Chennai Court October 2003 Judgments
Madura Coats Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-2003
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR780]; (2004)ILLJ756Mad
R. Javasimha Babu, J.1. The appellant is the employer. It dismissed two of its employees who were employed in its warehouse in the year 1991 after holding domestic enquiry, wherein it was found that the alleged misconduct had been proved, the misconduct being preparation of more than one delivery challan in respect of same invoices and the delivery of goods under both the delivery challans, resulting in twice the quantity of the goods shown in the invoice being taken out of the warehouse.2. In the case of one of the workmen, that act was said to have been done twice on the same day in respect of two different invoices and, in respect of the other workman, he had been charged with that act for having done it five times. According to the employer, this misconduct came to light several months after the delivery, when a large shortage was noticed in the stock in the warehouse which shortage was investigated by its internal auditor.3. The workmen in answer to the chargememos issued to them ...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Surat Goods Transport Service Vs. Deputy Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ865Mad
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Appellate Authority under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dated March 22, 1996, whereby the Appellate Authority accepted the case of the third respondent herein and held that the petitioner is liable to pay subsistence allowance to the third respondent by setting aside the order of the controlling authority dated July 26, 1995. The correctness of the said order is now put in issue in the present writ petition.2. Sri S. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for petitioner-management has assailed the order on the ground that the Appellate Authority has misdirected itself in coming to the conclusion that the stand taken by the petitioner was one of abandonment of the work by the third respondent. But in fact it was not so. According to him, the other reason given by the Appellate Authority that the period from January 3, ...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpam and ors. Vs. K.M. Meeran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ820
M. Thanikachalam, J. 1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs, as respondents before the first appellate Court in A.S. No. 194/1986, are the appellants. 2. Thiru A.A. Paramasivam as plaintiff had filed a suit, for declaration of his title to the suit property, for possession and for mesne profits or in the alternative for partition of his 35/56th share, on the grounds that the suit property originally belonged to one Kader Mohideen Rowther, who died leaving his wife by name, Rosammal and two sons by name Diwan Mohideen and K. Ponnu, that Diwan Mohideen died leaving his wife Zeenath Beevi and each one was entitled to 1/3 share in the suit property, that the plaintiff has filed O.S. No. 227/65 for recovery of money and obtained a decree on 4.8.1965, that in order to realise the decree amount, filing E.P. No. 796/66, attached the property on 24.11.1966, that he bought the property in the court auction sale held on 28.8.1974, after obtaining the leave of the Court, that in pursuance of the sale cert...
Tag this Judgment!Around the World Travel and Tours P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Mad)460; [2004]268ITR477(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1.The appellants are agents for several airlines. They receive commission on tickets they sell to passengers who travel on those airlines. According to the appellants, they receive commission on the amount for which tickets are sold to the passengers. The airlines however, in their accounting system have shown the difference between the air fare fixed in accordance with the regulations framed by the IATA (International Air Travel Association) and the amount at which the agents are enabled to sell the tickets to the passengers as 'supplementary commission' paid to the agents.2. It is that nomenclature given by the airlines to that amount, which has resulted in the airlines having been called upon to pay tax under the provisions of Section 194H of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the authorities having regarded the supplementary commission as being an addition to the regular commission paid to the agent.3. We are informed that the proceedings initiated by the Revenue for re...
Tag this Judgment!South India Export Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Regional Office (Tamil Nadu), E.S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ1073Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This civil revision is directed against the order dated January 28, 2003 made in CMP No. 22 of 2003 in EIOP SR No. 296 of 2003 by the Court of Principal Judge, Labour/EI Court in Chennai.2. Tracing the history of the above civil revision petition coming to be filed by the petitioner, it comes to be known that the Labour Court has passed an order granting interim stay and ordering notice on condition that the petitioner should deposit 20% of the amount claimed in the order under Section 45-A on or before February 26, 2003, failing which, the stay granted shall stand vacated. This is the order which is under challenge by the petitioner on the ground that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the fact that no order under Section 45-A was passed by the first respondent, after the show cause notice dated September 20, 2002 issued by the first respondent, that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the fact that in the absence of the order under Section 45-A, the Sec...
Tag this Judgment!A. Baskara Narayanan Vs. So. Murugesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC466
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J. 1. This revision has been filed against the final order passed by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli in A5/M.C.No.1/2001, stating that the petitioner has no right whatsoever to put up a culvert and a road in S.No. 440/3 and 440/4 and use the same as his pathway.2. On a perusal of the order impugned, I am of the view that it deserves to be necessarily set aside on a short point of law and hence, it may be not necessary to go into the details of the order. Suffice to state that on going through the entire records as well as the file, there appears to be no preliminary order at all passed under Section 145(1), Cr.P.C. In fact, a notice has been served on 20.2.2001, asking the petitioner to appear for the enquiry initiated under Section 145(1), Cr.P.C. The basic requirement to initiate such a proceeding is that there must be some information in relation to the presence of breach of peace, which information should be mad...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Transports and 6 ors. Vs. the Inspector of Police, Central Cri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC130
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. This is a petition to quash the summons issued by the respondent police. The summons issued to the petitioners is at page No. 1 of the typeset. The summons reads as follows :In respect of complaint given by one Mr. G. Ravichandran, 41, Sankari Main Road, Annadanaptti, Salem, I hereby issue summon to you under Section 160, Cr.P.C. to 1 to 7 of you, requesting all of you to make yourself available before me at my office for my enquiry into the complaint of Mr. G. Ravichandran against you, on 15.3.2002 at 10.30 a.m. without fail'.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as no crime was registered by the respondent-police, he has no jurisdiction to issue summons under Section 160, Cr.P.C. compelling the petitioners to appear before him and therefore, the summons has to be quashed. I find some substance in the said contention. The summons, which I have extracted above, shows that the officer did not even mention the crime number in the said su...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Pharmachem Limited, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Rep. by Its Sr. G. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ662
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The validity of The Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003, is the subject matter of challenge in these batch of writ petitions by the consumers, either individually or by association or by corporate sectors, as the case may be.2. At the outset it has to be pointed out that no one has challenged the constitutional vires of the Act, but the challenges are on the periphery. Innumerable contentions were advanced by various learned senior counsel and they will all be considered one by one.3. The Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003, hereinafter referred to as The Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2003 is an Act of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The preamble to the Act reads thus :-'An Act to consolidate and rationalise laws relating to the levy of taxes on consumption or sale of electricity in the State of Tamil Nadu.'4. The Act received the assent of the Governor on 17.5.03 and was published on 19.5.03 in the Gazette. Th...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Krishnan Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC178
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The appellant is the allottee of a ready built house. He was allotted the house in the middle income group M-117, Phase II, Santhosh Niwas, New Housing Colony, Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli - 7, by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The letter of allotment is dated 12.07.1988. The cost of house as mentioned in that letter, described as 'tentative cost' of house and building is Rs.80,000/-. The appellant, being a Government servant, was permitted to pay only the interest for some time and to pay the full cost of Rs.80,000/- after he secured a loan from the Government. He secured the loan and paid the sum of Rs.80,000/- to the Housing Board on 15.04.1990. 2. Between 03.08.1988 and 14.03.1991 he had also paid to the housing board a sum of Rs.14,960/- as interest, Rs.560/- as maintenance charges and Rs.36.35 as penal interest. On 12.6.91 the Board refunded to the allottee the sum of Rs. 7,862/- being the amount excess paid towards interest.3. The lease cum sale agreement wh...
Tag this Judgment!D.C.W. Limited Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(166)ELT169(Mad)
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. Petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the records culminating in passing the impugned order of the respondent bearing Ref. C. No. V/18/5/94/T2, dated 30-5-1997.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent.3. Initially, by proceedings, dated 20-11-1995, the respondent passed an order holding that the refund claim of Rs. 2,63,495/- made by the petitioner stands settled by way of adjustment in duty payable by the assessee himself on 17-5-1994.4. It is seen from the proceedings, dated 20-11-1995 that the petitioner made a claim for the refund of a sum of Rs. 2,63,495/- towards central excise duty paid on sodium hypochlorite under Chapter Heading No. 28 for the period from 13-9-1993 to 30-11-1993 consequent to final approval of classification list in respect of sodium hypochlorite solution by the Assistant Commissioner. It is also noticed ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »