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 : 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 : 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-06-1985
Reported in : (1986)53CTR(Mad)104; [1986]157ITR112(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In this petition filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee seeks a reference to this court on the following questions : ' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order under section 263 a passed by the Commissioner is valid in law (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in law and justified in modifying the order of the Commissioner and restoring the matter to the Income-tax Officer when the appeal is against the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (iii) Whether it is open to the Tribunal to restore the matter to the Income-tax Officer after having held that the Commissioner had failed to positively establish that the expenditure on commission will not qualify for weighted deduction (iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in not cancelling the disallowance of weighted deduction on commission payments when their finding is that the Commissioner had failed 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 : Nov-06-1985
Reported in : AIR1986Mad204
1. On a reference made by Nainar Sundaram, J. this writ petition has been heard by this Full Bench . for determination of the question, whether the pronouncement of a Division Bench of this Court in S. S. A. Vivekanandan v. State of Tamil Nadu, etc. W. P. 11886 of 1983, order D/- 2nd.July 1985 sets out the correct position of law and whether the petitioner is entitled to invoke the ratio in the said case to his aid.2. The, petitioner herein is the father of one Jayaprakash alias Jayaprakasarn, who was convicted by the Sessions Judge of Chengallpattu in S.C. 89 of 1984 on the file of his Court under nine counts under S. 302,IPC, for having committed the murder of his sister, sister's husband, their child and six others. between the hours 3.30 p.m. and 10 p.m. on 2 .4-24-1984, and sentenced to be hanged by neck till he is dead, subject to the confirmation of the sentence by the High Court. While the Sessions Judge made a reference of the case of Jayaprakash to this Court under S. 366, Cr...
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!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 : Dec-19-1985
Reported in : (1987)ILLJ141Mad
Chandurkar, C.J.1. This judgment will dispose of Writ Appeals Nos. 1235 of 1983 and 72 of 1984. Both these appeals arise out of the order of Mohan, J., in Writ Petition No. 1980 of 1983, which filed by the present appellant (hereinafter referred to as the company) challenging an award on the Industrial Tribunal Tamil Nadu in Industrial Dispute No. 38 of 1981. The Industrial Tribunal held that the services of the 131 casual employees of the company were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and they were, therefore, entitled to be re-employed with back-wages. As regards the fifty other casual employees, the Tribunal took the view that they should be re-employed without back-wages since they were accustomed to non-employment on various spells of break in service. By the impugned order, Mohah, J., held that the relief of reinstatement with back-wages could be given to only 131 workmen and that the award in respect of the 50 workmen...
Tag this Judgment!