Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)3MLJ676
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. These two writ appeals, W.A. Nos. 1672 of 1999 and 1887 of 1999 are preferred against the common order dated 12.8.1999 made in W.P. Nos. 13236 and 13237 of 1999 respectively. The writ petitioner is the appellant and the respondents in the writ petitions are the respondents in the appeals. 2. The writ petition, W.P.No.13237 of 1999 was filed by the appellant/petitioner Association to quash the G.O.Ms.No.109, dated 31.3.1994 and the other writ petition W.P.No.13236 of 1999 was filed for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to recover any amount from the salary of employees of Golden Rock Workshop and other staff working in Railway Colony area towards profession tax from the month of August, 1999 onwards. The facts are common and the learned Judge also dealt with both the writ petitions together.3. The writ petition, W.P.No.13237 of 1999 was filed challenging the Government Order, G.O.Ms.No.109, dated 31.3.1994 including the Golden Rock M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2005(1)ARBLR205(Madras)
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The above appeal is preferred against the order dated 22.03.2004 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, dismissing Ar. O.P. No. 1/2003 filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter called 'the Act', directing the parties to maintain status quo for a period of one month from the date of the said order.2. The 1st respondent was awarded with the contract by Godavari Sugar Mills Limited for construction of a Captive Power Plant in their factory at Sameerwadi, Karnataka. The 1st respondent, in turn, awarded a part of that work to the appellant for the value of Rs. 70,00,000, Rs. 5,57,00,000 and Rs. 90,00,000, totalling a sum of Rs. 7,17,00,000 under three contracts namely :(1) Design and Engineering.(2) Supply of equipment.(3) Civil works.Pursuant to the said contract, four bank guarantees namely :B.G. Nos. El/288/99, 289/99, 290/99 and 291/99 of the value of Rs. 7,00,000, Rs. 55,70,000, Rs. 9,00,000 and Rs. 38,35,00...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2006]144STC90(Mad)
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in Pro. TNGST. No. 913553/95-96, dated June 1, 2004 relating to the assessment year 1995-96 and quash the same.2. Today, when the above writ petition was taken up for admission in the presence of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader on the contra, this Court has been fully apprised of not only the facts and circumstances of the case but also the existence of an appeal provision to file a regular appeal challenging the order impugned herein. This aspect is also admitted by the petitioner in the affidavit itself. But, the reason assigned on the part of the petitioner for bypassing the appeal provision which is the alternative remedy provided for under law is that it is neither an effective remedy nor is there any statutory bar for filing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2005]273ITR510(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'A' Bench, dated 25.11.2002 in ITA No. 4108/1989.2. The assessee is a banking company. In the course of the assessment for the assessment year 1986-87, the assessing officer found that the assessee, who had been earlier valuing the investment on government securities at cost price, valued the same at market price, and claimed the difference between the cost price and market price as depreciation. The assessing officer made an order of Rs. 11,19,327/- by disallowing the same. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who held that the Government Securities form part of stock-in-trade of the assessee, who had been adopting the market price for its stock in trade since 1983. Accordingly, he allowed the depreciation claimed on the investments, against which the revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2005Mad72; 2004(4)CTC197; (2004)4MLJ39
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J. 1. Both the revisions petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, after obtaining the leave of this Court by the revision petitioners, since they are not parties to the suit in O.S. No. 264 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi. 2. This order shall dispose of the above two C.R. Ps.3. The first respondent in both the C.R. Ps. had filed a suit before the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi in O.S. No. 264/2003, against respondents 2 to 4 in this revision, (who are given up later), impleading them as defendants, for injunction restraining them in any way issuing 'No Objection' certificate, to any Wind Farm Developers or their agents concerning the property of the plaintiff situated at Rameswaram. Along with the said suit, he had filed I.A.No.1042/2003 for ad interim injunction also.4. The learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi ordered notice to the respondents on 13.8.2003, fixing the hearing date as 2.9.2003. On 2.9.2003, the notice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : I(2005)BC35; 2004(4)CTC204; (2004)3MLJ694
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The defendant-company in O.S.No. 3613 of 2001 on the file of 13th Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, having failed in its attempt to stay the further proceedings of the suit till the disposal of the case No. 151 of 1998 pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short 'B.I.F.R.'), New Delhi, has come to this Court for the same relief.2. The respondent in this revision, as plaintiff, moved the Trial Court for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,02,363 with interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realization, from the revision petitioner contending that they have engaged the service of the plaintiff/company for the purchase of air travel tickets as well as for obtaining visa, etc., but failed to pay the sum despite repeated demands.3. The revision petitioner/defendant, before filing the written statement in this case, had filed a petition under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2005)ILLJ168Mad; (2004)3MLJ668
M. Thanikachalam, J. 1. The employer/management of Best & Crompton Engineering Limited, having failed in its attempt to sustain the order of dismissal of its employee viz., the second respondent herein, before the Labour Court, as well as before the learned single Judge of this Court, has preferred this appeal, impugning the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 10423 of 1990. 2. The facts, which are essential to dispose of the writ appeal, in brief:(a) The second respondent in this appeal by name R. Krishnaswamy was employed as a Printing Machine Operator in the appellant's pump factory at Ambattur. At the instance of the employer, the second respondent used to get xerox copies of documents, required by various units of the company, from an instant copier, for the amounts to be paid. It seems, there was some malpractice in the preparation of bills by correcting the amount in the original voucher by the cashier, by name Ananda Mohan, in connivance with the second respondent. Therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(5)CTC182; I(2005)DMC636; (2004)3MLJ537
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 202/2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Arni are the revision petitioners. 2. The revision petitioners as plaintiffs have filed the suit against the respondent herein, showing him as defendant, for maintenance. The first plaintiff claims that she is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and their marriage has been solemnised, according to the Hindu custom and rites, in the presence of the elders, on 17.10.1985. It is the further case of the revision petitioners, that the second plaintiff, by name Sonia (minor) is the child born to the first plaintiff and the defendant, due to their joint living as husband and wife, in pursuance of the above said marriage.3. The plaintiffs and defendant are not living jointly. The plaintiffs are the residents of Ambedkar Nagar, Arni Town, Thiruvannamalai District. The defendant is living at Arakonam Railway Quarters, since it appears he is employed in the Railways. The plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(4)CTC98; (2004)3MLJ611
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. The defendants in O.S.No. 5/2001 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Pudukottai, aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, admitting a document (Ex.A1) in evidence, have questioned the same in this revision.2. The respondent in this revision petition as plaintiff approached the trial Court, for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit properties, impleading the revision petitioners as defendants. According to respondent/plaintiff, the properties described in the plaint originally belonged to them as ancestral properties. The parties being the close relatives, claimed inheritance over the properties. According to the plaintiff/respondent, he is entitled to 1/3 share and therefore, he prayed for a preliminary decree for partition. In the plaint, the plaintiff has relied upon a document dated 21.9.1996, to prove his interest in the suit properties, labeling the same as partition agreement.3. The revision ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2005]274ITR41(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras Bench 'a' dated 12.9.2003 in I.T.A.2285/96. The following substantial question of law is raised for consideration:-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessing officer was not correct in assessing the assessee trust in the status of Association of Persons for the assessment year 1984-85?'2.1. In brief, the assessment of the assessee trust for the assessment year 1984-85 was originally completed u/s 143(1) determining the total income at Rs. 1,99,940/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax, on a perusal of the records, found that the order of the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue inasmuch as the assessing officer has not assessed the trust in the status of Association of Persons and levied tax at the minimum marginal rate. The Commissioner of I...
Tag this Judgment!