Chennai Court August 2007 Judgments
R. Bhaskar Vs. the Presiding Officer, Ist Additional Labour Court and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: (2007)IIILLJ907Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioner who was a workman under the second respondent-Management, is aggrieved by the Award of the first respondent-Labour Court, dated 28.5.1993, passed in I.D.No. 345 of 1988.2. The petitioner-workman was admittedly working as a casual labourer under the second respondent-Management from 5.5.1984. Such casual engagement was stopped with effect from 19.9.1987. The petitioner, along with 53 others, raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No. 345 of 1988, which came to be referred for adjudication by G.O.Ms.No. 1450, Labour and Employment Department, dated 1.7.1988. The issue referred for adjudication was whether the non-employment of 54 workmen was justified. However, before the first respondent-Labour Court, only 18 workmen filed their claim statement Therefore, the first respondent-Labour Court dealt with the issue relating to the non-employment of those 18 workmen only. The claim of 18 workmen including the petitioner was resisted by the second respon...
Tag this Judgment!G.T.P. Granite Ltd.-unit Ii Vs. Tmt. Sathya,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1238; 2007(5)CTC498; [2008(116)FLR487]; (2008)ILLJ749Mad; (2007)6MLJ1730
R. Sudhakar, J.1. The employer, appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, (Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation), Salem has filed the above CMA.2. The brief facts as stated in the claim petition is as follows:One Venkatachalam aged about 31 years, was employed by the appellant as helper. On 06.02.1999, the deceased Venkatachalam was proceeding from his house located at Thekkampatty village to the appellant's granite unit No. II to attend the night shift work from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. While he was walking near the Karumbalai privu bus stop at about 10.15 p.m, he was hit by an unknown motor vehicle. The motor vehicle ran over the said Venkatachalam and caused serious injuries and he died on the spot.3. The claimants, respondents in this appeal are the wife and parents of the deceased Venkatachalam, who claimed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. No amount was claimed under the provisions of the Motor ...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Stock Exchange Ltd. Vs. Agate Finance Ltd. a Company Registered ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2007
Reported in: 2008(87)SLJ208(NULL)
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. This Original Side Appeal has been preferred by the Madras Stock Exchange Limited (for short, MSE), as against the order of the learned single Judge dealing with Company cases in Company Application No. 576 of 202 in Company Petition No. 79 of 2001, dated 20.9.2002.2. The first respondent-Transferee Company as part of the Scheme of Amalgamation originally ordered on 20.7.2001, sought for a direction to the appellant-MSE for compliance of Clause (4)(2) of the Scheme of Amalgamation and consequently grant exemption to the first respondent-Transferee Company from Rule 19(2)(b) of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules') for listing of its shares in the appellant-MSE. While seeking for the above direction, the first respondent-Transferee Company also brought to the notice of the learned single Judge with particular reference to Clauses 8.3.5.1 and 8.3.5.3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short, SEBI) Guidelines fo...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Vallalar Vs. the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2007
Reported in: (2008)15VST516(Mad)
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J.1. This writ petition is filed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal dated April 25, 2003 in T.C. (R) No. 149 of 1999 confirming the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The petitioner herein is an assessee on the file of the third respondent herein. The petitioner carries on the business as a hotelier. In the return filed for the assessment year 1993-94, the petitioner reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 13,21,125.2. The assessing authority, third respondent herein, made a best of judgment assessment based on the results obtained in an inspection conducted on April 1, 1993, determining the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 20,93,957. The inspection results showed the following:(i) Carbon copies of pay-in-slips for the period from April 1, 1993 to March 3, 1994 was not preserved and produced.(ii) Purchase of milk was not supported by bought vouchers.(iii) Purchase of kerosene and groundnut was not supported by ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Mangala Packs (P) Ltd. Represented by Its Director, N.M. Rajan Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ693
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Mr. A. Shanmugasundarm, the learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondent.2. With the consent of the learned Counsels appearing on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by an order of a Division Bench of this Court made in RDS Projects Ltd., v. The Commercial Tax Officer 2007-08 (13) TNCTJ.4. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said order read as follows:12. The above decisions would categorically show that the Apex Court has made a distinction between vehicles fitted with chains like caterpillars and military tanks and others. The excavator referred to in Bose Abraham's case (cited supra) was a motor vehicle fitted with inflated tyres and not chain plates like caterpillars or military tanks. The excavator in question in the present case is mounted on iron plates made into chain su...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Combustion Engineering Inc (Usa) by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2007
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Mad)71; 2008(223)ELT353(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Revenue filed this appeal questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A.No. 573/Mds/1999 dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground that COD approval has not been obtained, however, giving liberty to the Department to recall the order of the Tribunal after obtaining the COD approval by framing the following question of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that COD clearance is necessary for entertaining an appeal filed by M/s.Combustion Engineering Inc., (USA) which is not a government department?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee being represented by their agent BHEL Trichy, they should also obtained COD clearance, especially lwhen the assessee is not a Government department?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Ta...
Tag this Judgment!Salem District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Commercial T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2007
Reported in: (2008)15VST180(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. In W.P. No. 25038 of 2007, the petitioner has challenged the order of the second respondent, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Salem, for the assessment year 1999-2000 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. In W.P. No. 25039 of 2007, the petitioner has challenged the order of the second respondent, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Salem for the assessment year 1999-2000 under the CST Act.3. In W.P. No. 25040 of 2007, the petitioner has challenged the order of the second respondent, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Salem for the assessment year 1999-2000 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.4. Brief facts leading to the writ petitions are as follows:The petitioner is an Aavin Milk Producers' Union represented by its Managing Director, Mr. N. Subbaiyan. Earlier, the petitioner had filed W.P. Nos. 23095 and 23096 of 2006, challenging the order of the first respondent, dated March 31, 2006 on the ground that levy of t...
Tag this Judgment!Built Tech Designs (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2007
Reported in: (2009)24VST95(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent in Re. No. 16070/05/A1 dated January 31, 2006 and provide an opportunity to re-present the appeal filed under Section 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 with a petition seeking condonation of delay and for further orders.2. Brief facts leading to the writ petition are as follows:The petitioner is a building contractor and a registered dealer on the file of the first respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Mandaveli Assessment Circle. For the assessment year 1999-2000, the assessing officer by his proceedings in TNGST No. 0761287/1999-2000 dated August 22, 2003, determined a total and taxable turnover of the petitioner at Rs. 7,48,787 and Rs. 7,07,419, respectively. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal in A. P. No. 200 of 2003 was filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) IV and the same was dismissed on April 6, 2004 and a copy...
Tag this Judgment!Sidhi Smelters Private Limited Rep. by Its Executive Director Bijay Ku ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Mad78
P.K. Misra, J.1. In this batch, there are two sets of writ petitions. Some of the writ petitions have been filed for issuing Writ of Declaration declaring Regulation 5(5) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 and the consequential demand as arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal and ultra vires of the Constitution. In the other set of writ petitions, prayer is for issuing a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the notice calling upon the petitioner to deposit additional current consumption deposit. In both the sets of writ petitions, petitioners are consumers of electricity supply, who have availed High Tension connection. Most of the petitioners have set up textile industries and few others have set up other industries.2. Hitherto, the law relating to supply of electricity was contained in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The latter Act mandated the creation of Electricity Board in different States which had the responsibility of arranging the su...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Nizam's International
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR386]; (2008)IILLJ50Mad
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. C.M.A. No. 1232/2000 is preferred against the order dated March 11,1997 made in E.S.I.O.P. No. 54/1989 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Both the writ petitions are filed to quash the proceedings of the E.S.I. Corporation dated December 19, 2005 and June 16, 2006 respectively.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these cases are referred according to their rank in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.3. The common issue involved in all the three cases is that whether the respondent/writ petitioners is liable to pay E.S.I contribution or not.4. The contention of the writ petitioners and petitioners in E.S.I.O.P. No. 54/1989 was that the factory is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of ready-made garments and covered under the E.S.I. Act with code No. 51-8699-18. The factory has registered its employees, paid contributions, maintained registers and subjected itself for inspection by the E.S.I. Corporation Inspecto...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »