Chennai Court November 2003 Judgments
Bata India Limited Rep. by Its Manager and Bata Shoe Mart Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC94; (2004)1MLJ32
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J. 1. When the matter came up for admission, the respondent took notice as Caveator, the matter was argued for final disposal.2. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The eviction was sought on the ground of owner's occupation. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority concurrently held that the respondent had proved that the property is required for his own occupation and therefore, the tenant is before us.3. The petition property is situate in T.No. 4165, East Main Street, Pudukottai Town, and is a non-residential one. The petitioner, claims to have been inducted as a tenant in 1979 and had continued in possession as tenant subject to increase of rent periodically. In 1992, there was an exchange of correspondence between the parties and the letter dated 22.10.1992, which was marked as Ex.R3 was addressed by the petitioner to the respondent. According to Ex.R3, the petitioner indicated their willingness to occupy the premises for a further period of...
Tag this Judgment!Rajathi Ammal and Vs. Annalakshmi and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ104
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The appellants 1 and 2 are the wife and daughter of the second respondent respectively. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No.297 of 1974 before the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam laid for maintenance against the second respondent/husband and the said suit was decreed and charge was also created and half share of the property of the second respondent was attached, which half share was also attached in E.P.No.260 of 1974 to execute the decree in O.S.No.1130 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif, Periyakulam laid by one Shanmugavelu, even before the charge was created by the appellants on 24.6.1994 in O.S.No.297 of 1974. 2. In view of the above admitted fact that the charge created on 24.6.1974 in O.S.No.297 of 1974 is subject to the order of attachment in E.P.No.260 of 1974 in O.S.No.1130 of 1970 laid by one Shanmugavelu, the application E.A.No.115 of 1986 filed by the first respondent under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure ...
Tag this Judgment!Varnica Herbs, Rep. by Power of Attorney V. Viswanathan Vs. Central Bo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: 2004(91)ECC493; 2003LC387(Madras); 2004(163)ELT160(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for declaration that Circular No.492/58.99-CX (F.No.341/52/99-TRU) dated 2.11.99 issued by the respondent No.1, Central Board of Excise and Customs as null and void and contrary to the provisions contained in Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Section 38B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Section 83(r) of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, Rules 17 and 34(1)(b) of the Standards of Weights and Measurements (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.2. Petitioner firm is engaged in the manufacture of herbal hair dye which falls under Chapter sub-heading 3305.99 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Under Notification No.20/99 CE (NT) dated 28.2.1999, herbal hair dye manufactured by the petitioner are packed in sachets of 8 gms in weight in Photo Protective Pouch and six such pouches were being packed in a Mono Carton. Since the net weight of the individual pouch did not exceed 10 gms, the petitioner was ass...
Tag this Judgment!Kathan Vs. Scaw Manak Chand Shohaji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC668; (2004)1MLJ69
ORDERParabha Srideva, J.1. The landlord is the revision petitioner. R.C.O.P.No. 172 of 1993 was filed by petitioner herein on the ground of wilful default, change of user and for his own occupation. R.C.O.P.No.252 of 1996 was filed by the respondent for deposit of rent. The Rent Controller rejected the ground of wilful default as also change of user, but ordered eviction on the ground of own occupation. R.C.O.P.No. 252 of 1996 was also dismissed. Against the orders, three appeals were filed, R.C.A.Nos. 99, 100 of 1997 and 38 of 1998. The tenant filed R.C.A.Nos. 99 and 100 of 1997 against the order of eviction passed on the grounds of owner's occupation and the refusal to permit deposit of rent. The landlord has filed R.C.A.No. 38 of 1998 against the rejection of the grounds of change of user and wilful default. The Appellate Authority dismissed the landlord's appeal and also the tenant's appeal under Section 8(5) of the Act. R.C.A.No.99 of 1997 was allowed thereby dismissing the order ...
Tag this Judgment!Michel Selvaraj Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ50Mad
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. These writ appeals are directed against the judgment passed by the learned single Judge, allowing the writ petition (W.P. No. 13626 of 1990) filed by the management and dismissing the writ petition (W.P. No. 19531 of 1990) filed by the appellant-workman. The following factual scenario will help us understand the dispute involved.2. The fist respondent-management carries on business in the manufacture of heavy duty commercial vehicles and industrial engines. The appellant herein was a daily rated semi-skilled operator on temporary basis and working from July 16, 1980. An incident occurred on August 12, 1981 when the appellant is said to have gone with a group of employees to the factory canteen, abused the canteen manager and assaulted him resulting in injuries. It is suggested that following this incident, a series of violent acts of rowdism, goondaism and arson were indulged by the group of workmen and in that a number of executive and managerial personnel were as...
Tag this Judgment!Meenu Equipments Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)481; [2004]266ITR33(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question is as to whether the appellant asses-see had contravened Section 155(4A) and/or Section 32A, Sub-section (5), by reason of constitution of a new firm comprising of all its original partners except the deceased partner, and the widow of the deceased partner, which firm had taken over all the assets and liabilities of the firm which was dissolved on October 26, 1987, on the death of the father, Balakrishna Piliai, the founder of the firm, that had been founded on November 9,1976, and had comprised of himself, his three sons and his two daughters. After the demise of the father, the mother was included in his place and the remaining partners together with the mother constituted a new firm and continued to carry on the same business.2. The firm as it existed between 1976 and October 26, 1987, till the assessment year 1987 had claimed and had been allowed investment allowance to the tune of Rs. 5,80,454. It had made additions to the plant and machinery b...
Tag this Judgment!Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: [2004]270ITR448(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessment year is 1979-80. The questions referred are, as to whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income from the sale of scrap is not relatable to the industrial activities of the assessee for the purpose of Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, as to whether it was right in not granting relief under Section 80HH of the Act in respect of the amount received from the insurance company for the loss in transit of the raw materials imported by the assessee.2. This court, in a case concerning the same assessee in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT : [2002]254ITR562(Mad) , has held, inter alia, that scrap not being a necessary by-product in the process of manufacture, the income from the sale of scrap cannot be regarded as income derived from the industrial undertaking. The court therein referred to an earlier decision of this court also concerning this assessee in the case of CIT v. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. : [1998]233ITR497(Mad) . That d...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. E.i.D. Parry (India) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)517; [2005]274ITR489(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessment year is 1982-83. The question referred is, whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the machinery deployed by the assessee in the seed processing unit and the marine products division are entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the IT Act.2. The assessee is engaged in the operation of catching of fish, processing the same, treating the fish with chemicals, freezing it and packing it in a cold storage plant.' This Court, in the case of CIT v. George Maino Exports (P) Ltd. : [2001]250ITR445(Mad) , has held that the processing of shrimps does not amount to manufacture and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Act. That decision squarely applies here.3. The assessee also maintains a seed processing unit. In a case concerning the same assessee, this Court has in the case of CIT v. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. (1996) 218 ITR 713 held that the processing of seeds amounts to ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Chinnathambi Rowther Vs. K. Shanmugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC407; (2004)1MLJ16
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J. 1. The tenant is the petitioner. The ground on which eviction was sought for is wilful default. Both the Courts held that the tenant had committed wilful default and ordered eviction. Against that this revision petition has been filed. 2. The rent paid is Rs. 150/- per month. The period of default is 01-12-1993 to 08-07-1994 which is the date of the petition. According to the landlord the lease commenced in 1991. Ex-P1 is a pocket notebook in which the payment of rents is recorded and the tenant has signed the same. The landlord also prayed for eviction on the ground of subletting and demolition and reconstruction. But these grounds did not find acceptance with the authorities and therefore, the only point that is argued the ground of wilful default. 3. The tenant pleaded that though he had paid the rents without any default the landlord had failed to issue the receipts. The tenant also pleaded that the landlord is in possession of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- being p...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Shantha Vs. Sharada
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ188
N. Dhinakar, J. 1. P. Sundaramurthy died on 6.1.1981 leaving behind him a legal battle to be fought by his two daughters, Shantha and Saradha, over a Will dated 6.12.1980 and also a son by name Shankaramurthy and wife Virudambal Ammal alias Babu Ammal. The respondent in this appeal, Saradha, filed an Original Petition seeking for grant of Probate of the Will. Shantha, the appellant in this appeal, resisted the prayer and thereafter, it was converted as a plaint and numbered as T.O.S. No. 20 of 1987. On the side of the respondent/ plaintiff, three witnesses were examined. The plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined the doctor, P.W.2 as well as P.W.3, an attesting witness to Ex.P.1, the will. On the side of the appellant/defendant, she examined herself as D.W.1 as well as her husband as D.W.4. Two other witnesses were examined as D.Ws.2 and 3. The contention of the appellant/defendant before the learned Single Judge in T.O.S.No. 20 of 1987 is that in view of the suspicious ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »