Chennai Court June 2008 Judgments

Management of Tamil Nadu Government Transport Corporation Vs. K. Jawah ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008ACJ443

P.R. Shivakumar, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This is an appeal preferred by the management against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem made in W.C. No. 464 of 1999 awarding a sum of Rs. 72,178 as compensation. The said award directed the appellant herein to pay the said amount along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit.3. The claim was made based on the contention that respondent herein sustained injuries leading to permanent disability pursuant to an accident that took place out of and during the course of employment while serving as a driver under appellant. According to respondent's case, the bus in which he was working as a driver, broke down as one of its wheel was flattened and while he was engaged in bringing down the spare wheel for changing the flattened wheel, he fell down and sustained injuries including tear in the hip membrane. Contending that the same re...

Razeena Begum and Farsana Begum Vs. Pudukottai Municipality Rep. by It ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ42

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. Heard Mr. V. Babu, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Pala Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. The issue involved in these cases is about the property demand notices issued to the petitioners concerned by the first respondent Pudukkottai Municipality in the form of prosecution notice dated 14.02.2008 as contemplated under Rules 30 to 34 of Schedule IV of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As per the said prosecution notice dated 14.02.2008, the petitioners are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,52,893/- and Rs. 3,00,922/- respectively, being the amount of tax due on the basis of escaped assessment for the period from second half of 2002-03 to the first half of 2007-08.3. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioners mainly on the ground that as per Section 345 of the Act, wherein the limitation of three years period is prescribed for r...

Allied Industries Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR570]; (2009)ILLJ805Mad

P.R. Shivakumar, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated August 29, 2000 passed by the E.S.I. Court (First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras) in E.S.I.O.P. No. 41/1990. The competent authority under the Employees State Insurance Act passed the impugned order dated February 23, 1989 fixing the contribution to be paid by the appellant at Rs. 1,11,311.22P for the period from April 1985 to March 1987. The said determination of the contribution was challenged before the E.S.I. Court by the appellant herein on the ground that there were immediate employers, namely contractors and the amount paid to the contractors were taken by the authority under the Employees State Insurance Act to be the wages paid to the employees. It was also the contention of the appellant herein before the E.S.I. Court that the workmen employed by the immediate employers (contractors) were earning more than Rs. 1,600/- per month and hence they were not covered by the scheme of...

A.V.M. Textiles Vs. Commercial Tax Officer

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)16VST7(Mad)

ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. Though the miscellaneous petition is listed today, by consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him as to why sales tax to the tune of Rs. 33,926 with penalty of Rs. 50,890 should not be imposed on the petitioner under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. For the said notice, it is stated by the petitioner that he had submitted a reply on August 22, 2005. Thereafter, the respondent has passed an order by his proceedings in D3. No. 01/2005-06 dated November 30, 2005, thereby, confirming the proposal and determining the tax at Rs. 33,926 with penalty of Rs. 50,890. The said order dated November 30, 2005 is under challenge in this writ petition.3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the objection was submitted by the petitioner for the show-cause notice as early as on August 22, 2005, the respond...

The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A. Sekar and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2006ACJ2498

P.R. Shivakumar, J.1. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24 of 2002 is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Erode, dated 03.01.2001 made in M.C.O.P. No. 454 of 1997. Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 3247 of 2007 has been filed by the appellant in the above said C.M.A. to receive the true copy of the insurance policy as Additional Evidence.2. The first respondent herein filed the above said M.C.O.P. claiming a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation arraying the appellant herein and respondents 2 to 5 herein as respondents in the above said M.C.O.P. contending that he met with an accident that took place on 9.1.1997 at about 7.30 a.m. near Kondapulipalayam branch road on the Tharapuram - Palani by-pass road; that while he was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN-51-Z-6707 belonging to one Arthanareeswaran (5th respondent herein), driven by one Suresh (4rd respondent herein), the bus bearing Registration No. ...

Velmurugan Vs. State

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4511

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The important and interesting question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is:Whether in a case based on circumstantial evidence, not proving the motive is fatal to the prosecution, when other circumstances connecting the accused with the commission of crime are substantiated ?2. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 179 of 2006 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore District, appeals against the conviction and sentence imposed on him.3. Originally, charges were framed against the appellant/accused along with another by name Durai Murugan for offences under Sections 120(b), 364, 302 and 201 I.P.C. But, before the trial commenced, the other accused Durai Murugan died and hence, the charges levelled against him abated. The appellant, on being tried before the Court of Sessions, was convicted as charged, and was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 120(b) I.P.C; five years rigorous imprisonment under Section ...

Palanisamy S. Vs. Management of Jyothi Bus Transport and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ670Mad

ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the award passed on July 28,1994 by the Labour Court at Coimbatore, second respondent herein in I.D. No. 390/1990 and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all backwages and for further orders.2. Facts leading to the writ petition are as follows:The petitioner joined duty as Checking Inspector in the respondent-Transport Company on June 30, 1980 and was paid a salary of Rs. 195/-, lower than the Minimum Wages fixed by the Government. Therefore, the petitioner filed a Claim Petition in C.P. No. 175/1985 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same was ordered on April 15, 1985. Pursuant to the order, his wage was raised as per the Minimum Wages Act at Rs. 521/-. Therefore, the Management has indulged many indirect activities to somehow eliminate the petitioner. The petitioner applied for three days Medical Leave from February 23,...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Carborandum Universal Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Mad)202; [2009]177TAXMAN347(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal Madras 'A' Bench, dt. 24th Aug., 2007 passed in ITA Nos. 797/Mad/2003 and 542/Mad/2005 respectively. The relevant assessment years are 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The substantial questions of law formulated in these appeals are as follows:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition in respect of payments made to M/s McKinsey & Co., management consultant and the same should be allowed as revenue expenditure is valid in law?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition made towards interest paid on borrowed capital is valid?2. The facts of the case are as follows:The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of industrial ceramics. The assessee, for the relevant assessment years, had claimed a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs being fees paid to M/s McKi...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Omega Forwarders P. Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]316ITR342(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, dated September 21, 2007, in I. T. A. No. 958/Mds/2004. The relevant assessment year is 2000-01. The substantial question of law formulated in this appeal is as follows:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in allowing the deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) even when the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions laid out in Section 36(2) for the allowability of claim under Section 36(1)(vii)?2. The facts of the case are as follows:The assessee is a clearing and forwarding agent. For the assessment year 2000-01, the assessee filed its return of income on November 28, 2000, declaring a total income of Rs. 47,60,400. The assessee claimed an amount of Rs. 35,85,106 as 'bad debt' under the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(2). Out of the above claim, an amount of Rs. 11,25,481 belongs to various trade debtors was a...

Air India, Rep. by Its Manager, Egmore, Chennai Vs. YeshwIn Kurian Tho ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. The 1st opposite party in COP No.753/1998 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) is the appellant herein. The complainants case was as follows: - He had purchased three tickets one from Madras to Bombay, the second from Bombay to Paris and the third from Paris to Geneva, from the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party. Being a student, he had a valid entry visa to Switzerland. Both the opposite parties informed the complainant that he did not require a transit visa for France. After reaching Paris he found that there was no direct Air India flight but there was a different flight with different number which was informed by both the opposite parties. The French authorities informed him that he required a transit visa without which he would not be able to take the connecting flight. He had to walk for nearly three to four kms to obtain the visa and after verification by the local Police where he was physically and mentally ...