Chennai Court March 2003 Judgments
Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., Rep. by Its Dy. General Manager (Hrs) So ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ229Mad; (2004)3MLJ456
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 24.3.2003 made in W.P. No. 8721 of 2003 ordering notice to the respondents. The writ petition came to be filed as the respondents 1 and 2 resorted to strike pursuant to a strike notice issued thereto. The relief sought for is to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from resorting to illegal strike pursuant to their notice dated 5.3.2003 and pass such other orders as this Court may deem fit. The Writ Appeal was admitted on 25.3.2003 and interim order, as sought for in W.A.M.P. No. 1801 of 2003, was granted. A petition in W.A.M.P. No. 1835 of 2003 has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 to vacate the said order. 2. While the appellant is the Bharat Petroleum Corporation, respondents 1 and 2 are the employees' unions. The total number of employees, who are the members in the above unions are stated to be 1,200 in n...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Catering Services (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Tax Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: [2003]132STC35(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessment years with which we are concerned are 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. The question raised before us by the petitioner, who during these assessment years functioned as independent contractor to factories or other establishments and ran a canteen in those establishments, is as to whether its turnover in relation to the sales effected in those canteens is exempt from sales tax by reason of a notification dated 1st September 1964 or by another notification dated 25th March 1989. 2. The notification dated 1st September 1964 issued under Section 17 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act 1959 exempted, with effect on and from 1st September 1964, the tax payable under the said Act, on the sales by a canteen run by an employer, or by the employees on co-operative basis on behalf of the employer under a statutory obligation without profit motive, provided that the employer subsideses atleast twenty five per cent of the total expenses incurred in running the...
Tag this Judgment!Murthy Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2003
Reported in: II(2003)DMC675
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. For having caused the death of his wife by pouring kerosene and setting fire to her, Murthy, the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Hence, this appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, leading to conviction, are as follows:- (a) The deceased Mariammal got married to the accused four years back. Out of their wedlock, two children were born. Prior to the occurrence, one female child died. They lived together in the residence, which is situated near the house of P.W.1 Sarasu, the mother of the deceased. The accused developed illicit intimacy with one Fathima. The accused eloped with the said Fathima and married her as second wife. (b) One month later, the accused and the said Fathima came back to their village. The accused insisted the deceased that she must allow Fathima to stay along with her. However, the deceased refused for the same. Due to this, there were frequent quarrels between t...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. K. Karunakaran, Managing Director, Karunai Monuments (P) Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC594
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J. 1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of Rule 8-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, hereinafter called 'the Rules 1959', as amended in G.O.Ms.No.86, Industries (MMC.2) Department, dated 22.2.2001. 2. The petitioners made application for prospecting licence and/or for lease to carry out the mining operation in the area which have been prospected earlier for granite. Some applications were rejected by the Government. In some cases, pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, the applications are pending before the Government. Since the applications were rejected or not considered on the basis of Rule 8-A of the Rules, the petitioners have come forward with the above writ petitions challenging the said provision. 3. Mr. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents made their respective submissions regarding the issue rai...
Tag this Judgment!V. Devaraj, Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Govt. Hou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC134
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. In all these cases the petitioners are challenging the impugned acquisition proceedings in respect of their lands sought to be acquired for the purpose of Housing Scheme at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.2. In these writ petitions, a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter called 'the Act', was issued in Government Orders dated 25.2.1994, 6.8.1994, 2.4.1994 and 28.2.1994. Since no notice was served on the petitioners, they did not have any opportunity to object the acquisition proceedings. The Government also made declaration under Section 6 of the Act and awards were also passed subsequent to the filing of the writ petitions. For the purpose of constructing houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the Government proposed to acquire the petitioners' lands. 3. Insofar as the lands of the petitioners bearing Survey Nos. 382, 384/1, 383, 384/2 and 385/1A of Kalapatti village, which are subject matter in W.P. Nos. 180...
Tag this Judgment!P. Nedumaran Vs. State Represented by Inspector Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4388
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings in S.C. No. 13/2003 pending on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Court, Dindigul.2. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. K. Chandru, appearing for the petitioner would submit that the speech of the petitioner made on 11.6.1992 is not an objectionable one and does not constitute an offence under the provisions of S. 124A or 153A of I.P.C.; that it is pertinent to note that there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report; that there is no reasonable explanation for the same; that the petitioner has been gravely prejudiced by the inordinate delay on the part of the respondent; that if the proceedings are allowed to go on, the petitioner will not be able to get the witnesses to testify to the actual text of his speech; that the petitioner has not stated anything which would bring or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt or excite or attempt to excite dissatisfaction towards the Gov...
Tag this Judgment!V. Sumathi and anr. Vs. D. Vedagiri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC329
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. Application No. 5401 of 2002 has been filed by the applicant to implead herself namely Mrs. V. Bhuvanaeswari as 2nd defendant in the above suit.2. Application No. 5014 of 2002 has been filed by the defendant to implead the proposed party namely the very same Mrs. V. Bhuvanaeswari as 2nd defendant in the suit.3. The applicant in Application No. 5401 of 2002 is hereinafter referred to as applicant, the first respondent in both the applications as plaintiff and the applicant in Application No. 5014 of 2002 as defendant.4. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for partition of the plaint schedule described property and allot 1/2 share, to her. On 27.3.2000, this Court passed preliminary decree in the above suit. Aggrieved by the preliminary decree, the defendant has preferred O.S.A. No. 392 of 2002 which was also dismissed by the division bench of this Court on 11.11.2002. Thereafter, the Plaintiff has filed an application for passing of final decree. The above...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Golden Touch
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)207; [2003]263ITR261(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question raised in this appeal filed by the Revenue is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the remuneration paid by the assessee to its partner representing a Hindu undivided family can be disallowed under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the light of the Explanation 4 to the section by the Amendment Act ?' 2. The assessment year is 1994-95. 3. Explanation 4 in Section 40(b) of the Act reads thus : 'For the. purposes of this clause, 'working partner' means an individual who is actively engaged in conducting the affairs of the business or profession of the firm of which he is a partner.' 4. The assessee is a firm which had paid remuneration to its working partners. The payments so made were disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that those partners represented their respective Hindu undivided families, and therefore could not be treated as 'individuals'...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Karthikeya Spinning and Weaving Mil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)754; [2004]265ITR285(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian ,J.1. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure on purchase of drawn frame is revenue expenditure ?'2. The assessment year is 1987-88.3. The assessee is a closely held company engaged in the manufacture and sale of yarn and its by-products. During the assessment year in question, the assessee claimed the cost of replacing draw frames of Rs. 6,14,790 as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer negatived the assessee's claim. On appeal the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the expenditure on draw frame is only a replacement and hence allowable as revenue expenditure. On appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal following the earlier order in the case of Nagammal Mills Limited, upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Hence the reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act before us.4. As seen from the statement of fac...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. T.S. Santhanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Mad)185
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue are :(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A), directing the AO to adopt the cost of shares in M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. and M/s T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., as claimed by the assessee? and(ii) Whether, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A), directing that the cost of the original shares held by the assessee in M/s T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. should be taken at Rs. 475.95?2. The assessment year is 1986-87.3. The facts of this case are similar to the one considered by this Court in the case of CIT v. R. Ramachandran : [2001]249ITR511(Mad) . The ratio of that decision is applicable to this case as well. It has been held therein that where an assessee has opted to value the shares held by it as on 1st Jan., 1954 at the market rate as on that date, that has to be regarded as t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »