Chennai Court December 2002 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.
Smt. Sajoja Vs. the Senior Regional Manager (E.i.) Food Corporation of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ395
P.K. Mishra, J.1. On the basis of community certificate dated 5.10.82, issued by the Tahsildar, Palayamkottai, the petitioner had applied for employment under the Food Corporation of India, the second respondent herein. The petitioner was in the waiting list. Subsequently, the petitioner was given offer to join service subject to production of community certificate from the Collector. The respondent No.1 also wrote to the Collector, Tirunelveli in this matter, but the Collector has not given any reply. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order passed by the first respondent seeking for clarification from the Collector regarding community status and for a further direction to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of Assistant Grade III(GENL) without insisting on the production of another community certificate.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the community certificate had already been...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. C. Santhamani,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC59; 2003(1)CTC323; (2003)1MLJ258
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Since the appeal and Cross Objection arise against the very same award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore, the same are being disposed of by the following common judgment. Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore dated 10-1-94 in M.C.O.P.No. 224/90, Oriental Insurance Company, Pollachi has filed C.M.A.No. 690/94. Respondents 1 to 4 in this appeal, claimants have filed Cross Objection No.73/95, seeking further compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as contesting respondents 1 to 4.3. Mr. M.B. Raghavan, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, by drawing our attention to Section 95 (2) (a) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and terms and conditions of policy of insurance, namely, Ex.B-5, would contend that their liability is restricted to Rs.1,50,000/- only and that the Tribunal committed an error in passing the entire liability on the Insurance Company which is unsust...
Ramachander Laxminarayan Karva, Registered Partnership Firm, Rep. by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ246
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The appeals are arising out of the common judgment dated 23.9.1996 in C.S.Nos.975, 984, 985, 1012 and 1000 of 1987 where under the suits filed by the appellants herein were dismissed.2. The appellant herein filed the suits C.S.Nos.975, 984 and 985 of 1987 for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein and their men from infringing the appellant's registered trade mark by the offending mark 'THREE TOPS', 'Double Elephant', and the appellant's trade mark Nos.217448-B, 217450-A by the use of the offending trade mark crescent with star and also for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from passing of their goods viz., Ammonium Chloride salt bars with the offending marks on such goods which are deceptively and confusingly similar to the appellant's trade mark and for a direction to the respondents herein to surrender for destruction the Ammonium Chloride salt bars with the offending marks including the labels, stationery and other printed materia...
Sundaram Industries Employees' Union Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ147Mad
Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petitioner challenges the Government order passed by the first respondent refusing to refer the dispute to the Labour Court. The petitioner is a trade union. Its workers are employed under the second respondent-management. The petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner and the second respondent were before the conciliation officer. The conciliation officer sent his failure report dated January 17, 2001. The Government considered that and passed the order in challenge refusing to refer the dispute. The dispute before the conciliation officer was the transfer of a workman by name Sivaramakrishnan (member of the petitioner-union) from the 'machines' department to the 'moulding' department. Both the departments are in the very same factory of the second respondent. The Government in its order of refusal found that the transfer from one section of the factory to the other section so long as it does not result ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Dadakhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Mad)469
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set out a case and referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court.' Whether , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials to disregard the sale price of the property as recorded in the agreement dated 21.2.1983 which was seized under Section 132 and holding that the market value was only Rs. 76,000/- and restricting the addition to the total income of the assessee to Rs. 36,000/- as against the addition of Rs. 1,67,000/- made by the assessing authority ?'2. The assessee, an individual entered into an agreement of sale on 21.2.1983 with one Arumugam for purchase of land in an extent of 0.75 acres with an uncompleted structure of Cinema Theatre for a total consideration of Rs. 2,07,000/-. The said agreement was seized by the Revenue in the course of search conducted. The sale deed was registered on 2.3.1983 for...
Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: [2003]129STC427(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. The above tax case revision is filed under Section 42 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967, (hereinafter referred to as 'the PGST Act'.) by the revenue i.e., the Union of India represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial taxes, Government of Union Territory of Pondicherry against the order of the Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry dated 5.11.1992 made in Tax Appeal No. 1 of 1992 on the following questions of law 1. Whether the respondent, who is manufacturing liquid Chlorine in another factory taken on lease is entitled to the benefit of exemption permissible as per the Government's notification in G.O.Ms. No. 15/74/Fin.(CT) dated 25th June, 1974 of the Finance Department, Pondicherry? and 2. Whether the respondent, which is manufacturing ''Brine'' (using 'salt' and other chemicals) a new product having a distinct name, character and use is entitled to claim the benefit of tax exemption provided to 'salt' in entry No. 10 of Sch...
Jamna Products Manufacturer of Kanmaie Vs. Aravind Laboratories
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: 2003(27)PTC409(Mad)
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1996 in C.S. No. 734 of 1984 on the file of this Court.2. The respondent herein filed the said suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellant from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale of the collerium with the offending mark 'EYESEE' or any other trade mark with the device of an eye on the word 'EYE' on which is in any way deceptively or phonetically similar to or a colourable imitation of the respondent's registered trade mark 'EYETEX' and restraining the appellant from imitating the get up or any part of the get up and passing off their goods as that of the respondent. The consequential reliefs sought for in the suit are to direct the appellant to render the true account and to surrender all the cartons, labels and other printed matters containing or consisting of the offending trade mark 'EYESEE'.3. The case of the respondent is that they are the registered owners of...
Sathappa Textilers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)344; [2003]263ITR371(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. Pursuant to the direction of this Court made in Tax Case Petn. Nos. 272 and 273 of 1996, the Tribunal set out a case and referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court: '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the lands held by the assessee had not been converted into stock-in-trade 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the alternate claim of the assessee regarding the computation of capital gains on transfer of lands ?' The asst. yrs. are 1982-83 and 1983-84. 2. The facts as stated in the statement of case are as follows : The assessee was a private limited company engaged in textile business. From the asst. yr. 1982-83, it claimed that it had started business in real estate by converting part of its vacant land into stock-in-trade to carry on the business of real estate. In order to prove the same, it was contended that...
Sathappa Textilers (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: [2003]126TAXMAN491(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.Pursuant to the direction of this court made in Tax Case Petition Nos. 272 and 273 of 1996, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set out a case and referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the lands held by the assessee had not been converted into stock, in, trade ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the alternate claim of the assessee regarding the computation of capital gains on transfer of lands?'The assessment years are 1982-83 and 1983-84.2. The facts as stated in the statement of case are as follows :The assessee was a Private Limited Company engaged in textile business. From the assessment year 1982-83, it claimed that it had started business in real estate by converting part of its vacant land in to stock-in-trade to carry on the business of real estate. In order to prove th...
Dy. Cit Vs. Madurai District Co-operative Spg. Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2002
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN745(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.This appeal has been filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, in its order dated 23-11-1998 made in I.T.A. No. 680 (Mad) of 1990.2. The question of law raised in the appeal is as follows'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in allowing the deduction of Rs. 7,00,435 as revenue expenditure ?'3. The assessment year involved is 1985-86. In a similar set of facts, in the assessee's own case, in respect of the assessment year 1988-89 in T.C. No. 47 of 1998 this court has remitted the matter back to the Tribunal on the ground that there was no materials produced as regards the moderanisation expenditure, expenditure on current repairs and replacement of worn out parts as contended by the assessee were made out in accordance with the instructions given by the Director of Handlooms. The assessee might be given an opportunity to place those instructions which had not been ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »