Chennai Court February 2006 Judgments
Chennai Port Trust, Rep. by Its Chairman Vs. Chennai Port Trust Indust ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ310
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The vexed question of whether Canteen Workers are to be treated as regular employees is the subject matter of this writ appeal. Before beginning, it is best to remember the following signpost put up by S.B. Sinha, J. in J.T. 2006 1 S.C. 84 [State of Karnataka and Ors. v. K.G.S.D. Canteen Employees Welfare Association and Ors.] : We have referred to the aforementioned decisions in order to show that in each of the aforementioned cases the industrial adjudicator was required to apply the relevant tests laid down by this Court in the fact situation obtaining therein. Most of the cases referred to hereinbefore were considered by this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining therein and, thus, it is even not proper for the industrial adjudicator to apply the ratio of one decision to the exclusion of other without considering the facts and circumstances involved therein. The law, however, does not appear to be settled as to whether even in a case where th...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Public and Industrial Relations Nuclear Power Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR998]; (2006)2MLJ188
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. The management has filed the writ petition In W.P. No. 21813/2000 for the relief of writ of certiorari to quash the award passed in I.D. No. 1/2000, dated 22.11.2000 by the 2nd respondent.2. Writ Petition in W.P. No. 6320/2001 has been filed P.Chinnasamy,the workman for the relief of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to I.D. No. 1/2000, dated 22.11.2000 on the file of the 2nd respondent, quash the same insofar as denying the half-backwages is concerned and consequently seeking for reinstatement with full back-wages and other benefits.3. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions relate to the award passed in I.D. No. 1/2000, dated 22.11.2000 passed by the 2nd respondent, both the writ petitions are taken together and common order is being passed with the consent of the learned counsel for both sides.4. W.P. No. 21813/2000:- This writ petition has been filed against the award passed in I.D. No. 1/2000, wherein the 2nd respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Late M.S. Mohammed Marzook, Rep. by M. Sulaiha Beevi (Deceased) Legal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Mad)72; [2006]283ITR254(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran,J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25.11.2004 made in ITA Nos.1285, 1286, 1287 and 1289/Mds/1997 and the following substantial questions of law have been raised for consideration.T.C. Nos. 916 to 918 of 2005:1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, when a non-taxable amount has been offered for assessment even before issue of notice under section 148, due to the inability of the assessee to adduce proof, penalty could be levied by the assessing officer without recording any satisfaction and establishing mens rea that the amount offered is taxable income 2. Whether the ratio in the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in Sri Shandilal Sugar & General Mills : [1987]168ITR705(SC) and Suresh Chandra Mittalal : [2001]251ITR9(SC) would apply to this case which is before the amendment/introduction of Explanation 1 clause (B) to section 271(1)(c) 3. Whether in the circumstances of the case, w...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pondy Granites
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Mad)386; [2006]285ITR340(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred to us the following question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee engaged in export of granite is eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-892. When the matter came on 31.1.2006, this Court passed the following order:Since the private notice is returned with an endorsement 'left', the appellant is permitted to take substitute service by publication in an English daily having Chennai Edition mentioning the date of hearing as 15.2.2006. Post the matter on 15.2.2006.3. In spite of paper publication in the Indian Express on 10.2.2006, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent on 15.2.2006 and hence, we directed the Registry to print the name of the respondent and post these cases next week.4. Even today, there is no re...
Tag this Judgment!P. Dhandapani Vs. the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner for Reve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ318
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. By order dated 9.9.1996, the writ petitioner was imposed with the punishment of withholding of increment for two years without cumulative effect by the second respondent, which was enhanced to that of removal from service by the order of the first respondent dated 12.8.1999 on suo-motu revision under Rule 36(1)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The said order of the first respondent dated 12.8.1999 is challenged in this writ petition.2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner, while working as Village Administrative Officer, Melandal, was placed under suspension by the Revenue Divisional Officer in his proceedings dated 17.8.1994 on the ground that an enquiry into grave charges is contemplated. The charges framed against the petitioner are that,(i) while working as Village Administrative Officer of Melandal village from 14.12.1988 to 30.6.1994, he collected land revenue from pattadars to...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Print Systems and Products
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Mad)436; [2006]285ITR260(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.3188/Mds/1992 dated 27.3.2002, raising the following substantial question of law.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, even though the assessee has not fulfilled the mandatory requirement as per the provisions of Section 32AB(5) of the Income Tax Act to get deduction under Section 32AB of the Act?2. The brief facts of the case are stated as follows:The relevant assessment year is 1988-89. The assessee is a registered firm. While computing income for the assessment year 1988-89, the assessing officer wrongly allowed the deduction for a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs under Section 32AB. But, the Commissioner of Income Tax rectified the mistake under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and directed the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Greenham Estates (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)240; [2006]285ITR345(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Pursuant to the directions of this court dated 28.7.1997 in T.C.P. Nos. 601 to 618 of 1996, the Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred to us the following questions of law:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the share income of the assessee from the firm M/s. Kadamane Estates Co. for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 should be taken as had arisen to the firm as on the previous year ended on 31.3.1978 and 31.3.1979? and(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's direction to adopt the share of income from M/s. Kadamane Estates Co. for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 as derived by the firm on 31.3.1978 and 31.3.1979 respectively is in consonance with the spirit of Section 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2.1 The assessee is a private limited company owning rubber plantation. The assessee formed a partnership firm cal...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. D. Widrose Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Represented by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ252
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.2. Petitioner is the widow of one Mr. P.A. Widrose, who was working under the fourth respondent. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the husband of the petitioner in the year 1982 on the allegation that he had remained unauthorisedly absent for 84 days without any sanction of leave. Such disciplinary proceeding was conducted ex-parte and ultimately, by order dated 12.8.1983, the husband of the petitioner was removed from service. Appeal filed by such employee was dismissed on 31.7.1984. Thereafter, in the further appeal filed in August, 1984, by the employee, no orders were passed. In the meantime, unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died on 20.11.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations to various authorities claiming payment of family pension or compassionate allowance by invoking Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Cosmopolitan Club, rep. by Its Hon. Secretary Vs. the Deputy Director, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CTC1; (2006)IILLJ922Mad; (2006)1MLJ602
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The following is the question posed before this Bench : Does the proviso to Section 77(1A)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act,1948, providing limitation of five years for claiming contribution, debar the Employees' State Insurance Corporation from recovering the contribution arrears as arrears of land revenue under Section 45B, in pursuance of an order under Section 45A of the Act 2. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, respondents herein, passed orders, claiming the E.S.I.Contribution arrears from the appellants/various companies. Assailing those orders, the appellants filed separate writ petitions before the learned single Judge, on the ground that the orders passed by the Corporation were time barred. However, the learned single Judge, ultimately, dismissed those writ petitions and directed the appellants to invoke the alternative remedy, by approaching the E.S.I.Court and to raise the point. The said orders, passed by the learned single Judge...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Iyya Nadar Charitable Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Mad)77; [2006]284ITR404(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The Tax Case (Appeal) nos. 1547 to 1549 of 2005 are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'C' Bench, in I.T.A. nos. 447, 448 and 449/Mds/96. The Tax Case (Appeal) nos. 259 to 261 of 2004 are filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'C' Bench in I.T.A. nos. 4186, 4187 and 4188/Mds/87 and the same were admitted on 23.07.2004. The common substantial questions of law raised in the above appeals are as under: 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Section 13(1)(bb) would not apply to the trust although it was carrying on business?2. Whether the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Thanthi Trust : [2001]247ITR785(SC) is not squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case?2. The facts leading to the above questions of law are as under: i) The ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »