Chennai Court September 2002 Judgments
Premier Mills Ltd., Hosur Taluk Dharmapuri Department, Rep. by Deputy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ993Mad
P.K. Misra, J.1. There are more than 1600 industrial establishments relating to Textile industry in the State. In June 1999, a Charter of demands was submitted by various labour unions of several industrial establishments. Subsequently on 20.3.2001 strike notice had been issued, but there was no strike. In the meantime discussions were carried on, firstly before the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore and subsequently before the Labour Commissioner, Chennai on several dates in the presence of representatives of various labour unions and representatives of some associations of the management such as South India Mills Association (in short SIMA), South India Small Spinners Association (in short SISSPA), the Dindigul Spinners Association, the Madurai Spinners Association. While such discussions were being carried on, strike notices were issued on behalf of the Unions and many workers in several industrial establishments struck work between 20.8.2001 and 22.8.2001, but thereafter stri...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S.T.S. Thiruvirathnam and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)400; [2003]261ITR406(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred is,'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in overlooking the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of A. S. K. Rathnaswamy Nadar Firm v. CIT : [1965]58ITR312(Mad) and of the Patna High Court in the case of Chandmul Rajgarhia v. CIT : [1987]164ITR486(Patna) and holding that the salary paid to the partners should not be disallowed under Section 40(b) ?'2. The assessment year is 1986-87.3. The assessee is a partnership firm. Its partners were paid salaries in their individual capacities while they represented their respective Hindu undivided families in the firm as partners. Their claim that the salary paid to them should not be disallowed under Section 40(b) of the Act was rejected by the Assessing Officer whose order was upheld by the Commissioner. The Tribunal, however, held that the salary paid to the partners was an allowable deduction.4. This court in the case of R. M. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)332
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred is : 'As to whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there is no justification to interfere with the order of the CIT ?' The assessment year is 1986-87. 2. The assessee-company is engaged in the manufacture of trucks. For the asst. yr. 1986-87 it filed a revised return admitting a loss of Rs. 3,03,19,667. The AO framed the assessment determining the business loss at Rs. 86,86,547. The CIT while going through the assessment record found that a sum of Rs. 4,87 crores received by the assessee from the insurance company had been allowed by the ITO without proper scrutiny and verification, as a capital receipt not subject to tax even though that sum had been accounted for by the assessee in its P&L; a/c as an item of revenue, The CIT, therefore, initiated action under Section 263 of the IT Act. 3. The assessee in its reply submitted to the CIT stated that there was a severe cyclone in Madras on 11th and 12th of Nov., 1984, and...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Andhra Civil Construction Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Mad)474; [2003]261ITR461(Mad)
ORDERClaim(s) made by assessee not scrutinised by assessing officerCatch Note:Assessee filed return showing loss--Assessing officer merely endorsed 'not assessable' on that return--That order was thereafter suo motu revised by Commissioner under section 263 on the ground that unabsorbed investment allowance, unabsorbed depreciation as also unabsorbed development rebate ought to have been scrutinised by assessing officer before accepting that return--Failure to carry out such scrutiny had not only rendered assessment erroneous but also caused prejudice to revenue--Tribunal held that pre-conditions for invoking jurisdiction under section 263 were not available to Commissioner as order had not resulted in any prejudice to revenue--Was not justified--When assessing officer ordered 'not assessable' it would amount to acceptance of claims made by assessee with regard to losses and not its rejection and, therefore, prejudice had been caused to revenue by reason of order of assessing officer--...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Kumaran Vs. S. Prakash
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ509
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. This revision is preferred against the order, dated 30.7.2002, passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub-Judge), Ootacamund, in R.C.A.No.2 of 2002. The tenant, who is the appellant before the appellate authority, is the petitioner herein.2. The respondent in this revision petition is the owner of the building bearing Door No.137/F/58-A (Old Door No.137/F/60) of Ward No.31, Ettins Road, Ootacamund and the petitioner herein is a tenant under him in respect of the second floor of the building. The respondent/landlord filed a petition under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act'), seeking direction to vacate the petitioner herein and for delivery of possession. In the petition, the respondent/landlord contended that the petitioner/tenant is in wilful arrears of rent from 1.10.1998 onwards and he has converted a portion of the non-residential building into residential ...
Tag this Judgment!Sathiyavani Vs. Ramayee Ammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ72
A.K. Rajan, J.1. The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.136 of 1989. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that she is entitled for the entire amount payable by the Provident Fund authorities, as well as the insurance policy in the name of her son as well the amount in the cotton mill Union, by name Tiruchi Mavatta Panchalai Thozhil Sangam. Plaintiff is the mother of Ganesan, the deceased who was working in a mill in Karur. Fifth defendant is the wife. Ganesan died without any issues, intestate. The moneys were payable to him by the Provident Fund Authorities and from insurance company as the deceased had taken the insurance as well as from the Labour Union. Even before the suit was filed, the fifth defendant was paid 50% of the amount by the Provident Fund authorities. Insurance company has not paid any moneys to the wife or to the mother. Admittedly, the parties are Hindus and therefore, both the plaintiff and the fifth defendant are C...
Tag this Judgment!Nine Star Exports Rep. by Its Power of Attorney, R. Kayarohanam Vs. Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(151)ELT265(Mad); (2002)3MLJ565
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. All the petitioners have imported fresh garlic which is a restricted category. The import has been made without obtaining due license and therefore, they knew that the goods were liable to be confiscated. Yet they imported the goods without obtaining license expecting to be given the option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. A public notice No.222/02 dated 20-06-2002 was issued by the Commissioner of Customs to the effect that import of fresh garlic will not be allowed henceforth and if any fresh garlic is imported without a license the same will have to be re-exported. From the covering letter, dated Nil, issued by the Joint Commissioner of Customs it is seen that the Ministry of Agriculture had conveyed its opinion that fresh garlic should not be imported without license and therefore, the instructions have been issued which is required to be observed scrupulously. On 25-06-2002, letter No.446/9/2002 was issued b...
Tag this Judgment!C.A. Jagannathan Vs. T.E. Srinivasan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ691
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The appellant is a 'Ulthurai Sthanikam' service holder in Arulmigu Devarajaswamy temple in Kancheepuram. Though he is not permitted to touch the Idol in the Shrine and Sadari, he can light lamp and other deepams at the time of poojas and festivals and hand over them to the archaka. The other duties carried out by him are keeping the Garbagraha clean, cleaning the pooja vessals and receiving of jewels and assisting in the conduct of poojas and singing Tamil songs before the God when alights in steps (Kattiyam).2. The appellant has a daughter in United States of America. On 7.6.1991 he applied to the Assistant Commissioner/Administrative Trustee seeking permission to go abroad to see his daughter, that is to say, purely on a personal visit and not for any religious purpose. By an order dated 25.7.1991, the Assistant Commissioner/ Adminsitrative Trustee permitted him to go abroad as requested. After visiting his daughter, he returned on 22.10.1991. On 25.10....
Tag this Judgment!R. Nallamuthu Gounder S/O Ramasamy Gounder Vs. V. Natarajan S/O Vaiyap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ158
K. Sampath, J. 1. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were raised for decision:'1. Whether the suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction is not maintainable as it is hit by proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, in view of the admission of the plaintiff in his evidence that he is not in possession of the suit property on the date of suit and there is no prayer for recovery of possession? And 2. Whether the finding of the Courts below that the appellant has not perfected title to the southern portion of the suit property is vitiated in that the Courts below have misconstrued Exs.B-1, C-1 and the evidence of D.Ws.5, 6 and 7? 2. Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, took me through the pleadings with particular reference to the cause of action, Court fee and the prayers and submitted that the plaintiff having admitted the possession of the defendants and in particular of the 4th defendan...
Tag this Judgment!E. Pushpalatha Vs. C. Shanmughasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ676
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. E. Pushpalatha, the petitioner herein is the defendant. Shanmughasundaram filed a suit for partition contending that his late father and the petitioner herein had purchased the suit property by contributing equal share and after his father's death, he was entitled to the share of his father. The suit was resisted by the petitioner/defendant by filing the written statement raising various grounds including the point relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction. According to the petitioner, though the market value was mentioned in the sale deed as Rs.22,500/-, the actual value was later determined at Rs.93,000/- and the half share of the said value would be Rs.46,500/- and as such, it would bring the suit beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court.2. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed. One of the issues is regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition to take up the issue regarding th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »