Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-24-1985
Reported in : (1985)IILLJ509Mad
1. This writ petition is for certiorari to quash G.O.Ms. No. 1482 (Labour) dated 4th July, 1984, in and by which the Government of Tamil Nadu directed a reference of the dispute between the workmen and the management of the Boiler Auxiliaries Project of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Ranipet, North Arcot District in respect of bonus for the accounting years 1981-82 and 1982-83. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : The Supervisor Union, BHEL/BAP, Ranipet, raised an industrial dispute against the management of Boiler Auxiliaries Project of BHEL, Ranipet over the issue of payment of bonus for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83. Conciliatory talks were held by the Commissioner of Labour in this dispute. The other unions functioning in the establishment, viz., Boiler Auxiliaries Project, Anna Workers Union, Ranipet also participated in the conciliatory talks. Since no settlement was possible the Commissioner of Labour sent a conciliation failure report to the Government. Thereupon, consider...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-21-1985
Reported in : [1985]60STC125(Mad)
Chandurkar, C.J.1. All the above-mentioned petitions have been filed by hotel owners challenging the constitutional validity of item 150 in First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the demand for sales tax on the basis that they are liable to pay sales tax on articles of food and drink supplied by them to the customers in their hotels under section 3(2) read with item 150 in the First Schedule to the Act. 2. Writ Petition No. 256 of 1985 is filed by the Tamil Nadu Hotels Association represented by its President. The State Government has filed its counter in all the other petitions but was not able to file the counter in W.P. No. 256 of 1985, but having regard to the fact that the questions involved in all these petitions were purely questions of law, we have heard Mr. Ramachandran who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, along with the counsel who appeared in the several petitions mentioned above. It is not now in dispute t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-07-1985
Reported in : (1985)2MLJ195
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The writ petition and the civil revision petition are dealt with together as the petitioner and the main contesting respondents are the same and closely interconnected questions arise for decision. The circumstances giving rise to these proceedings may be briefly stated as under: The petitioner (for short in the writ petition as well as the civil revision petition) is the owner of Survey No. 354/2 and Survey No. 392/2 (corresponding to R.S.No. 84/4) within the desam of Palloor Mahe. The third respondent in the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as the Kudikidappukari) (who is the same as the first respondent in the civil revision petition) was living in a portion of Survey No. 392/2. She claimed rights as Kudikidappu to Survey No. 354/2 and also offered to pay the expenses therefor. Though it appears that the Kudikidappukari orally agreed to do so, nevertheless, she filed an application for recognising her as Kudikidappukari and on 30.11.1973, an order was pass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-15-1985
Reported in : 1987(30)ELT415(Mad)
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. In this batch of cases, the validity of the orders of detention made under section 3(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 is questioned. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the constitution of the Advisory Board under Section 8(a) of the Act is violative of Article 22(4) of the Constitution and that therefore the continued detention of the detenue for a period more than two months from the date of detention is illegal. Section 8 of the Act dealing with Advisory Board states that :- 'For the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (4), and sub-clause (c) of clause (7), of article 22 of the Constitution, - (a) the Central Government and each State Government shall, whenever necessary, constitute one or more Advisory Boards each of which shall consist of a Chairman and two other persons possessing the qualifications specified in Sub-clause (a) clause (4) of article 22 of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-18-1985
Reported in : 1986(7)ECC17; 1985(22)ELT21(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm dealing in Indian Medicinal plants and herbs and in the course of its business, it buys and sells within the country and also exports medicinal plants to foreign countries. On 10-6-1964, the petitioner despatched 52 bales of what was described to be Vinca Rosea by road from Madras to Cochin for export from Cochin Port. This consignment was accompanied by a Photosanitary certificate issued by the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine Storage, Department of Agricultural and Co-operation, Government of India, and a certificate of the representative of the buyer showing that they had drawn samples from the consignment and had inspected and sealed the consignment. After filing the necessary shipping bills, the consignment was presented for export and it was examined and inspected by the Customs authorities on 23rd June, 1984 and a 'Let Export Order'was passed by the Customs authorities. However, two days later, the 'Let Export Or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-14-1985
Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Mad)354; [1986]159ITR381(Mad)
1. Freedom of speech and a free press are indispensable prerequisites of a democratic and free society. In fact, democracy without a free press is a contradiction in terms. It is through a free and responsible press that public opinion is moulded and grievances of individuals and groups ventilated. The commanding position of owners managers, editors and publishers of newspapers in a democratic set up has evils of its own.2. The doctrine of rule of law rests on the basic foundation and structure of a country's well-ordered government and its established courts of justice. Though it is the legislative wing of the Government that makes the law, there is yet a large body of common law based on customs and practices of the society which gives them the sanctity of law. In the ultimate analysis, it is the courts of justice that administer all these law and in their interpretative jurisdiction, they take note of the intendment of the legislature and often supply the omissions in the enacted la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-21-1985
Reported in : (1985)47CTR(Mad)329; [1986]159ITR303(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company and has been carring on business in the purchase and sale of handloom clothes, shipping, stevedoring as well as managing agency. On July 21, 1967, it had entered into an agreement with Capelin Associates Limited, Geneva. Switzerland (hereinafter referred to as 'the foreign company'), for the purpose of setting up plant and machinery at Bangalore for manufacturing readymade garments. In accordance therewith, a factory for manufacturing readymade garments was set up during the accounting, year ending December 31, 1967. While determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 40,52,750 for the assessment year 1968-69, with which we are concerned in this reference, the Income-tax Officer, disallowed, among others, Rs. 4,11,474 representing the aggregate of the amounts paid to the foreign company, according to the terms of the agreement, by way of salary paid to the foreign technicians, the cost of air passage, hotel accommodation, etc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-08-1985
Reported in : (1986)1MLJ438
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. The defendant P. Kamakshi Ammal in O.S. No. 9i20 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, has filed A.S. No. 710 of 1978 against the judgment and decree dated 21.4.1977 in the said O.S. No. 9120 of 1974.2. The plaintiff P. Kamakshi Ammal in O.S. No. 3470 of 1976 on the file of the Court of the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, has filed A.S. No. 770 of 1978 against the judgment and decree dated 21.4.1977 in the said O.S. No. 3470 of 1976.3. Both these suits - O.S. Nos. 9120 of 1974 and 3470 of 1976 were disposed of by a common judgment dated 21.4.1977 by the Court of the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.4. The plaintiff-P. Venkatesan in O.S. No. 9120 of 1974 was examined as P.W. 1. Exs.A-1 to A-21 were filed on behalf of the plaintiff P. Venkatesan, P. Kamakshi Ammal - the defendant in O.S. No. 9120 of 1974 examined herself as D.W.1. D.W.2 Guruswami was also examined on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-09-1985
Reported in : [1988]64CompCas425(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. O.S.A. No. 128 of 1981 is against the order dated August 19, 1981, in Company Application No. 844 of 1981 and 0. S. A. No. 189 of 1981 is against the order dated December 7, 1981, in Company Application No. 843 of 1981. Both these applications were filed pending Company Petition No. 30 of 1981, which is a petition filed under Sections 433(e) and (f), 434 and 439(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of a company by name Ramakrishna Industries Private Ltd. Company Application No. 843 of 1981 is for the appointment of a provisional liquidator pending disposal of the main company petition and C.A. No. 844 of 1981 is an application filed under Rule 11 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with Order 39, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, for an order of injunction restraining the appellants herein from borrowing any moneys from banks, financial institutions or others without the prior permission of the court and from alienating and/or creating an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-02-1985
Reported in : [1987]61CompCas20(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. These two appeals have been filed against the common judgment in C.S. No. 322 of 1975 and Company Petition No. 94 of 1976. The plaintiffs in the suit and the petitioner in the company petition are the appellants. The first appellant, V. M. Rao, is the elder son of late V. Ramakrishna, I.C.S. Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 are the wife and daughter, respectively, of the first appellant. The first respondent, Rajeswari Ramakrishnan, is the elder sister and V. L. Dutt, the fifth respondent, is the younger brother of the first appellant. The third respondent, P. R. Ramakrishnan, is the husband of Rajeswari Ramakrishnan and respondents Nos. 2 and 4 are two of their sons. The sixth respondent is V. Ramakrishna Sons Ltd. which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as 'the company.' 2. The company was incorporated under the Companies Act and a certificate of incorporation was granted on July 7, 1949. The nominal capital of the company is Rs. 10...
Tag this Judgment!