Chennai Court June 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.
The Management of Luk India Private Ltd. (Formerly Known as Rane Luk C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC751; [2007(114)FLR952]; (2007)4MLJ1247
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is identical, all these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 2. While in Writ Petition Nos. 12894 and 13001 to 13003 of 2003 the petitioner/management has sought for quashing of the award of the Labour Court in toto, in the rest of the Writ Petitions, the petitioners/workmen have sought for quashing of the award in so far as it relates to the denial of back wages.3. For the sake of convenience, let us take Writ Petition No. 29846 of 2003. The petitioners were appointed as Operators in the second respondent management and, thereafter, they were made permanent. While so, on 30.07.1997, the respondent management issued a Charge Sheet to the petitioners, alleging that they, along with a group of employees, under the leadership of Sivarajan, demanded an audience with the President of the Company and threatened that they would enter his room, if denied permission, and prevented production, by sto...
V. Radhakrishnan, Vs. the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC672; (2007)4MLJ650; 2008(1)SLJ568(NULL)
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioners seek to quash the order dated 13.06.2000 passed by the first respondent Tribunal in O.A. No.658 of 1998 and to consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to regularise their services.2. The petitioners have been employed as Casual Daily Labourers (CDL) in Group D posts for the last two decades in the 4th respondent College (hereinafter referred to as 'the College') and have not been conferred permanent status by it despite their repeated representations. In O.A. Nos. 367 to 370 of 1992 filed by some of the CDLs seeking to regularise their services, the Tribunal directed College to absorb the petitioners in regular posts as and when vacancies arise and not to terminate them till such time. Since no response was forthcoming, another batch of applications was preferred in O.A. Nos.1789 and 1799 of 1992 in which the Tribunal directed the College to prepare a scheme for regularisation of the applicants within a period of three months and to fit in th...
K.A. Mahboob Basha and K.A. Deen Mohamed Vs. K.A. Mohamed Ibrahim,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR286(Madras); (2007)4MLJ1109
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Original Petition has been filed to set aside the award dated 4.12.1994 filed into this Court on 16.4.1996 in O.P. No. 763/1995.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the award of respondents 2 to 4 and Anr. arbitrator S.K.L. Ratan (who passed away after the award was passed) dated 4.12.1994 by which some properties were allotted to 1st respondent and some properties were allotted to the petitioners.3. According to the petitioners, 1st respondent and the petitioners are brothers and there were disputes among themselves with regard to properties and assets of their father late K.A. Adam. At the instance of 4th respondent, who is their family friend. Thiru S.K.L. Ratan and respondents 3 and 4 were appointed as arbitrators to resolve the disputes. The petitioners insisted that 2nd respondent should also be one of the four arbitrators as 2rd respondent and S.K.L. Ratan are very much interested in the welfare of first respondent. Thereafter on 4.12.1994 a meeting ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. L.S. Lakshmanaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR591(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'D', Chennai in I.T.A. No. 1522/Mds/2004 dated September 28, 2006, raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2001-02 was not proper?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act especially when the assessee had been taking different stands before the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal was right in law in holding that the accountant had became nervous a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Revathi Equipment Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2007
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Mad)51; [2008]298ITR67(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'D', Chennai in I. T. A. No. 1375/Mds/2004 dated May 13, 2006, raising the following substantial question of law:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C was not warranted2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The relevant assessment year is 2001-02 and the corresponding accounting year ended on March 31, 2001. The assessee filed a return of income on October 30, 2001, admitting total income of Rs. 16,67,51,520. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act ('the Act' in short). Later, the assessment was taken up for scrutiny and the same was completed under Section 143(3) and determined ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shiva Tex Yarn Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2007
Reported in: [2008]302ITR20(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 1538/Mds/2004 dated February 17, 2006.2. The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are as follows:3. The issue relates to the assessment year 2000-01. The assessee is a company carrying on the business of leasing out commercial vehicles on hire purchase basis. The assessee claimed depreciation at 40 per cent. on all the leased out commercial vehicles, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, who restricted the claim of depreciation at 25 per cent on the ground that the assessee-company itself had not utilised the commercial vehicles on hire. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who by order dated March 23, 2004, allowed the appeal holding the issue in favour of the assessee, which, on appeal at the instance of the Revenue, was confirmed by the Income-t...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Chelladurai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2394
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal is by the insurance company challenging its liability to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the sole ground that there is a clear policy violation in this case. The driver of the vehicle was a 15 years old boy. Exh. P9 is the judgment of the Magistrate Court's proceedings as regards the offence charged under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is seen that the accused admitted his guilt and paid a fine of Rs. 2,100. On the face of this particular document and the finding of the Tribunal that the driver was a minor at the time of the accident, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that this is a clear case of policy violation; in the circumstances, the appellant stated that it could not be mulcted with the liability.2. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the investigating officer had clearly found the age of the driver at 15. However, the Tribunal rejected ...
P. Kandasamy Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. Rep. by Its Deputy G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR28(Madras); 2007(3)CTC680; (2007)4MLJ860
ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. With consent of both the counsel, the Civil Revision Petition itself has been taken up for final disposal.2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner, to declare the Arbitration O.P. No. 28 of 2005, pending on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Vridhachalam, as non-est in law and void ab initio.3. The factual background of the matter is as follows:(i) The petitioner was a Contractor under the respondent Corporation and he executed five works during the year 1998. There was a fire accident on 05.05.1998 in the Additional Cooling Tower of the Fertilizer Factory of the respondent. The respondent informed the petitioner that he was responsible for the said inferno, due to his negligence, and he had to compensate the Corporation to the extent of Rs. 6,49,425/- as damages. All the Units of the Corporation were directed not to honour the bills of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court and this Court, by a common order, ...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Orient Packaging Industries and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2007
Reported in: (2009)26VST394(Mad)
ORDERRaviraja Pandian, J.1. The Revenue has filed the writ petition against the order made by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai, in MTSA No. 537 of 1999, dated March 30, 2000, wherein the order of the first appellate authority has been confirmed by reversing the order of the assessing officer, who held that in respect of a turnover to a sum of Rs. 18,39,869, the transactions are outright sale and it is not a works contract.2. The assessment year is 1992-93. During the assessment year, it appearsthat the first respondent has manufactured biscuit boxes and labels for M/s. Cookies India (P) Ltd., 15/638, Chiyyaram, Tirchur, Kerala State, for whicha turnover of Rs. 18,39,869 was claimed as exemption as it is Central salestax transaction. The assessing officer rejected the claim of the first respondent and brought the turnover to taxes. As against that order, the assessee/first respondent carried the matter on appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) in...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Premier Litho Works and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2007
Reported in: (2009)25VST203(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. For the assessment year 1997-98, the first respondent-assessee/the Premier Litho Works, reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 58,99,762.45 and Rs. 4,47,442.65, respectively under the CST Act and claimed exemption for Rs. 2,31,983 as inter-State coolie printing receipts and a sum of Rs. 52,20,336.80 as printing works done intended for single user. That has been rejected by the assessing officer, on the premise that the transaction cannot be regarded as a works contract and it is an outright sale, and by reason of, the finding brought the said turnover for taxation at the rate of ten per cent. The appeal filed by the assessee has not yielded any result as the first appellate authority confirmed the order of the assessment. The respondent carried the matter on second appeal to the Tribunal, the ultimate fact-finding authority. The Tribunal following its earlier order in respect of another assessee in alkenes crafts, Kovilpatty in MTA Nos. 660 of 1994 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »