Chennai Court February 2002 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ananda Jothi Finance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR144(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. The question of law, on which we are called upon to answer the reference, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sub-partnership is a legally permissible device and by entering into sub-partnership, a partner will not become a benamidar of any other person and, therefore, the assessee-firm is entitled for registration ?'2. The assessee-firm, a firm of ten partners, constituted under a partnership deed dated February 9, 1979, applied for registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for which it filed an application in Form No. 10. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer the fact that each of the partners had entered into a sub-partnership with others and, consequently, the share of each partner of the income of the assessee-firm would have to be shared among the partners of the sub-partnership. Signif...
Tag this Judgment!Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Micro Labs Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(24)PTC701(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. Petition filed under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to stay the operation of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 1 of 1999 dated 19.10.2001 on the file of the III Additional District Judge of Krishnagiri pending disposal of this appeal.2. The case in brief is as follows :- The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/appellant from using the trade mark BECEF or any other mark as may be identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark BICEF either by manufacturing, selling or in any manner advertising the same. They also sought for a direction to surrender the labels, literatures, packaging materials and dies, etc. They moved an application for interim injunction on 12.03.1999 and it was dismissed on 22.11.1999. They have not filed any appeal against the order of dismissal. However, ultimately the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioner/appellant has been m...
Tag this Judgment!Ravichandramoorthy R. and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR459]; (2003)ILLJ729Mad
D. Murugesan, J. 1. The petitioners were appointed in the second respondent- management as Chemistry Lab Assistant, carpenter and pump operator on February 26, 1986, October 18, 1984, March 18, 1985, respectively. On March 31, 1988, the services of first and fourth petitioners were terminated. On March 17, 1988, the services of second and third petitioners were terminated. Hence, the petitioners filed claim statement before the Labour Court, Coimbatore questioning the non-employment along with 16 other employees on the ground that the same is illegal and unjustified and for an award, directing the second respondent to reinstate the petitioners with full back-wages and continuity of services and other benefits along with compensation, interest and back- wages. The said dispute was adjudicated in I.D.No. 346 of 1989. By an award, dated February 16, 1995, the Labour Court, Salem, directed the second respondent herein to pay only compensation to the petitioners while declining reinstatemen...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Ananda Jothi Finance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Mad)226
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.The question of law, on which we are called upon to answer the reference, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sub-partnership is a legally permissible device and by entering into sub-partnership, a partner will not become a benamidar of any other person and, therefore, the assessee-firm is entitled for registration ?'2. The assessee-firm, a firm of ten partners, constituted under a partnership deed applied for registration under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for which it filed an application in Form 10. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee brought to the notice of the assessing officer the fact that each of the partners had entered into a sub-partnership with others consequently, the share of each partner of the income of assessee-firm would have to be shared among the partners of the sub-partnership. Significantly enough, all the ten partners have take...
Tag this Judgment!Rt Rev Dr. V. Devasahyam, Bishop in Madras Csi and anr. Vs. D. Sahayad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ501
ORDER1. Defendants in O.S.No.293 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2001 in I.A.No. 777 of 2001 in the said suit, has filed the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Plaintiffs/respondents herein filed the said suit (O.S.No.293 of 2001) before the Sub Court, Cuddalore against the defendants/petitioners herein for declaration declaring that the Church of Holy Epiphany, Cuddalore is an independent entity outside the control of the Church of South India and that the suit property belongs absolutely to the Church of Holy Epiphany, and restraining the defendants, their men, agents or any person claiming under them by a decree of permanent injunction from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the suit property and their right to administer the affairs of The Church of Holy Epiphany. Pending suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.777 of 2001 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Tiruvallur Municipality Vs. Presiding Officer, First Add ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ1147Mad
A.K. Rajan, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed against the common award passed by the First Additional Labour Court setting aside the dismissal and reinstating the workers who are the second respondent in all the writ petitions. The second respondent in all the writ petitions were employees of the petitioner, Tiruvallur Municipality. Originally they were employed as gang mazdoors from December 1, 1988 to March 25, 1992. On March 25, 1992, all of them were terminated from service on the grounds that they were only employed on daily wages they were temporary employees and they were performing the work based on the estimated funds and that once the estimated funds are exhausted there was no work available for them and therefore, they had to be terminated. The case of the writ-petitioner/ municipality is that the workers were only temporary employees working on daily wages for a specific purpose of a particular project and they knew objectively well even at the time of the appointme...
Tag this Judgment!Alphonse Vs. S. Dharmaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ185
P. Shanmugam, J. 1. C.M.A. No.1397 of 1996 is the petitioner's appeal against thedismissal of O.P. No.16 of 1993 filed by her for judicial separation.C.M.A. No.1398 of 1996 is an appeal filed by the plaintiff/wifeagainst the dismissal of the suit O.S. No.25 of 1996 for a decree to cancelthe deeds executed by her in favour of her husband and for return of thejewels and money. C.M.A. No.1399 of 1996 is filed by the respondent/wife in O.P. No.24of 1992 against the order passed restoring the conjugal rights in favour ofthe husband. 2. All the three matters were decided by a common judgment dated30.6.1994 by the Family Court Judge at Pondicherry.3. The facts of the case are stated hereunder :The marriage between the appellant/wife and the respondent/husbandtook place as per the Christian Law on 15.9.1969. Out of their wedlock, theappellant had given birth to three children, each of them suffering with somedeficiency. The appellant purchased four items of property under ExhibitsA.6, A.7, A.8...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Appavu Chettiar Sons, Madurai Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR289(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1.Two questions have been referred by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras. They are:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase the disallowance of salary payments amounting toRs.1,92,000/- to the partners of the assessee-firm by invokingsection 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is right in law? Whether on the facts and in the cirumstances of thecase the disallowance of interest payments amounting toRs.8,412/- to the partners of the assessee-firm in theirindividual capacity by the assesseepartnership by invokingsection 40(b) of the Act is justified in law? At the beginning of his arguments, the learned senior counselappearing for the assessee categorically stated that he was notarguing the second question. We are, therefore, only concernedwith the first question here which relates to the salary paymentsmade to the partners of the assessee firm. 2. One M/s. RM. Appavu Chettiar Sons, Madurai, whichis a partnership firm, is the assessee. In the rele...
Tag this Judgment!R. Vetriselvan Vs. Tamil Nadu Merchantile Bank Ltd.,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ487
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The appeals arise out of common order of the learnedsingle Judge dated 10.1.2001 in Application Nos.855, 856, 4371to 4373 and 4631 of 2000 in C.S.685 of 2000.2. The appeals are taken up for final disposaljointly with the consent of the counsel appearing for therespective parties. The appellant filed the said suit C.S.685of 2000 seeking the following reliefs:'(a) declaring that the resolution dated 27.6.2000 passed bythe first defendant bank, holding that the non disclosure ofinterest by the plaintiff at the time when the proposals ofthe third defendant were discussed at the Board meeting of thefirst defendant Bank would be violation of the provisions inSection 299 of the Companies Act, causing automatic vacationof office of the Director of the first defendant Bank, as nulland void and unenforceable, illegal, arbitrary withoutjurisdiction and violating of the principles of naturaljustice and equity, and (b) consequently for mandatory injunction directing the firstde...
Tag this Judgment!Poovizhi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad235
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. The question in this batch of writ petitions and connected writ appeal is whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which is a judge-made law, can be invoked to assail the changed Government policy relating to improvement examination as promulgated in G.O. Ms. No. 142. School Education Department, dated 12-9-2001.2. We may have to go to the genesis of the said Government Order, which is impugned in this batch of writ petitions. Henceforth, the said G.O. Ms. No. 142, dated 12-9-2001 will be referred to as the impugned G.O.3. The Government of Tamil Nadu evolved a scheme enabling the students to re-appear in the Higher Secondary Examination for improvement called 'improvement examination'. That was introduced for the first time, by issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 1457. Education Department, dated 7-10-1989. It is needless to mention that the said Scheme has been evolved in exercise of the State's executive power under Article 162 of Indian Constitution. The Sche...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »