Chennai Court June 2008 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.
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Rep. by Its Managing Director V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ328Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. This writ petition is directed against the Award of the second respondent Labour Court dated December 23, 1996 made in I.D. No. 146/1992.The petitioner is the Management. Parties in this writ petition are referred to as the Management and workman respectively.3. The brief facts leading to the industrial dispute are as follows:The first respondent workman was appointed as a security guard w.e.f. November 13, 1987 and was posted at the Thoduvatty Depot. It was stated that the workman was refused employment from June 27,1988 and he raised a dispute before the Assistant; Commissioner of Labour, Nagercoil. The said dispute was taken on file by the second respondent Labour Court as I.D. No. 146/1992. The workman filed 13 documents and they were marked as Exhibits W-1 to W-13. The' Management filed the enquiry proceedings and it was marked as Exhibit M-1 series. Both sides let in oral e...
Kwality Spinning Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. India Cements Capital Finance ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: [2008]145CompCas288(Mad)
S. Rajeswaran, J.1. This original petition is filed to set aside the award dated July 11, 2000, passed by the second respondent in the application under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, in Arbitration Case No. 28 of 1999 filed by the first respondent herein.2. The facts as culled out from the petition are as under:The first respondent herein has filed a claim petition before the second respondent/arbitrator for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 57,01,458 together with interest at 36 per cent, per annum being the amounts due under a hire purchase contract No. 3773 dated March 31, 1997. The petitioners denied the allegations levelled in the claim petition.3. According to the petitioners the hire purchase agreement dated March 31, 1997, does not exist at all and the petitioners signatures were taken on blank forms which were used by the first respondent to create the hire purchase agreement.4. According to the petitioners, the hire purchase agreement ...
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Rep. by the Senior Regional ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ337Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of Mr. A. Arumugam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Venkataraman, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent in W.P. No. 4911/1998 and Mr. Bharath Chakravarthy, learned Counsel for the first respondent in W.P. No. 14633/1998 and perused the records.2. The petitioner is the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. represented by its senior Regional Manager, Thiruvannamalai. It is a wholly owned Government Company registered under Section 617 of the Companies Act. In W.P. No. 4911/1998, the writ petition is directed against the Award dated November 4, 1997 passed by the Labour Court made in I.D. No. 418/1992 wherein and by which, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the first respondent (A.P. Kathirvelu) with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. In W.P. No. 14633/1998, the writ petition is directed against the Award dated March 18, 1998 passed by the second respondent Labour Court ma...
N. Punitha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Mad229
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. The petitioner in the above writ petition in an operator of contract carriages covered by All India permits issued by the State Transport Authority, State of Karnataka. Since the permits issued in favour of the petitioner cover the State of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Pondicheny, the petitioner has been paying the Motor Vehicle Taxes to the Primary State of Karnataka as well as to the other States covered by the permit. The Government of Tamil Nadu had issued a notification in notification No. II (2)/HO/109/2000, dated 11-1-2000, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 2-2-2000. According to the said notification, the officials of the Transport Department, not below the rank of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Non-Technical) in the Check Posts of the Transport Department were empowered to levy fine, on the spot, against the vehicles coming from other States, for certain offences notified therein. However, the Transport Commission had suggested that...
Management of Madras Motors Ltd. Vs. Presideing Officer, Labour Court ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ345Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of Mr. Karthik, learned Counsel representing T.S. Gopalan & Co. and appearing for the Management and Mr. Balan Handass, learned Counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae for the unrepresented workmen and perused the records filed by the parties as well as the original records summoned from the first respondent Labour Court.2. W.P. No. 6196/1998 is filed by the Management against the common Award dated] August 18,1997 made in I.D. No. 531/1989 (S. Marudupandian) and I.D. No. 533/1989 (S. Gunasekaran). In I.D. No. 531/1989, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of workman Marudupandian with continuity of service and back wages. In I.D. No. 533/1989, in respect of workman S. Gunasekaran, he was given the relief of compensation of a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.3. W.P. No. 6197/1998 is filed by the' Management against the preliminary order dated July 9, 1993 made in I.D. No. 533/1989 wherein the enquiry conducted by the Management was fo...
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division-ii) Ltd. Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ350Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. This writ petition is directed against the order of the second respondent Industrial Tribunal dated May 29,1998 made in Approval Petition No. 4/1992.The petitioner is the Management. Parties in this writ petition are referred to as the Management and workman as the case may be.3. The brief facts leading to the industrial dispute are as follows:The first respondent workman joined the service of the petitioner Corporation on March 16, 1971. He was charge-sheeted on July 13, 1991 for being unautnorisedly absent and without notice from June 9, 1991. Since the explanation offered by the first respondent was: not satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted on July 27, 1991. The Enquiry Officer, by his report dated September 30, 1991, found the charge against the first respondent as proved. A show-cause notice dated October 26,1991 was; issued as to why he should not be terminated from servi...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raj Finlease Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Mad)306
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. By formulating the following question of law, the Revenue has come forward with the above appeals as against the order of the Tribunal dt. 13th July, 2007 passed in ITA Nos. 990 and 789/Mad/2003:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessment was not validly reopened and accordingly annulled the reassessment order, even though income chargeable to tax has escaped by virtue of claiming excess depreciation and the Tribunal has not adjudicated the other issues raised by the assessee is valid?2. The facts culled out from the records proceed as follows:The relevant assessment year is 1998-99. The assessee company filed a return of income for the said assessment year declaring a net income of Rs. 1,54,640 on 30th Nov., 1998. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act. Later on, the AO, taking a view that there was an escapement of income, issued a notice under Section 148 of...
Management of D.C. Diwan Mohideen Beedi Factory Vs. Appellate Authorit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: (2009)ILLJ616Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. W.P. Nos. 4821 and 4822/1998 were filed by the Management of D.C. Diwan Mohideen Beedi Factory while W.P. Nos. 5804 and 5805/1998 were filed by the Management of S.K.S. Pookoodal Beedi Factory and were directed against the order dated December 31, 1997 passed by the appellate authority under the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act 1966.2. W.P. No. 13254/1998 is filed by one Zulekha and 37 others against the common order dated October 29, 1997 passed by the Labour Court, Salem in various C.P. Nos.3. W.P. No. 14036/1998 is filed by one Ansarbi and 55 others against the common order dated October 29, 1997 passed by the Labour Court, Salem in C.P. Nos. 286/1996, etc.4. With the consent of the parties, the writ petitions were heard together and a common order is passed.5. Heard the arguments of Mr. M.R. Raghavan, learned Counsel appearing for the Management and Mr. S. Arunachalam, learned Counsel appearing for the workmen and perused the records.6. T...
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. Kirloskar Constructions and Engineers ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR355(Madras)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. OP No. 227 of 2002 is filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board challenging the award dated 17.03.2001 passed by the arbitrators in the matter 23 arbitration regarding the construction of raw and clear water tunnels from Pillur Reservoir, etc. for water supply to Coimbatore Local Planning and Rural Areas for Coimbatore Water Supply Project under Contract Agreement No. SECH/E1/AEE1/AE/VK/F.CWSP/SECH-16 dated 18.11.1991.2. The first respondent was the successful tenderer on 20.10.1990. After successful round of discussion, the first respondent submitted a supplemental technical bid and a price bid. Accordingly, there was an increase in bid price by 7.5%. The validity of the bid was extended up to 28.02.1991. The petitioner issued the letter of acceptance on 28.02.1991 on the value quoted by the first respondent. Thus, for the construction of the Water Tunnel Board, Pillur, the value of the contract as quoted by the first respondent and accepted by the petitioner...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Deivamalar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: [2009]309ITR249(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'D' Bench dated May 11, 2007, in I. T. A. No. 227/Mds/2006. The relevant assessment year is 2000-01. The substantial questions of law formulated for entertainment of the appeal are as follows:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right in not considering Section 249(4) in view of the fact that as per the amendment made with effect from April 1, 1989, by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, no power is conferred on the appellate authority to deal with a case where a return has been filed without payment of admitted tax ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right in not considering the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. G.A. Samanthakamani reported in : [2003]259ITR215(Mad) wherein it had been held that no appeal against a penalt...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »