereby sentencing all the appellants/accused to undergo R.I. for a period of four years for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, IPC, to undergo R.I. for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, to undergo R.I. for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to undergo R.I. for a period of one month for the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908.2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants are all members of 'Al-umma' organisation, which is banned...
Tag this Judgment!N. Nallasamy Vs. K.N. Perumal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-27-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad200; (2003)1MLJ439
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. N. Nallasamy, the plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed the suit for declaration of his title in respect of the suit property and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the suit property as a cart track. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. However, in the appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff and cross objection filed by the defendants, the lower appellate Court granted decree in favour of the plaintiff in respect of declaration of title by declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit property subject to the right of cart track in the suit property to the defendants. Challenging the same, the second appeal has been filed.2. According to the plaintiff, the suit property in S. No. 302/2 was purchased by his grandfather and after his grandfather and his father and after getting the share of his brother, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The adjacent properties in S.Nos.297, 302/1 and 333 ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Krishnan and K. Varadan Vs. S. Mari Naicker and Kannammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC290; (2003)1MLJ277
C. Nagappan, J.1. This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 13.11.1989, rendered in A.S.No.15 of 1989 on the file of District Judge, Chengalpattu. The plaintiffs are the appellants in the second appeal.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are brothers undivided in status. The schedule mentioned properties have been purchased by their parents Kanniappa Naicker and Alamelu Ammal under three registered sale deeds, dated 4.11.1931, 29.11.1938 and 17.3.1939, from the first defendant's father Vedagiri Naicker for valuable consideration and they took possession of the properties and enjoyed the same. Kanniappa Naicker died in the year 1966 and Alamelu Ammal was managing the suit properties by paying kist through her brother's son, namely, the first defendant herein. Since the plaintiffs and their mother Alamelu Ammal were residing at Madras, the first defendant was requested to take care of the schedule mentioned properties and he was cultivating the lands o...
Tag this Judgment!United Industrial Engineers and ors. Vs. Sundaram Finance Services Lim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR470(Madras); (2003)2MLJ367
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. This application is filed by the applicant/plaintiff in C.S. No. 190 of 2002 to dismiss the suit and direct the parties to continue with the pending Arbitration proceedings before the sole Arbitrator Thiru S. Santhanakrishnan, Retired District Judge. 2. The case in brief is as follow : The present application is filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to dismiss the suit and refer the matter to arbitration before the sole Arbitrator already appointed. There is a valid arbitration clause under the Loan Agreements dated 223.1999, 26.5.1999, 7.6.1999 and 17.5.2000 and the parties to the agreements are bound by the same. Section 8 of the Act very clearly stipulates that if a party before a Judicial Authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration applies to the Court to refer the parties to arbitration the Court shall do so. Further, Section 5 of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Balamurugan Educational and Charitable Trust, Rep., by Its Chairma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC590
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in G.O.1(D) No. 107, Higher Education Department, dated 24.7.2002 to quash the same and to direct the respondents to pass necessary orders to enable the petitioner to run the self-financing Arts and Science College in the name and style of sri Balamaurugan College of Arts and Science, Salem Main Road, Sathappadi, via, Mecheri, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. 2. The petitioner is a Trust registered under the Provisions of the Trust Act, established for the purpose of running unaided Private Arts and Science College. According to the petitioner, Mettur Taluk is located in the most backward part of Salem District. There are many High Schools in the area. But within the radius of 35 kilometers from the proposed College, there is not even a single Arts and Science College. The nearest College is only in Salem City which ...
Tag this Judgment!Moses Christian R. Vs. Management of Valparai Estate, Tata Tea Ltd. an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-26-2002
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ113Mad
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Learned counsel for both parties agree that the Labour Court may rehear the matter and also take in evidence offered by the parties but that the Labour Court should be free to arrive at its own conclusion uninfluenced by the observations made by the learned single Judge, particularly in Paras. 8 to 10 of the order.2. The Labour Court shall consider the matter on the merits of the evidence placed before it by the parties and the observations made in the order of the learned single Judge will not be regarded as binding, by the Labour Court. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. All the miscellaneous petitions are closed....
Tag this Judgment!C.A. Abraham Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Mad)34
K. Govindarajan, J.A search was conducted in the residential premises of Shri C.A. Abraham (SR) on 14-12-1995. During the course of search, the officials had seized certain indiscriminating documents revealing the investments made by him in movable and immovable properties. It was also revealed that the assessee was doing business in Benami names. So a notice under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') was issued to him on 13-6-1996. In response to the notice, the said Abraham filed a return declaring his disclosed income at Rs. 1,50,000 on 29-8-1996. The Assistant Commissioner, Investigation, Circle I, Trichur, after hearing the assessee's representative found that the assessee did not explain the sources of investment in properties and he did not adduce any reason for not filing the return in conformity with the declaration made under section 132(4) of the Act. Though the assessee requested to keep the proceedings aside till the petition file...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »