Chennai Court January 2007 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.
Sri Ambal Mills Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(212)ELT299(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. Writ petitions Nos. 9655 and 9656 of 2000 are filed seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the orders of the second respondent herein in Final order Nos. 572, 571/99, dated 16-3-1999 and direct the second respondent herein to refer the case under Section 35-G of the Act to this Court. Writ petitions Nos. 9657 and 9658 of 2000 are filed seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the second respondent herein in Ref. Order Nos. 101,100/99, dated 5-10-1999.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows : The petitioner is a Company, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of polyester/viscose (PV yarn) as well as staple fibre (SF) yarn. On 15-1-1986 when the respondents authorities made an inspection of the godown premises of the petitioner's transporters M/s. Kerala Transport Company situated at Bhiwandi. 263 bags containing 13,150 kgs of man-made yarn of polyester /viscose blend of the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Surana Metals and Steels (i) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: [2008]300ITR324(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This tax case appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue raising the following questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and circupstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the, assessee to produce a confidential note of the Department in respect of a subsequent assessment year, and relying on the same ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in ignoring the factual findings of the Assessing Officer, and going only by the confidential note in respect of a subsequent assessment year ?2. The assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 14.60 lakhs as lease rental payable to various finance companies. The assessing authority noted that the assessee had inflated the claim on the value of cost of acquisition on steel rolls from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 60,000. Consequently, in respect of the assessment year 1995-96, he restricted the claim on lease rentals by Rs. 15,000 as cost of steel rol...
Nepc Textiles Ltd. Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR296]
S.P. Vasanthakumar, J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the order made in W.P. No. 2.621 of 1997, dated 10 December, 2001, declining to interfere with the proceedings of the respondent, dated 14 February, 1997.The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows.--(a) Appellant is a textile mill, engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. The mill was originally owned by M/s. Bharat Textiles, which was a partnership firm and it was taken over by the petitioner-mill with effect from 14 February, 1994. According to the appellant-mill, at the time of taking over, the mill had only 3000 spindles and after that the appellant added another 3000 spindles in the same unit and established a new unit known as Unit-II with spindleage of 18,000.(b) At the time of taking over, eight employees were employed in the Bharat Textiles and they were absorbed by the appellant-mill and in respect of them, contribution under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions ...
Cit Vs. Fenner (India) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: [2007]292ITR605(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 11-8-2006, made in I.T.A. No. 1083/Mds/2005 for the assessment year 2001-02.2. The revenue is the appellant. The issue raised in this appeal relates to the assessment year 1996-97. The assessing officer, on completing the assessment, disallowed the claim of the assessee in respect of replacement expenditure of auto coner and moulds as revenue expenditure and treated the same as capital expenditure. The assessing officer also included excise duty and sales tax collections to the total turnover while computing deduction under Section 80HHC. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee went on appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) held both the issues in favour of the assessee. The revenue took up the issues before the Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal also decided the issues in favour of the assessee. Hence, this appeal by the revenue raising the following questions of l...
T. Subbaraman and ors. Vs. Sri Vedanda Desikar Devasthanam and the Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ87
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the common order of the learned single Judge dated 31.07.2001, the petitioners in W.P. No. 20918 of 1992 preferred Writ Appeal No. 2524 of 2001 and the petitioners in W.P. No. 5365 of 1991, preferred Writ Appeal No. 253 of 2002.2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the learned single Judge.3. The case of the petitioners in W.P. No. 20918 of 1992 is as follows:(a) The petitioners are lessees of plots of land belonging to the second respondent temple, Sri Vedantha Desikar Devasthanam, Mylapore, Chennai and they are enjoying the same by putting pucca terraced houses, for more than 60 years. Though their lease period expired and had to be extended in 1985, extension could not be granted in view of the first respondent's [The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (H.R.& C.E.) Department] Memo dated 22.05.1985, rejecting the proposal for extension of lease, but simultaneously declaring that such plots could be sol...
M.S. Munivenkatappa Vs. State Bank of India, Rep. by Its Chief General ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC135; [2007(113)FLR707]; (2007)ILLJ906Mad; (2007)3MLJ310
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. These writ appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P. No. 1464 of 2001 dated 28.3.2003. W.A. No. 2133 of 2003 is filed by the employee challenging the order denying backwages and also directing him to return the terminal benefits received, with 8.5% interest per annum. The Management of the State Bank of India, filed W.A. No. 2945 of 2003 against the order of the learned single Judge in toto.2. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will be referred according to their ranks in the writ petition.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeals are as follows.(i) Petitioner was temporarily appointed as Watchman in the respondent Bank on 1.11.1966 at Bangalore main branch and he was made permanent part-time sub-staff on 4.9.1974 and posted at Jaya Nagar Second Block Branch. Petitioner was made as full-time Messenger on 1.6.1980 and on 12.8.1993 he was appointed as Duftry at Bangalore Local He...
inbamathi Vs. Ramar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC116
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 625 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Virudhachalam, who has lost before the Courts below has filed the above second appeal.2. The appellant filed the suit for declaration of her title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The appellant claims title under a registered sale deed, dated 23.12.1991 executed by one Thaialnayaki. Thaialnayaki is said to have executed a mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff on 13.08.1991 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and she is said to have obtained a further loan of Rs. 14,000/-. The appellant claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties from the date of purchase and the first defendant has no right to the suit properties. Pending the suit, the first defendant died and according to the appellant since there is no legal heir, none was ...
Titan Employees Welfare Union, Rep. by Its General Secretary Vs. Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)2LLJ307Mad
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petition is filed for a direction against the second respondent to initiate conciliation proceedings to decide the question as to whether Clause 8 of the Settlement Deed entered under Section 18 (Industrial Disputes Act) dated 21.09.2006 by the third respondent management with the 4th respondent union insisting deduction of Rs. 2,000/- from the members of the petitioner union to pass on to the 4th respondent union amounts to unfair labour practice in terms of Clause 2 of the V Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The petitioner union is the trade union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1956. In respect of the Watch Division and Engineering Division of the third respondent industry in which there are 1309 confirmed workers they were governed by the settlement entered between the third and fourth respondents periodically under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The last such settlement was dated 18.04.2003, which expired on 31.01.2006 ...
C. Parthiban and Selvi D. Akila Vs. Dr. K. Meena Convenor, Vice-chance ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ492
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.08.2004 made in W.P. No. 13165 of 2004, the writ petitioners preferred the above writ appeal.2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties, as arrayed before the learned single Judge.3. The case of the petitioners as stated in their affidavit is as follows:The first petitioner, C. Parthiban, is the father of one Selvi P. Shanthi, student of Bharathidasan University, Trichirapalli and the second petitioner Selvi D. Akila, is another student of the same University. The 4th respondent in the writ petition, Dr. S. Palanisamy, was Reader and Head of the Department of Social Works, Bharathidasan University, Trichirapalli. M/s. Selvi. Bharathi and Selvi P. Shanthi were students of the said Department. The said Bharathi and the 2nd petitioner, D. Akila were students in M.A. (Social Work) and had undergone the course during 2000-2002. The said P.Shanthi was an M.Phil student in Social Work and was doing her researc...
The Management, Hindustan Motors Earth Moving Equipment Division Limit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC31; (2007)IILLJ59Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Writ Petition Nos. 20933 & 23606 of 2006 have been filed against the order of the Labour Court/first respondent made in I.A. No. 117/2006 in I.D. No. 514/2001 dated 19.6.2006 and the other four writ petitions were filed against the order in I.A. Nos. 68 to 71 of 2005 in C.P.Nos.209 of 2004, 214 of 2004, 455 of 2004 and 456 of 2004 respectively to quash the identical order dated 03.3.2006 and also to declare Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'I.D. Act'] as ultravires of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.2. It is seen from the records that the second respondent workman engaged an authorised representative to defend him in I.D. No. 514/2001, relating to his non-employment. The writ petitioners were represented by a counsel and they filed Vakalat as early as on 27.3.2002. After 55 adjournments of the case, the workman filed an application in I.A. No. 117/2006 objecting to the writ petitioner/management being represented...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »