Chennai Court December 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Francis Vincent Neelankovil Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR612]; (2004)IILLJ423Mad; (2004)1MLJ553
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The judgment of the learned single Judge, allowing the writ petition filed by the second respondent bank (in short 'the bank'), challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and upholding the order of dismissal by the bank, is in challenge before us.2. The appellant herein was employed as a clerk in Purasawalkam branch of the bank. On December 15, 1977, a demand draft dated November 12, 1977 issued by the National Bank of Omen, drawn in favour of one K.C. Appukuttan was brought to the bank by one V.T. Lazar, who had account in that bank, for being deposited in his account. That draft was endorsed by the said payee. The draft was presented along with the usual pay-in slip at the counter of the bank, which was manned by the appellant. It later on turned out that the amount covered in the said demand draft was not credited to the account of V.T. Lazar and, therefore, he complained to the bank. He also produced the counterfoil which disclosed that the demand ...
The Coimbatore District Aided Secondary and Higher Secondary School Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC81
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of all the four writ appeals as the subject involved in all the four appeals is common. In all these writ appeals, a common judgment passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petitions, challenging the validity of the amendment made to Rule 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') is in challenge. The learned single Judge upheld the validity of the said amendment.2. All the petitioners are the Managements of the private schools. An Act came to be passed under the nomenclature 'Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973' (in short 'the Act'), for the regulation of the private schools in the State of Tamil Nadu. Section 56 thereunder empowers the Government to make the rules and it is under this rule-making power that the said amendment came to be passed.3. Initially, the Government had issued an order, G.O. Ms. No. 1502 (Education) ...
Madura Coats Ltd. Rep. by Its Group Industrial Relations Manager Vs. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ192Mad; (2004)1MLJ564
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. An order passed by the learned single Judge, confirming the order passed by the Principal Labour is the subject-matter of this appeal.2. Two applications came to be filed by the Management of Madura Coats Limited (in short 'the Management') against one Murugan and Ramasamy, under the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short 'the I.D. Act'), for approval of their action of dismissing the said two employees. In this appeal, we are concerned only with Ramasamy. The said approval was refused by the Labour Court.3. The case of the Management, in short, was that a show cause notice under Section 20(1)(d) of the Company's Standing Order, dated June 27, 1986, was served on the respondent and he was placed under suspension. A charge sheet came to be served in which, it was alleged that the workman along with one Murugan, either jointly or independently, stole three new transformers. The cost of the three transformers being Rs. 450.An enquiry e...
Sunshine Enterprises Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(93)ECC447; 2004(166)ELT305(Mad)
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions, the common prayer is for the issuance of Writ of mandamus, to direct the second respondent herein to assess the respective petitioners' Bill of Entry pertaining to import of Portable Emergency Lamps, Model No. PRL-786 with DC Tubes to the usual Customs and Countervailing Duty on the value declared by the respective petitioners at the rate of 3.25 US Dollars per unit and 16% on the maximum retail price Rs. 330/- plus SAD 4% on the assessed value and to clear the goods.2. It is common ground that all the respective petitioners are registered importers. They imported consignments consisting of different quantities of Portable Emergency Lamps of Model No. PRL-786 with DC Tubes of Chinese Origin. The goods were stated to have been shifted from Hong Kong and were supported by Invoices and the petitioners also filed their respective Bills of Entry for the clearance of the goods.3. It is stated that after submission of their Bi...
Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Sundaram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ30Mad
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. These appeals have been filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation against the common Order, dated December 24, 1992 made in E.S.I.O.P. Nos. 77, 78 and 97 of 1987 on the file of the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1606 of 7995: The respondent Sundaram Clayton, Limited (Moppet Division) filed E.S.I.O.P.No. 77 of 1987 with the following averments: Employees' State Insurance Corporation caused notice, dated July 14, 1986/August 5, 1986, claiming Rs. 3,34,091.80 as contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the period from 6/84 to 12/85 under various heads. In spite of the objections of the respondent herein, the order dated June 5, 1987, was made under Section 45-A of the Act demanding a sum of Rs. 2,23,400.25. As per chalan, dated August 7, 1987, the respondent paid Rs. 26,060.10 in respect of items (4) and (5) as claimed. The respondent has disp...
M. Raghavan Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)134; [2004]266ITR145(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.:1. The assessment year is 1994-95.2. The assessee who is a senior advocate, sold 371 volumes of books, all of which except 14 volumes, had been purchased between 1984 and 1988 and the remaining 14 between 1988 and 1993, for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000. Out of that, a sum of Rs. 15,500 was paid as commission to the bookseller.3. The assessee claimed that the balance of Rs. 1,09,500 was not liable to be taxed, as that amount was the sale proceeds of capital assets and that amount was less than the indexed cost of acquisition of those capital assets.4. That claim was uniformly rejected by the AO, appellate authority, as also by the Tribunal, by placing reliance on Section 50 of the IT Act.5. It is not in dispute that the books sold by the assessee are capital assets, in respect of which depreciation had been allowed under Section 32(1) of the Act. The extent of the depreciation was the whole of the actual cost of the books, as the value of each book did not exceed Rs. 5,00...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D. Rm. M. Sp. Sv. A. Annamalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)288; [2005]273ITR404(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. We do not see any question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal requiring our attention. The assessee's lands have admittedly been treated as agricultural lands in the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee for several years. It is classified as agricultural land. It was used for the purpose of growing crops. All that had happened in these assessment years was that the land was lying fallow.2. The fact that the land was lying fallow and the fact that the land was located in a locality where development had taken place, it is contended, was sufficient to render the land non-agricultural. Reliance was placed by counsel on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim and Ors. v. CIT : [1993]204ITR631(SC) . That was a case where the owner of the land had contracted to sell the land for non-agricultural purposes to a co-operative society which was to put up a building immediately after the sale. The land was converted for no...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Soft Beverages P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2003
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Mad)286; [2005]272ITR270(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J.1. Investment allowance for the assessment year 1.983-84 was denied to the assessee, a manufacturer of aerated waters under the brand name of 'TORINO', such manufacturing activity having been carried on under a licence, on the ground that the aerated waters manufactured by it contained blended flavouring concentrates. The assessee having appealed to the Commissioner against that view of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner accepted the assessee's case that the original entry without the Explanation, did not take in its fold synthetic essences which are admittedly used by the assessee and that the Explanation that was added subsequently did not have retrospective effect. That view of the Commissioner has been affirmed by the Tribunal.2. It is not in dispute that synthetic essences are used by the assessee for the purpose of flavouring the aerated waters. The essence is in the form of concentrate and is clearly a flavouring concentrate. It is synthetic essence. The...
M. Raghavan Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2003
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN790(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The assessment year is 1994-95.2. The assessee who is a senior advocate, sold 371 volumes of books, all of which except 14 volumes, had been purchased between 1984 and 1988 and the remaining 14 between 1988 and 1993, for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000. Out of that, a sum of Rs. 15,500 was paid as commission to the bookseller.3. The assessee claimed that the balance of Rs. 1,09,500 was not liable to be taxed, as that amount was the sale proceeds of capital assets and that amount was less than the indexed cost of acquisition of those capital assets.4. That claim was uniformly rejected by the assessing officer, appellate authority, as also by the Tribunal, by placing reliance on section 50 of the Income Tax Act.5. It is not in dispute that the books sold by the assessee are capital assets, in respect of which depreciation had been allowed under section 32(1) of the Act. The extent of the depreciation was the whole of the actual cost of the books, as the value of each book did ...
Chockkappan and 2 ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Special ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC136
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. Though W.P.M.P., seeking for stay is listed today, in view of limited question involved in the Writ Petition, by consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioners arc co-owners of the property in S.F.No. 13/5 of Kultukuthukai Karisal Kulam Village, Kariapatty Taluk, Virudhunagar District, measuring about 2 acres. The petitioners were granted patta in the year 1984 during ryotwari settlement. While that be so, the 3rd respondent made an application for inclusion of her name in the said patta. By order dated 27.10.1995 the name of the 3rd respondent also included in the patta. This was questioned by the petitioners on 3.9.1997 before the Tahsildar, Aruppukotlai. The petitioners were informed by the Tahsildar, Aruppukottai by order dated 25.10.1995, that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.1995, they can prefer appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The appeal preferred by the petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »