Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1996Mad364
ORDER1. This writ petition coming on for hearing on Wednesday, the 6th, Thursday, the 7th and Friday, the 9th day of December, 1995 upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 10-10-95 and made herein and the counter and reply affidavits filed herein and the records relevant to the prayer aforesaid and comprised in the return of the respondents herein to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Ravi, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Rajeswaran, Advocate for the respondents, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following order:--The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of declaration the entire paragraph 9.00 and paragraphs 11 and 12 of Schedule Part I of the Schedule to the Revised Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity formulated by the 1st respondent in B.P.Ms. (FB) No. 61 dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1965Mad392
(1) This appeal instituted by M. A. and Sons (appellants) from the order and decree of the learned Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing O. P. No. 478 of 1961, involves certain questions of interest with regard to a reference to arbitration, as provided for by the by-laws of the Madras Oil and Seeds Exchange (Pte.) Ltd (first respondent). The essential facts and dates are as follows:(2) There were certain contracts, which were of the character of forward contracts, as between the appellants and the second respondent firm (Kilachand and Devchand and Co. Pte. Ltd.) for supplies of groundnut oil on differing dates. It is not in dispute that, owing to the alleged bursting of the boiler apparatus, the appellants were unable to deliver, and reported the inability; in brief, the contracts were broken. On the principle of S. 60 of the Indian Sales of Goods Act, the second respondent choose to treat the contract as subsisting, and waited till the date of delivery. As the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1931Mad152; (1931)60MLJ551
Reilly, J.1. These two appeals relate to suits in which the Corporation of Madras claimed declarations that the Madras Electric Tramways Company and the Madras Electric Supply Corporation respectively were subject to the. control of the Commissioner of the Corporation under Sections 287 and 288 respectively of the Madras City Municipal Act. The suits were tried by the Judge of the City Civil Court, who dismissed both of them. They came on appeal before Waller, J., whose opinion was that both the Companies carried on their operations under special Acts, or what were equivalent to special Acts, inconsistent with the general Act, the City Municipal Act, and that the Corporation of Madras were not entitled to the declarations for which they sought. He upheld the decision of the City Civil Court; and it is against that decision that these two appeals have been preferred.2. I think it will be convenient to deal with the two cases separately, and, if I may say so with great respect, I doubt w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
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
Reported in : 1991(53)ELT312(Mad)
S. Mohan, Off. C.J.1. All these appeals can be dealt with under a common judgment. They arise out of the order passed by our learned brother Nainar Sundaram, J., in W.P. No. 4062 to 4067 of 1980. 2. The short facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions were as follows : We will confine ourselves to the facts in W.A. No. 321 of 1987 which will be sufficient to highlight the issue. The petitioners-appellants are a Small Scale Unit holding Registration Certificate No. 18/07/20688/PMT/SSI dated 7-12-1976. They are manufactures of Stainless Steel Utensils among other things. For the purpose of the manufacture of stainless steel utensils, they import Stainless Steel Circles. They imported H. T. Stainless Steel Circles as per s.s. S. 737 for the manufacture of stainless steel utensils and cleared the goods under Bill of Entry No. 147 dated 4-9-1979. The duty was assessed by the concerned Customs Officer under the Item 73.15(2) of the Schedule to the Indian Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1963Mad434; 1963CriLJ636
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal, filed against the judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., raises a question as to the constitutional validity of Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act. That provision has been challenged as void before us on the ground that it contravenes Articles 14 and 20(3) of the Constitution. But the objection to the validity of the section under the first head, namely, that it denies equal protection of laws to persons similarly situate, was not taken before the learned Judge; nor even in the grounds of appeal before us. But in view of importance of the matter and as the learned Advocate-General had no objection to the question being raised at this stage, we have allowed learned counsel for the appellant to argue that point.2. We shall now set out the circumstances which have necessitated the appellant to call to his aid the Fundamental Rights declared under Articles 14 and 20(3).3. The appellant is a merchant at Madras trading under the name of Rainbow Trading ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Tax Case Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai C Bench, dated 16.8.2004 passed in I.T.A.No. 705/1996. (Judgment of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J)1. The assessee is on appeal as against the order of Tribunal for the assessment year 1983-84. The above appeal was admitted on the following questions of law.1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding amended collaboration agreement was an extension of the old agreement which was entered into before 1.4.76 and hence the tax was payable at the rate of 50%?2. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in not giving specific direction to the Assessing Officer, to grant consequential benefits if the agreement dated 21.8.81 is treated as an agreement entered into before 1.4.76?2. The assessee herein is a non resident assessee represented through its agency BHEL. The said non resident company had an agreement ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2001(76)ECC151; 2001(129)ELT48(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The issue requiring our consideration is as to whether Modvat credit is available to a manufacturer in this case a manufacturer of Viscose Rayon in respect of the wires and cables which are used for the transmission of the electrical energy from the Sub Station within the premises of the manufacturer to the blowers which are used to take out Sulphur dioxide gas generated in the manufacturing process employed in the factory, unless that noxious gas is removed, it will not be possible for the workmen to continue to work within the premises of the factory, as the gas is generated in the process of manufacture, the workmen being engaged in operating, the machines employed in that process.2. The Modvat credit so claimed was not granted on the ground that those wires and cables are not used in the process of manufacture and, therefore, do not constitute capital goods for the purpose of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, as it stood in the year 1994. Though the Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1980)15CTR(Mad)378; [1979]120ITR827(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. All these references raise a common point. In T.C. No. 842 of 1977, relating to the assessment year 1969-70, the following question has been referred to this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 35B in respect of expenses after February 29, 1968, incurred by the branches in Kulalumpur and Penang '2. In. T.C. No. 115 of 1976, relating to the assessment year 1970-71, the following question has been referred :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to weighted (sic) under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the overhead charges incurred by it for the maintenance of its branches at Penang and Kulalumpur for the assessment year 1970-71 ?'3. There is apparently an omission of the word ' deduction ' after the word ' weighted ', where we have added the expression ' sic '.4. In T.C. No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The revision petitioner in all these three cases is one and the same. A complaint was filed against the petitioner in these three cases for not filing the income tax returns before the statutory due date as per Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and thereby liable under Section 276CC of the Act, 1961.2. In E.O.C.C.No.95 of 2005, a complaint was filed for not filing the returns before the statutory due date i.e., on 31.08.1996 but filed only on 24.03.1999 with a delay of 2 years and 7 months; in E.O.C.C.No.96 of 2005, a complaint was filed for not filing the returns before the statutory due date i.e., on 31.10.1997 but filed only on 26.03.2001 with a delay of 41 months and in E.O.C.C.No.94 of 2005, a complaint was filed for not filing the returns before the statutory due date i.e., on 30.11.1998 but filed only on 26.03.2001 with a delay of 28 months.3. On the side of the prosecution, three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and thereafter th...
Tag this Judgment!