Chennai Court November 2003 Judgments
M.S. Jain, Proprietor, Kiran Road Lines Vs. the Presiding Officer, Fir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ608Mad
ORDERP.K. Misra, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Management for quashing the award dated 20.10.2000 in I.D. No. 1177 of 1991.2. Petitioner was the proprietor of a common carrier known as M/s. Kiran Road Lines. Respondent No. 2 had raised a dispute before the first respondent, which was numbered as I.D. No. 1177 of 1991, relating to termination of his services without complying with the provisions contained in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Respondent No. 2 claimed in the said claim petition that he was working as a mechanic and was drawing a salary of Rs. 2000/- per month. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the present petitioner it was indicated that the present respondent No. 2 was working as a Foreman. It was further stated that since such person was employed in a supervisory capacity drawing wages more than Rs. 1600/- per month, he was not a workman and as such the dispute raised under the Industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kandan (Died) and ors. Vs. K. Periaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad425; (2004)1MLJ296
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard Mr. S. P. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. V. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent.2.1. The Appellants 2 to 7 are the legal representatives of the first appellant, who was the defendant in the suit O.S. No. 408 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari laid by one Arthanari Goundar for recovery of a sum of Rs. 795.50.2.2. Pending the suit O.S. No. 408 of 1978, the plaintiff, Arthanari Gounder also obtained an order of attachment before judgment in I.A. No. 932 of 1978 and the same was made absolute by order dated 22-8-1978, setting the first appellant herein ex parte. Thereafter, the ex parte decree was passed in O.S. No. 408 of 1978 on 29-8-1978. The plaintiff, Arthanari Goundar filed E.P. No. 89 of 1979 for recovery of Rs. 816.25 and Rs. 152.90 by sale of 1.75 Acres of land, and the property of the first appellant herein was ordered to be sold on 7-6-1979, by setting the first appellant herein ex parte, an...
Tag this Judgment!Thamilarasan and ors. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1639
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Accused 1 to 5 in Sessions Case No. 54 of 1994 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, Nagal Quide-E-Milleth District are the appellants in the above appeal. A-1 was charged for an offence under Section 148, IPC; A-2 to A-5 were charged for an offence under Section 147, IPC; and A-1 to A-5 for offences under Sections 341 and 302, IPC. By the impugned judgment dated 28-11-95, A-1 was found guilty under Sections 148. 341 and 302, IPC; A-2 under Sections 147, 341 and 302, IPC; A-3 to A-5 under Sections 147 and 341, IPC and they were acquitted of the offence under Section 302, IPC. The accused challenge the said conviction and sentence in this appeal.2. On 19-4-1993 at about 22-00 hours at Panneerkottagam village, due to previous enmity, the first accused-Thamizharasan and others waylaided Athimoolam and his family members, A-1 Thamizharasan attacked the said Athimoolam on his head with iron pipe; A-2 Ganesan attacked him at the head with casuarina club ...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Heeral Constructions (P) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Chennai)49
1. These appeals by the Revenue arise from the orders of the learned CIT(A), Madras-34, dt. 26th Nov., 1991 and 28th Nov., 1991. Since the issue involved in all the appeals is common, they were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of brevity and convenience.2. The common issue raised in these appeals pertain to rejection of the method of accounting adopted by the assessee in its construction business, i.e., following of the completed-project method for the purpose of accounting of construction contracts.3. The respondent-assessee is a private limited company doing business of construction, sale, lease and letting out of residential and commercial buildings. The respondent-assessee had been maintaining mercantile system of accounting from the very beginning and following completed-project method for the purpose of contracts. The AO, while framing assessment, computed the income by making individual sale and added the amount as and...
Tag this Judgment!S. Bhuvaneswari and anr. Vs. Aci (Agro Chemical Industries) Ltd. and 5 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: [2004]122CompCas849(Mad); 2003(4)CTC690; [2004]51SCL158(Mad)
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioners before the Company Law Board having aggrieved by the latter portion of the order, have filed the above Appeal.2. The 1st appellant claims that she is the promoter of the 1st respondent-company and the 2nd petitioner is her daughter. Both of them had shares of 42,517 and 7,503 respectively. It is not in dispute that subsequently, the 1st and appellants have transferred 34,500 shares and 6,000 shares respectively to the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent-company at the instance of the 2nd respondent-company rectified the register of shareholding as if the 2nd respondent transferred all the shares from the appellants to respondents 3 to 6. So the appellants filed Company Petition No. 23/1993, originally praying the Company Law Board to declare that the transfer of 40,500 equity shares bearing distinctive numbers 021 to 34520 and 44021 to 59920 in favour of respondents 3 to 6 by the 2nd respondent-company and the registration of such transfer in t...
Tag this Judgment!Petromarine Products Ltd., Company Incorporated Under the Laws of Cypr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad498; (2004)1MLJ525
A. Kulasekaran, J. 1. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 06.10.1998, passed by the learned single Judge of Original Side in Application No.1217 of 1997 in C.S.No.97 of 1997. 2. Before the appeal being dealt with, it is relevant to look into the dates and events of the case admitted by both sides. The first respondent herein has filed the suit in C.S.No.97 of 1997, for recovery of US $ 22,705.84 against the second respondent herein on 26.02.1997. Along with the suit, the first respondent filed Application No.750 of 1997, praying for an order of arrest of the vessel, which has arrived at Port of Madras, and the same was ordered on 27.02.1997 as prayed for. The appellant herein filed a suit in A.S.No.27 of 1997 on the file of the Bombay High Court, for recovery of amount of US $ 39.712.97. At the instance of the appellant, the Bombay High Court ordered arrest of the vessel m.v.ELENI on 19.03.1997. On 17.04.1997, the Madras High Court ordered sale of the said vess...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Bama Vs. Mrs. Rukiyal Bivi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad243; 2004(1)CTC109; (2004)1MLJ403
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. When the matter is listed today for admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is disposed of in limine. 2. Defendant is the petitioner herein. Respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.33 of 1999 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ambasamudram, for specific performance. The petitioner herein filed an application in I.A.No.465 of 2002, seeking for a direction, under Order 18 Rule 1 of C.P.C., to direct the respondent/plaintiff, to begin the case, on the ground that the suit is one seeking for specific performance and the agreement for sale entered into between them was obtained by coercion, without receiving the sale consideration of Rs.2.00 lakhs. The respondent herein has filed a counter, stating that the execution of the agreement has been admitted; a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs was paid; the suit was filed even prior to the expiry of the time stipulated in the agreement and the balance consideration of Rs.1.00 lakh was also deposited; while so, ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Packwell (Karnataka) Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: [2004]267ITR452(Mad)
1. The assessment year in this case is 1982-83. The question referred is as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the remuneration paid by the assessee firm to one of it's partners who was a partner in his capacity as karta of Hindu Undivided Family was not taxable in computing the total income of the assessee firm and that the provisions of Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act are not attracted.2. The amount that was disallowed was paid to one of the partners as a technical consultation fee. Though the assessing officer and the appellate authority did not regard that payment as falling outside the description contained in Section 40(b), the Tribunal accepted the assessee's appeal and held that that payment was a permissible deduction. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that a partner in a firm can have more than one role to play and that he can, if he is a person possessed of expertise, make available such expertise to the firm for consideration and that considerati...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dynavision Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)476; [2004]267ITR600(Mad)
S.R. singharavelu, J. 1. The substantial question of law involved in this case is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the exclusion of the excise duty from the closing stock valuation ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of television sets. The assessment year is 1987-88. The assessee was following a consistent system of accounting in excluding excise duty in the valuation of its stock from year to year. The introduction of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act has also made this a very convenient system of accounting.3. Even according to the Assessing Officer, there was no attempt made by the assessee in changing the system of accounting that had been consistently followed. It is also not the case of the Assessing Officer that the assessee failed to disclose true and correct profits. It has ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ambadi Enterprises Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Mad)179; [2004]267ITR702(Mad)
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The substantial questions of law involved in this case are as follows:'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 8.6 lakhs received by the assessee and covered by the termination agreement cannot constitute the income of the assessee?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the existing provisions of Section 28(ii)(c) of the IT Act, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the sum of Rs. 8.6 lakhs from the income of the assessee on the ground that the compensation received by the assessee is capital in nature?'2. The assessee is a company and the assessment year involved is 1986-87. The assessing authority found from the balance sheet that the assessee has included a sum of Rs. 8.6 lakhs under the head 'reserves and surplus'. The said sum was received by the assessee on termination of distributorship. The assessee treated the said receipt...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »