Chennai Court March 2003 Judgments
TuticorIn Diocesan Trust Association, thro' Its procurator at TuticorI ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC478; (2003)2MLJ208
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is one for declaration and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff claims that the suit property originally belonged to one Alwar, who had settled the property in favour of his grand sons, Alwar and Perumal under Ex.A1, settlement deed dated 5.8.1929 and as the beneficiaries were minors at that time, their mother Pechikudumbachi was appointed as a guardian and she was entitled to enjoy the property till the minors attain the majority and on attaining majority, she has to hand over the property to the beneficiaries. Perumal, one of the beneficiaries, sold this property to Mahalingam under Ex.A2, sale deed dated 4.8.1954, who in turn sold the same to one Subramanian under Ex.A3, sale deed dated 4.9.1959 and Subramainan, in turn, sold the property to Alwar and Perumal, the original beneficiaries under Ex.A4, sale deed dated 26.9.1969. Thus, the property had once again come to the hands of the original owners, viz. Alwar and Perumal and they...
Tag this Judgment!V.P.R. College Beedi Company rep. by Its Partner V.P. Thangavel Vs. Un ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ334Mad
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.L. Ram Mohan, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. As there was no representation on behalf of the first respondent, this Court was constrained to direct Mr. R. Viduthalai, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, to take notice on behalf of the first respondent and to appear on behalf of the first respondent. Heard Ms. Jayakumari, appearing on behalf of the second respondent.2. The petitioner, an employer within the meaning of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, who is engaged in producing beedies, alleging that the workers employed in his factory are governed by the provisions of:i. The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966;ii. The Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976 and Rules, 1977;iii. The Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1976; and iv. The Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1978, seeks the issue of a writ of Declaration, declaring that the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act No. XXXIV of 19...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Southern Roadways Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Mad)53; [2004]266ITR135(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessment year is 1972-73. The questions referred are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in admitting an additional ground raised by the assessee questioning the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) finding that profits as per Section 41(2) on sale of buses and other assets are properly assessable in the assessment year 1973-74 ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) findings that the profits under Section 41(2) are assessable in the assessment year 1973-74 and not in the assessment year 1972-73 are only incidental findings and are not legally binding on the Assessing Officer ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting Rs. 55,21,856 being profit under Section 41(2) from the total income for th...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs. A.M.M. Hospitals and Medical B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)567; [2003]262ITR241(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J.1. The assessment years are 1985-86 to 1987-88. The following question has been referred to us for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Commissioner was not justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (sic) under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1987-88 and in directing the Assessing Officer to restrict the exemption under Section 10(22A) only to that income which is directly received from the medical institution under Section 10(22A) ?'2. The assessee runs a hospital. That hospital is not run for profit. The benefit under Section 10(22) of the Act was nevertheless denied to the assessee by the Commissioner, who revised the order of the Assessing Officer who had granted such exemption by holding that a part of the income of the assessee was derived from sources other than the treatment of patients and, ...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Selvarajan Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC51
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 27.6.1997, refusing to reinstate the petitioner in service, who was dismissed from service by an order of the second respondent dated 8.1.1985, which was subsequently confirmed by the appellate authority, namely, the first respondent herein by proceedings dated 19.6.1987, pursuant to a disciplinary action initiated against him for certain serious charges of illicit movement of 9 tonnes of rice from the godown of the respondent Corporation at Dharmapuri, where the petitioner was working as a Godown Superintendent.2.1. The facts of the case are briefly stated hereunder.The petitioner was charged by a memo dated 2.6.1982, with regard to an illicit movement of 9 tonnes of rice from the godown of the respondent Corporation at Dharmapuri, violating the instructions of the Corporation in that regard, as found by the District Supply Officer, Dharmapuri, during his inspection on 19.12.1981. Ex...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Vic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC641; (2003)IIILLJ994Mad
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 21.2.1997, made in writ petition No. 11643 of 1996, setting aside the order of dismissal passed against the respondent herein on the solitary ground that the report of the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the respondent along with the show cause notice and before taking a decision with regard to punishment no opportunity was given to the writ petitioner. The learned Judge has taken the said view placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hydrabad v. B. Karunakar and Ors., : (1994)ILLJ162SC . In that case, the Apex Court has held that unless or otherwise the prejudice caused to the employee on account of the failure to issue the second show cause notice is made out, the second show cause notice would only be a mechanical ritual without any basis or purpose. In order to appreciate that finding, it is useful to refer paragraph...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.S.R. Krishnamurthy (Huf)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: [2004]265ITR260(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J. 1. The assessment year is 1982-83. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 273(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in this case for the assessment year 1982-83 ?' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It filed its first income-tax return on September 30, 1986, for the assessment year 1982-83, in which year there was a search in the premises which subsequently resulted in the assessee admitting an additional income of Rs. 8,25,000. The assessee had also sought protection under the amnesty scheme. The Tribunal had held that the assessee was eligible for such protection. The assessee was subjected to penalty under Section 273(2)(b) of the Act by the Assessing Officer for not having furnished the estimate of the advance tax payable. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Shardlow India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)648; [2006]285ITR426(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred to us for our consideration :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the entire extent of 3,434 sq. mts. of land at Mylapore should be valued at the rate of compensation payable under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, and not at market rate?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that even in respect of that portion of land viz., 2,000 sq. mts., which is held by the assessee as a freehold land and not subject to any proceedings initiated by the Urban Land Authorities, the value of land should be determined at the rate of compensation payable by the Government and not at the market rate?The assessment years are 1989-90 and 1990-91.2. The order of the Tribunal does not set out any details. The Tribunal has merely followed the order...
Tag this Judgment!K.J. Arul Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rep. by Its Chairman and th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ512
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Heard. 2. Mr. V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inviting my attention to the averments of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, that the petitioner suffered severe burn injuries on the back of his neck, chest, stomach, waist, on both legs and on his face, got his hairs burnt and also suffered from bleeding profusely due to the injuries and experienced deep and unbearable pain by electrocution, due to the improper maintenance of live high tension electrical wire at Kilikodi Village, Ponneri Taluk, within the jurisdiction of the second respondent, seeks a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner a sum of Rupees Ten Lakhs as compensation towards the electrocution injuries suffered by the petitioner. 3. Mr. V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on the observation of the Apex Court in TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD v. SUMATHI reported in AIR 2000 SC ...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu National Mine Workers Union, Rep. by Its General Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ1061Mad
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The petitioners are twenty workers, who are working in Periyanagalur quarry under the first respondent, a State owned company, located in Ariyalur, which was established in the year 1979, by the first respondent-company.2. Even though the petitioners were initially appointed as temporary workers, their services were subsequently regularised and they were permanently absorbed as Last Grade employees in the year 1992 and were paid minimum wages as contemplated under the Minimum Wages Act.3. Taking note of the situation that the workers have been over-staffed at Periyanagalur, Ariyalur Division, and with a view to avoid the consequential retrenchment, the Management of the respondent-company thought it fit to transfer the petitioners to the quarry at Thogaimalai, at Karur Division. Accordingly, by order dated 3.1.1997, the petitioners were transferred from Periyanagalur, Ariyalur Division, to the mining quarry at Thogaimalai at Karur Division. Aggrieved by the s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »