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.
Sivananda Steels Limited Vs. Recovery Officer, E.S.i.C. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2007
Reported in: [2007]137CompCas773(Mad)
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petition is filed challenging the notice issued by the first respondent Employees State Insurance Corporation, dated August 22, 2006, thereby directing the second respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 9,40,146 towards interest and the said notice is purported to be issued under Section 45G of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. This notice is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner-company was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and a scheme was sanctioned on August 9, 2005. As per the scheme, the provision relating to Employees State Insurance and Employees Provident Fund, which was agreed upon between the parties, was as follows:H. ESIC/Employees Provident Fund:(i) To grant waiver of penal interest and other charges as on the cut-off date and during the rehabilitation period.(ii) To accept the principal outstanding (ESIC-Rs. 12.64 lakhs and EPF-Rs. 28.53 lakhs) as on cut-off date over a period ...
Management of Premier Mills Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Dy. G.M., Personnel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ310Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioner is the Management of the Premier Mills Private Limited and they have filed these writ petitions, challenging the orders passed by the Labour Court in the Interlocutory Applications.2. Before the Labour Court, the non-employment of the second respondent/ workmen is in question. According to the writ petitioner/Management, even though enquiries were contemplated against the second respondents/workmen for certain irregularities, the workmen did not participate and hence, after enquiry, the workmen were dismissed from service, challenging which the workmen raised industrial disputes before the first respondent Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the workmen wanted to mark some documents, even before the preliminary enquiry. For this purpose, they have filed Interim Applications, which were opposed by the Management on the ground that fresh documents cannot be marked prior to deciding the preliminary issue.3. The Labour Co...
Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2007
Reported in: (2008)111ITD116(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) and relates to the assessment year 2001-02.2. At the outset we find that the grounds raised by the assessee are not in accordance with the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules. 1963.Rule 8 of the Tribunal Rules is reproduced here as under: 8. liven memorandum of appeal shall be written in English and shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads, the grounds of appeal without any argument or narrative; and such grounds shall be numbered consecutively.However, at the time of hearing learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the final prayer made be taken as the ground. This reads as under: The appellant therefore submits that Rs. 14,59,87,443/- which has been set apart and being offered as income over the period of the contract cannot be held as the income of the year of the receipt.3. We have heard the rival submissions. Assessee is engaged in the business of sale of time share units promoted by it at dif...
G. Govindaraj Vs. Venture Graphics (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2007
Reported in: [2008]147CompCas56(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 raises the following questions of law:(1) Whether the Company Law Board was right in concluding that the signature of the balance sheet for the year ended 31-3-2001 was that of the first appellant?(2) Whether the Company Law Board was entitled to arrive at any such finding without securing expert opinion in this regard?(3) Whether the Company Law Board on this basis was entitled to ignore the several documents produced by the appellants to show the diversion of funds by the respondents 2 to 4?(4) Whether the Company Law Board erred in not restoring the first appellant to his status as Director in the company especially in view of the fact that it had been established that his removal as such was wrongful?(5) Whether the Company Law Board erred in not setting aside the appointment of respondents 3 to 4 as Directors since the same not only altered the structure of the Board but was intended to exclud...
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. T.M. Krishnaprasad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2007
Reported in: II(2007)ACC61
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This appeal is by the appellant/transport corporation against the judgment dated 10.6,1998 made in M.C.O.P. No. 4199 of 1995 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VI Judge, Small Causes (Court), Chennai, whereby, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent herein and awarded a compensation of Rs. 97,679 (Rupees ninety-seven thousand six hundred and seventy-nine only) with interest at 12%p.a., for the injuries sustained by the respondent/claimant, in a motor accident said to have taken place on 15.7.1995 at 7.15 p.m., near a bridge at Kodambakkam High Road.2. According to the respondent/claimant, who was examined as P.W. 1, on 15.7.1995 at about 7.15 p.m., when he was travelling in his motor cycle, the bus bearing Registration No. TN-01-N-0612, belonging to the appellant/transport corporation was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed in the front bumper of the motor cycle of the respondent/claimant, as a resu...
Hajira Beevi, Vs. R. Saraswathi,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC120; (2007)5MLJ336
J.A.K. Sampath Kumar, J.1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 13.11.2001 in I.A. No. 209 of 2001 in O.S. No. 1456 of 1991, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Coimbatore in and by which the learned Sub Judge after analysing the evidence found that the petitioners/plaintiffs are not entitled for the petition claim and accordingly dismissed the the final decree. Hence, the present appeal.2. The present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against such finding. For convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed in the original suit. 3. The petitioners/plaintiffs states as follows:3.1. The petitioner/plaintiff in the original suit obtained a preliminary mortgage decree against the first respondent for a sum of Rs. 13,81,065.30 with subsequent interest of Rs. 3,60,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of realisation with costs of Rs. 71,311.75 on or before 24.8.1998. The first respondent failed to pay the decree amount. 3.2. Respondents 2 to 4 cla...
Meenakshi Ammal and ors. Vs. N. Karunanidhi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2381
K. Venkataraman, J.1. Claimants in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 86 of 1987 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai, are the appellants in this appeal. Appellant No. 1 is the wife and the other appellants are daughters and sons of the deceased.2. Case of the appellants, as put forth by them before the Tribunal, was that on 28.3.1987 when the deceased Subramanian and others were travelling in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board's van bearing registration No. TNJ 837 and when the van reached Attinadal Seed Farm, the lorry bearing registration No. MDF 3095, driven by the respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed against the van on its right side, as a result of which the deceased was seriously injured. Thereafter, deceased was admitted to Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai, and later he was taken to Christian Medical College & Hospital, Vellore. On 7.4.1987, the deceased succumbed to injuries. Hence, the appellants filed a claim petition on the f...
Sakhi Finance Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Mad)445
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This reference is at the instance of the assessee filed under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act relating to the assessment year 1986-87.2. The question of law that arises for consideration are as follows:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the change in the system of accounting with regard to the receipt of additional finance charge to the cash basis cannot be allowed?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not appreciating that the assessee had valid and bonafide reason for changing the method of accounting in regard to the additional financial charges?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in : [1997]227ITR172(SC) and Madras High Court reported in : [1975]99IT...
Cit Vs. Saravana Spinning Mills P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: [2007]292ITR655(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24-5-2006, made in I. T. A. No. 2587/Mds/2004 for the assessment year 2001-02.2. The revenue is the appellant. The issue raised in this appeal relates to the assessment year 2001-02. The assessing officer, on completing the assessment, disallowed the claim of the assessee in respect of replacement expenditure of muratec auto coner and 18 ring frames as revenue expenditure and treated the same as capital expenditure. Aggrieved, the assessee went on appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the assessee. The revenue took up the issue before the Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal held the issue in favour of the assessee. Hence, this appeal by the revenue raising the following questions of law :1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing a deduction of the amount spent on replacement of machinery as revenue exp...
Deenadayalan S. and ors. Vs. Chairman, Port Trust and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ776Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The present writ petition is filed by the three employees of the Chennai Port Trust challenging the action of the Port Trust in preparing a new roster by which certain persons who are employed as Junior Assistants arc now brought to deal with time keeping Section and also D.Cs Buoy Yard Office. Those persons who are now given postings in the said Section have all been cited as respondents 3 to 6 in this writ petition.2. I have heard the arguments of Mr. K. Raja, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.R. Dharani Chander, the learned Counsel appearing for the Port Trust. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners was that the persons who are holding higher office are now brought to do the work of the time keeping Section and this cannot be allowed because, if it is allowed, the petitioners would be deprived of getting their fixed overtime allowance. Apart from this, they are also not getting promoted to the post of Junior Assistant, which req...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »