Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)23VST151(Mad)
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J.1. The petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings dated 18.7.2008 in ROC-2192/99 A3 from the Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai, in respect of the tax dues from a defaulter for the period 1993-1994 to 1997-1998.2. It is seen that in respect of the tax arrears of a defaulter assessee, the respondent herein issued notice in Form IV on 26.8.1999 under the Revenue Recovery Act and attached the property of the assessee. The attachment was published in the District Gazette on 8.12.2000 and notice as to bring the property for sale was published in the newspaper on 4.3.2001. placing reliance on the decision reported in [1999] 115 STC 545 (E.T. & T.D. Corporation Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan) that the State Government's dues have the first charge over any other arrears, the respondent issued notice to the petitioner in Form B6 and called upon the petitioner to remit within fifteen days the amount realised by the Bank towards its dues by au...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)IILLJ518Mad; (2009)2MLJ596
K. Chandru, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the Management against the Award dated 22.10.1998 passed by the first respondent Labour Court and made in I.D. No. 922 of 1993 inasmuch as it had granted relief of reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service to the second respondent. 2. The claim of the petitioner was that the Award suffers from material irregularity and manifest error.3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 'nil' (May 2003) refuting the stand of the petitioner. By an order dated 29.8.2003, this Court while admitting the writ petition had granted the stay of the Award in so far as it relates to payment of backwages.4. The facts of the case are as follows:The second respondent was appointed as a sales representative in the petitioner book publishing house right from the year 1988 and the petitioner started the office in Chennai. It is claimed by the second respondent that though the nomenclature was that of a sales representative, his substa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2009]310ITR237(Mad); [2009]178TAXMAN57(Mad)
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The assessee is a non-resident Company; its business consists inter alia of selling and setting of power plants. In 1995, with the necessary statutory approvals the assessee set up a company in India called Ansaldo Services Private Ltd. (ASPL hereafter). In 1997, the Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC in short) floated a single-bid tender for its expansion plan of setting up two thermal plants at Neyveli. The assessee applied for the bid in response to NLC's advertisement. It did so as a single bidder.2. According to the assessee, it had communicated to NLC right from the beginning that NLC should award the Indian portions of the turnkey contract to other legal entities to be selected by the assessee. According to the assessee, this condition was imposed since the assessee had no business persons in India. The assessee assured NLC that it would take the overall responsibility of the entire turnkey contract in its capacity as a single bidder. After the technical and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)5MLJ856
ORDER1. The issue relates to a question of promotion and more particularly from which year, the promotion will be given effect to.2. The Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'DPC') for the year 1998, while considering the promotion of the first respondent, because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, kept the proceedings in a sealed cover, which had earlier recommended that the first respondent should be promoted. Subsequently, a punishment of stoppage of increment for two years was imposed on the first respondent. However, in appeal, such punishment was reduced to one of censure. On the completion of the stoppage of increment for two years, the first respondent was given promotion i.e. on 29.6.1999. However, the first respondent subsequently claimed that since the punishment had been modified to one of censure, which should not be considered as a punishment at all, the first respondent should have been given promotion from the date on which his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2009(162)LC122(Madras); 2009(235)ELT770(Mad)
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. Respondent imported 132 units of old and used Photocopiers with accessories from Singapore for a total value of USD 33,015. On arrival of the goods at Chennai Harbour, the respondent filed a Bill of Entry No. 518775, dated 31.07.2007, and sought for clearance of the same. However, the Chartered Engineer of the Department inspected the goods and appraised the total value at USD 48,255. As the respondent did not produce any licence, the goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The Bill of Entry was taken up for adjudication by the appellants. The respondent, in his letter, dated 23.08.2007, requested the appellants to release the goods. Pending consideration of such a request by the appellants, the respondent approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 29185 of 2007, praying for a direction to release the goods.3. The learned single Judge, while disposing of the Writ Petition, by an order, dated 19.09.2007, directed the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)IILLJ521Mad; (2009)2MLJ593
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay Petitioner's gratuity amounting Rs. 59,258/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.2. Petitioner was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the 1st Respondent Office and took voluntary retirement on 15.04.1994. The Respondents accepted the Petitioner's application for voluntary retirement and relieved the Petitioner in the afternoon on 15.04.1994. The Petitioner had put in 19 years of service in the office of the Respondent. According to Petitioner he is entitled to Rs. 59,258/- as on the date of voluntary retirement for the period of 19 years.3. Case of Petitioner is that instead of his entitlement to gratuity he has not been paid gratuity by the Respondents and therefore seeks direction to the Respondents to pay the gratuity amounting Rs. 59,258/-.4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. D.Selvanbabu, contended that though Petitioner is entitled to gratuity, the Petitioner was not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)2MLJ424
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The writ petitioner is a state owned Transport Corporation. Aggrieved by the Award in I.D. No. 169 of 1992 dated 15.3.1999 passed by the first respondent Labour Court, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court set aside the dismissal order dated 19.5.1981 and directed the reinstatement of the second respondent with service continuity and backwages. However, the Labour Court modified the punishment into one of stoppage of increment for a period of one year. 3. The writ petition was admitted by this Court on 11.11.1999. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim-stay on condition that the petitioner management deposits 50% of the backwages to the credit of the I.D. and also to comply with the condition of monthly payment as per Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act') with effect from 01.1.2000. Subsequently, the interim-stay was made absolute on 22.6.2000 permitting the workman t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2009(239)ELT9(Mad)
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 1st respondent dated 29.05.2008, confirming the Cancellation Order dated 05.04.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent and to direct the 2nd respondent to immediately issue the Post Export Transferable Duty Free Import Authorisation license to the petitioner for the value of Rs. 24,64,948.90 with validity of 24 months from the date of issue of the Duty Free Import Authorisation.2. The case of the petitioner as stood exposited from the affidavit is, as under:(i) The petitioner is a entrepreneur engaged in the business of export of garments and fabrics for the past five years. She claims to be a registered Manufacturer-Exporter of garments and a registered Merchant-Exporter of fabrics. As per the Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) Scheme introduced by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce to encourage small exporters, the petitioner applied to the 2nd respondent herein on 09.06.2006 for availing the li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)2MLJ275
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order made in I.A. No. 110 of 2006 in S.C. No. 44 of 2006 dated 28.06.2007 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court Trichirappalli.2. The defendants in S.C. No. 44 of 2006 are the revision petitioners. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein seeking a direction to the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,646/- with future interest at 30% per annum and cost from the date of plaint till the date of realisation. The said suit was filed on 09.12.2006 against the original defendant who died on 18.04.2005 leaving behind the petitioners herein who are the legal representatives of the deceased defendant i.e., widow and the father of the defendant.3. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the death of the defendant came to his knowledge through the endorsement made by the Process Server in the summons, and immediately, he filed I.A. No. 110 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)IIILLJ111Mad
K. Raviraja Pandian and S. Manikumar, JJ.1. Workman of Blue Star Ltd., is the appellant. By order in W.P. No. 14421/1997, dated August 24, 2006, the Writ Court has set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, passed in Approval Petition No. 61/1991, dated February 24, 1997 and remitted the matter to the Tribunal, giving liberty to the parties to produce documentary evidence to prove all the allegations, including the issue of protected workman. The correctness of the same is put in issue. For the sake of brevity, Industrial Disputes Act shall be Referred to as 'the Act' and the Tamil Nadu Industrial Dispute Rules, 1958 as 'the Rules.'2. Facts leading to the Appeal are as follows:The appellant was a Mechanic in the first respondent establishment. For certain acts of misconduct said to have committed by him on March 20, 1989 and February 22, 1990 respectively, two charge memos, dated March 23, 1989 and March 26, 1990 were issued to him. As the explanation was not satisfactory,...
Tag this Judgment!