Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-02-1997
Reported in : [1999]97CompCas478(Mad)
P. D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard all the parties.2. The writ petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus for bearing the respondents from interfering with the rehabilitation scheme and with the restarting of the third respondent mill by way of interim working without prior sanctions from the second respondent herein as envisaged under 19A of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and consequently to direct the respondents to proceed as per the directions of the second respondent in so far as it relates to the rehabilitation and re-starting/continuing operations of the third respondent mill.3. The petitioner contends that : 4. Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd., Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu, the third respondent herein, is a composite textile mill located at Tiruppur and was incorporated in April, 1932, as a spinning mill. It started commercial production in May, 1932.5. Thereafter, a separate weaving unit called 'B' Mill was started in 1960, and the earlier spinning unit came ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-24-1997
Reported in : (1998)148CTR(Mad)506; [2000]241ITR645(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The assessee is a public limited company and the assessment year involved is 1979-80, the relevant previous year ending on 31st August, 1979. The ITO, while completing the assessment made certain disallowance under s. 40(c) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). He held that the gratuity paid to one Krishnan, the director of the company should be taken into account for the purpose of determining the ceiling under s. 40(c) of the Act. Similarly, he took into account the provident fund contribution, pension contribution and one year term assurance contributed by the company in respect of directors amounting to Rs. 72,593. He, therefore, held that the entire sum would represent the payments made to the director and it has to be disallowed under s. 40(c) of the Act. He, therefore, disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,05,593 in the computation of the income of the assessee applying the provisions of s. 40(c) of the Act. 2. The CIT(A), on appeal, d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-01-1997
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ621Mad
Kanakaraj, J.1. The Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai :'Whether the demand of the workmen of the Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen represented by the Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union, Madras, for treating the staff of such canteens which are run by the local implementation committees, as workmen of Indian Overseas Bank for giving them the same status, pay and facilities as are available to other class IV employees of the bank is justified? If so, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled ?'This was taken on file as I.D. No. 72 of 1990. About one year later on December 17, 1991, the Government of India under the very same powers referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai:'Whether the demand of the Indian Over...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-07-1997
Reported in : (1997)IILLJ143Mad
1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in Workmen's Compensation Petition No. 97 of 1994. 2. The petitioner's case is as follows : The petitioner was working as a polisher under the first opposite party on a salary of Rs. 1000/- per month for the past six years. On October 26, 1993 during the course of his employment the petitioner sustained an injury on his right hand. The permanent disability caused to the petitioner on account of this employment injury is 40%. The petitioner has therefore made a claim of Rs. 49,850/-. 3. The first opposite party in their objection statement have not admitted the employment of the petitioner. They have also contended that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner and it was a simple injury. He has further contended that a sum of Rs. 1331/- was paid for medical expenses and that the petitioner has not sustained any employment injury to be paid as compensation claimed by him. 4. The se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-07-1997
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ298
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is filed by the petitioner who is conducting a Vegetarian Light Refreshment Room in Platform No. 2, at Madras Egmore Railway Station, alleging that after the period of licence expired on 31.7.1996, the respondent herein issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Petitioner was directed to explain why action should not be taken against him for eviction. An explanation was offered by the petitioner as per his written statement dated 26.8.1996. According to him, he has paid a sum of Rs. 12,000 on 2.4.1996 being the licence fee for the year 1996-97 and, therefore, he cannot be treated as a unauthorised occupant. The respondent, as per Order dated 2.9.1996, rejected the objection, and, by a reasoned Order, held that the petitioner is liable to be evicted, and it was declared that he and other persons who are in occupation of the said premises should vacate within 15 days fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-18-1997
Reported in : 1999(105)ELT279(Mad)
ORDER1. This revision arises against the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II), dated 6-5-1996 im M.P. No. 46 of 1996 in E.O.C.C. No. 84 of 1995. 2. E.O.C.C. No. 84 of 1395 is a complaint filed by the respondent herein as against Hindustan Teleprinters Limited, Madras-32 (first accused) and Mrs. Lakshmi G. Menon, the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. HTL. Limited (second accused). 3. The complaint was filed under various provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on the following allegations :- It was alleged that based on the intelligence gathered the first accused was evading payment of duty by suppressing the real value of the goods manufactured and cleared from the factory and was receiving huge amounts from their customers subsequent to the sale of goods, in addition to the amount shown in the invoices, that during the visit of the Central Excise officers, it was found that the first accused had raised debit notes for Rs. 6,21,61,927/- towa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-11-1997
Reported in : (1997)IILLJ963Mad
ORDER1. The above writ petitions are filed by Mettw Chemicals Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam and Chemplast Employees Union, Mettur Dam for a relief of mandamus directing the respondent not to discontinue the existing benefits, namely regular fixed monthly payment, covered by the settlement dated November 27, 1992 without giving notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The same may be disposed of by the following common order. 2. The case of the petitioner Union is that the respondent company has been making enormous profits and the workmen are outside the purview of the payment of Bonus Act. Hence, the management offered a fixed monthly payment to the workmen who were outside the purview of Payment of Bonus Act. In those circumstances, a settlement dated November 27, 1992 under Section 18(1) of the Act between the respondent and the various unions, providing for fixed monthly payment of 56.5 per cent of wages of April, 1992 every mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-07-1997
Reported in : (1998)1MLJ468
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff to declare its right over the suit property and for injunction restraining the first defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff.3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a Bajanai Madam managed by the trustees, one Ananda Chandrasekaran by deed dated 6.4.1972 donated the suit property to the madam. One Ramalinga Gramani by deed dated 2.4.1970 bequeathed properties to his daughters. However, he left out some properties from the purview of the will and bequeathed those items of properties in favour of Ananda Chandra Sekaran his eldest son-in-law. In fulfilment of the wishes of Ramalinga Gramani, Ananda Chandresekaran donated the suit property to the madam and handed over possession also to the Dharmakarthas. The first de-fendant has purchased 3/4th share in the suit property from the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-22-1997
Reported in : (1997)142CTR(Mad)244; [1999]235ITR514(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the entire 'amount of additional conveyance allowance and 40% of incentive bonus received by the assessee as an employee of LIC of India is exempt ?' 2. The assessee is a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('LIC') and has received incentive bonus and also additional conveyance allowance to cover the expenses incurred by him on account of conveyance. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee that the additional conveyance and incentive bonus have to be exempted from tax. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed 40 per cent of the incentive bonus as deduction and also deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer with regard to the addi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-20-1997
Reported in : 1997(2)CTC725; (1998)IMLJ89
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. L.P.A. No. 53 of 1993 was filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated December 16, 1991 in C.M.A. No. 554 of 1985 dismissing the appeal filed by the Corporation against the order of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, in E.S.I. O.P. No. 283 of 1983. 2. L.P.A. No. 179 of 1993 was filed by the Proprietor of Madras Type Foundry against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated October 24, 1991 in C.M.A. No. 469 of 1984 dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the First Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in E.S.I. O.P. No. 26 of 1983. 3. L.P.A. No. 148 of 1995 was filed by the Corporation against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated September 7, 1994 in C.M.A. No. 933 of 1986 dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the First Addition...
Tag this Judgment!