Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1965]58ITR802(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered byVEERASWAMI J. - For the assessment year 1949-50, a penalty of Rs. 32,000, as reduced by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, with whom the Tribunal agreed, was levied on the assessee. The question directed to be referred to us under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs. 32,000 on the assessee-company was lawful. In the assessment of the total profits of the assessee for that year, certain additions had been made referable to understatement of sales of yarn and waste which, as eventually found on appeals, amounted in the aggregate to Rs. 77,641. In the penalty proceedings, it has been found by all the authorities including the Tribunal that the assessee had concealed or kept back the profits to that extent, but as regards the quantum of tax sought to be affected, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, as reduced by him, found it to be Rs. 32,098. Thoug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Judge at Udhagamandalam made in A.S.No.11 of 2010 dated 8.9.2010 confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Learned District Munsif, Coonoor made in O.S.No.13 of 2000 dated 17.11.2009.) 1. The defendants have challenged the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Court, Udhagamandalam made in A.S.No.11 of 2010 dated 08.09.2010 confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Coonoor made in O.S.No.13 of 2000 dated 17.11.2009. 2. The suit is for recovery of possession and for damages. 3. The averments in the plaint are briefly stated as follows: The plaintiff is the landlord of the suit property and the defendants are the tenants under the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. As the plaintiff required the suit property for its necessity, it had requested the defendants to vacate and hand over the possession and despite promise, the defendants de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer in Crl.O.P. No.27882 of 2015: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the order dated 14.09.2015 passed in Memo in S.T.C. No.2668 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur. Crl.O.P. No.1372 of 2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records pertaining to S.T.C. No.2668 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur and quash the said complaint in S.T.C. No.2668 of 2014 filed by the respondent.) 1. While Crl.O.P. No.27882 of 2015 is filed to set aside the order dated 14.09.2015 passed in Memo in S.T.C. No.2668 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur, Crl.O.P. No.1372 of 2016 is filed to call for the records pertaining to S.T.C. No.2668 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur and quash the said complaint in S.T.C. No.2668 of 2014 filed by the respondent. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 84Ind.Cas.107; (1924)46MLJ505
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. The Full Bench having decided that an English incorporated company is not exempt from the tax on companies imposed by Section 110 of the Madras City Municipal Act IV of 1919 by the mere reason of its capital being expressed in sterling, we have now to determine the third question referred to us, which is whether income derived from the transaction of business outside the City of Madras which is transmitted to Madras to the agents of an English firm for being converted into sterling and remitted to England is part of the gross income of the company upon which the tax is leviable. The same question was raised once before in the Sun Life Assurance Company v. The Corporation of Madras : AIR1922Mad85 but was left undecided.2. The proviso to Rule 7 of schedule IV, Part II of the Act provides a scale for assessing the gross income of Companies the head office or a branch or principal office of which is not in the City, and whose gross income ''receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1924Mad754
Spencer, Og. C.J.1. The Full Bench having decided that an English incorporated company is not exempt from the tax on companies imposed by Section 110 of the Madras City Municipal Act IV of 1919 by the mere reason of its capital being expressed in sterling, we hare now to determine the third question referred to us, which is whether income derived from the transaction of business outside the City of Madras which is transmitted to Madras to the agents of an English firm for being converted into sterling and remitted to England is part of the gross income of the company upon which the tax is leviable. The same question was raised once before in the Sun Life Assurance Company v. The Corporation of Madras 1922 Mad. 85 but was left undecided.2. The proviso to Rule 7 of schedule IV, Part 11 of the Act provides a scale for assessing the gross income of Companies the head office or a branch or principal office of which is not in the City, and whose gross income 'received in or from the City' ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADRUAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :05. 12.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA Writ Petition(MD)Nos.11785 to 11796 of 2014 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions W.P(MD)No.11785 of 2014 D.Georlin Noble ... Petitioner Vs. 1) The Joint Director of School Education, (Secondary Education), Chennai-600 006. 2) The District Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District. 3) The Correspondent, TDTA Higher Secondary School, Christianagaram, Thoothukudi District-628 203. 4) The Correspondent, Amburose Higher Secondary School, Megnanapuram, Thoothukudi District-628 210. ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3067/A3/2014 dated 06.06.2014 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and further directing the respondents 1 and 2 to grant approval to the petitioner's promotion as Junior Assistant and his transfer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:24. 02.2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD)NO.440 of 2009 1.Nobil Arockiraj 2.Arulmary .. Revision Petitioners Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Manamadurai Sivagangai District. .. Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., against the conviction and judgment passed by the learned Sessions Court, Sivaganga dated 07.09.2009 in C.A.No.25 of 2009, modifying and confirming the conviction and judgment of the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai dated 06.05.2009 in C.C.No.39 of 2009. !For Petitioner :: Mr.M.Subash Babu ^For Respondent :: Mrs.S.Prabha Govt. Advocate (Crl. side) :ORDER The revision petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.39 of 2009 on the file of the Court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai. They along with five other accused were ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The facts involved in the cases on hand is as follows:(i) The first respondent herein is Steel Authority of India (SAIL), which is registered as a government company under the provisions of Companies Act in which 85% shares are held by the Government of India and 15% shares are held by public. The second respondent namely Salem Steel Plant (SSP) is an unit of the first respondent, which was set up by the first respondent for production of stainless steel.(ii) The first respondent issued tender notice E/08 dated 13.03.2007, hereinafter referred to as first tender, inviting sealed tenders for establishment of new Cryogenic Air Separation Plant (ASP) in the premises of Salem Steel Plant on Build-Own-Operate (BOO) basis and supply Oxygen, Nitrogen and Argon gases on long term basis to steel melting shop (SMS) being put up under expansion. The first respondent appointed the fifth respondent as Consultant-cum-Project Manager. The tender floated on 13.03.2007 was opened o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2007(2)CTC31; (2007)IILLJ59Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Writ Petition Nos. 20933 & 23606 of 2006 have been filed against the order of the Labour Court/first respondent made in I.A. No. 117/2006 in I.D. No. 514/2001 dated 19.6.2006 and the other four writ petitions were filed against the order in I.A. Nos. 68 to 71 of 2005 in C.P.Nos.209 of 2004, 214 of 2004, 455 of 2004 and 456 of 2004 respectively to quash the identical order dated 03.3.2006 and also to declare Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'I.D. Act'] as ultravires of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.2. It is seen from the records that the second respondent workman engaged an authorised representative to defend him in I.D. No. 514/2001, relating to his non-employment. The writ petitioners were represented by a counsel and they filed Vakalat as early as on 27.3.2002. After 55 adjournments of the case, the workman filed an application in I.A. No. 117/2006 objecting to the writ petitioner/management being represented...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2007(4)CTC650; (2007)6MLJ597
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. C.R.P.(PD)No. 1453/2005 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 14.9.2005 in M.P. No. 186/2005 in E.P. No. 180/1999 in RCOP No. 177/1991 on the file of the X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2. C.R.P.(PD)No.1454/2005 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.8.2005 in M.P. No. 518/2005 in M.P. No. 186/2005 in E.P. No. 180/1999 in RCOP No. 177/1991 on the file of the X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.3. C.R.P. (NPD) No. 62/2006 filed under Section 115 of the C.P.C., against the order dated 15.11.2005 passed in E.A. No. 4022/2005 in E.P. No. 1291/2005 by the IX Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai.4. As the parties in all the three Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, common order is being passed to dispose of all the Civil Revision Petitions.5. The petitioners in C.R.P. No. 62/2006 are the Legal Representatives of their deceased mother Pushpamani Ammal. The said Pushpamani...
Tag this Judgment!