Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-30-1995
Reported in : 1995(2)CTC156; [1996(73)FLR1217]; (1996)ILLJ283Mad
1. Though in some of the writ petitions the constitutional validity of Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948, as amended by the Central Act 20 of 1987, has been challenged, but during the course of arguments in all these writ petitions, the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners have confined their arguments only to the scope and ambit of the provisions contained in Section 2(n) of the Act, as amended by the Central Act 20 of 1987. Therefore, we refrain from going into the contentions raised in the writ petition as to the validity of the provisions contained in Section 2(n) of the Factories Act as amended by the Central Act 20 of 1987.1.1. Thus, the only question that arises for consideration in all these writ petitions is as to the scope and ambit of Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, as amended by the Central Act 20 of 1987, hereinafter referred to as the Act.1.2. The cause for these writ petitions is that the applications filed by some of the companies and also t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-06-1995
Reported in : [1998]91CompCas757(Mad); 1995(52)ECC18
S.S. Subramani, J. 1. Writ Petition No. 9380 of 1994 is filed by Bhabootimal Jain and his household servant Vagharam Choudhary. The said writ petition was filed on May 16, 1994, on the following allegations. 2. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioners are law abiding citizens, and the first petitioner has retired from active business activities since the past three years. The first petitioner has stated in the affidavit that his three sons are engaged in stainless steel business, dealing only in indigenous goods. It is said that the first petitioner's eldest son, Vijayaraj, is the proprietor of a firm 'Vijaya Steel Center' at No. 11/C-1, Ekambareshwarar Agraharam, Madras-3. According to the first petitioners, after visiting a nearby Jain temple in the morning, he generally used to sit in the shop for some time, for the past more than three years. Petitioner No. 1 states in his affidavit that the petitioners have been constrained to take excep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-28-1995
Reported in : [1995]215ITR371(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed by different income-tax assessees praying for a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the provisions of section 64(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 1992, as illegal, beyond the scope of preventing avoidance of tax and inconsistent with the scheme of the Income-tax Act and violative of articles 14, 19 and 265 of the Constitution of India. Since the contentions raised by the petitioners and the relief sought in the above writ petitions are similar and common, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Writ Petition No. 16425 of 1992 : The petitioner herein is an advocate. He is an income-tax assessee. His wife, Mrs. B. Vasanthakumari, and his minor daughter, V. Suchitra, are also assessees with regard to their independent source of income. In so far as the daughter of the petitioner is concerned, the source of her income is traceable to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-07-1995
Reported in : (1996)ILLJ647Mad
ORDERAr. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 19967 of 1994 is a practising advocate in this Court. According to him, the writ petition has been filed by him without any motive against the respondents and the same has been filed in good faith in order to safeguard the constitutional provisions, judicial principles and public justice. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of quo-warranto to the 4th respondent Thiru N. Haribaskar as to in what capacity he is holding the office of Chief Secretaryship and discharging its functions, after November 30, 1994.2. W.P. No. 20297 of 1994 is filed by Mr. K. Rajaram, former Speaker of the Tamil, Nadu Legislative Assembly, former Member of Parliament and a former Minister of the Government of Tamil Nadu challenging the extension of service given to Thiru N. Haribaskar, Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu. According to him, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu overlooking the constitutional provisions and the Tamil Nadu G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-22-1995
Reported in : 1995(52)ECC53; 2003(162)ELT121(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The Indo-Swiss Synthetic Gem . (for short 'Company') - respondent (in all Writ Appeals - petitioner) is situate at 13/239, Main Road, Mettupalayam-1. The company, it is said, is a manufacturer of synthetic gem. It imported silica crucibles under valid licence from France and filed five bills of entries, namely, (1) D.1211, dated 28-4-1982; (2) D.1212, dated 22-3-1980; (3) D. 262, dated 5-7-1982; (4) D.1105, dated 19-12-1980; and (5) D.1106, dated 19-12-1980.2. The Assistant Collector of Customs assessed the goods and levied additional or countervailing duty under Customs Tariff Heading 70.21 and under item 23-A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff (for short 'CET'). The consignment had been cleared on payment of duty, as demanded.3. Even though the items imported were silica crucibles, the Assistant Collector of Customs classified the goods for assessing duty under the Heading No. 70.21, which related to 'other articles of glass', in view of Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 17, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-27-1995
Reported in : [1996]85CompCas111(Mad)
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The common order, which is appealed against was passed by Government J. in respect of the prayers for interim reliefs. The facts, which are the foundation for filing the present appeals are also closely interconnected with the reliefs sought for. The respondents in all the appeals are common. Hence, all the appeals were heard together. 2. The first appellant has instituted C. S. No. 1128 of 1994 seeking for a declaration that the notice issued by the first respondent calling for the 25th annual general meeting of the company on September 12, 1994, for the purpose of considering and passing items Nos. 10, 11 and 12 under the caption 'special business' in the agenda is illegal, void and unenforceable and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their offers, subordinate, etc., from considering and passing resolutions Nos. 10, 11 and 12 set out in the agenda in the notice for the 25th annual general meeting of the first defendant-company under the capti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-02-1995
Reported in : 1995(1)CTC452; 1995(52)ECC92; 1995(78)ELT410(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of PVC resins, pipes and fittings with its factory at Mettur Dam. They have also an Industrial Plant at Krishangiri for the manufacture of Industrial alcohol. Finding that the power supply from the State Electricity Board is insufficient and often interrupted, the petitioner decided to have a satisfactory 100 per cent power supply to maintain its PVC factory. Accordingly, they decided to have a Power Project for the generation of the electricity to meet its requirements. They obtained a no objection certificate from the Tamil Nadu Government and Electricity Board. They obtained a licence for the import of a 4.8 M.W. combined Cycle Power Project from Japan. It is a Gas Turbine Power Project. The Power Project fell under Heading 84.66 of the Ist Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The first respondent had issued a Notification under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 namely, Notification 132/85, dated 19-4-1985 exempting the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-13-1995
Reported in : II(1996)DMC21; (1996)IMLJ271
S.S. Subramani, J.1. In both these appeals, wife is the appellant.2. O.P. No. 254 of 1991 was filed by the wife on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, for restitution of conjugal rights. That was filed on 2.8.1991. Counter was filed by the husband on 5.2.1992. Immediately thereafter, husband filed H.M.O.P. No. 19 of 1992, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kumbakonam on 31.3.1992. The wife seems to have filed an application for transfer in view of the pendency of O.P. 254 of 1991 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thanjavur as Tr. O.P. No. 61 of 1992. The District Court allowed the petition and H.M.O.P. No. 19 of 1992 was transferred to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thanjavur, where it was re-numbered as P.P. No. 59 of 1992. It was thereafter the wife filed a counter in O.P. No. 59 of 19.11.19923. I have stated the dates of filing of petitions and counter-affidavits since they have some relevance when I deal with the matter regarding the merits of the case.4. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-22-1995
Reported in : [1995]83CompCas272(Mad)
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The facts of the case in both the petitions are as follows : Company Petition No. 12 of 1982, has been filed under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the grounds of oppression and mismanagement. Company Petition No. 13 of 1982 has been filed under section 155 of the Act for rectification of the share register. Swadharma Swarajava Sangh/first respondent in both the petitions (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sangha'), a company having the benefits under section 25 of the Act, is a non-profit sharing company. 2. The memorandum and articles of association of the Sangha would reveal that it is a charitable institution. But, if is in the nature of a trust and is not a company in the strict sense of the term, nor is it a commercial venture. It was founded on March 28, 1930, by the late Kowtha Suryanarayana Rao as a company limited by shares. Subsequently, in the year 1957, licence was obtained from the Central Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-05-1995
Reported in : [1995]215ITR9(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. 1. The petitioner was one of the directors of a company by name, General Commercial Corporation (P.) Ltd., which was incorporated in 1946. There was one, R. Subramanian, who was the managing director. Another director was the father of the petitioner by name M. S. Ramamurthy. In 1951, the petitioner resigned his post as director. His father died in 1954. In January, 1969, the company was wound up in Company Petition No. 76 of 1968. On March 13, 1970, the Income-tax Officer, Circle I(2), Madras, wrote to the petitioner calling upon him to pay the income-tax arrears of the company for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50 to the tune of Rs. 80,144.69. It was stated that the petitioner was liable to pay the tax under section 179 of the Income-tax Act of 1961. The petitioner sent a reply on April 16, 1970, stating that it was only the managing director who would be responsible and he furnished the details of the managing director. The official liquidator filed an applicat...
Tag this Judgment!