Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-11-2002
Reported in : [2003(96)FLR459]; (2003)ILLJ729Mad
D. Murugesan, J. 1. The petitioners were appointed in the second respondent- management as Chemistry Lab Assistant, carpenter and pump operator on February 26, 1986, October 18, 1984, March 18, 1985, respectively. On March 31, 1988, the services of first and fourth petitioners were terminated. On March 17, 1988, the services of second and third petitioners were terminated. Hence, the petitioners filed claim statement before the Labour Court, Coimbatore questioning the non-employment along with 16 other employees on the ground that the same is illegal and unjustified and for an award, directing the second respondent to reinstate the petitioners with full back-wages and continuity of services and other benefits along with compensation, interest and back- wages. The said dispute was adjudicated in I.D.No. 346 of 1989. By an award, dated February 16, 1995, the Labour Court, Salem, directed the second respondent herein to pay only compensation to the petitioners while declining reinstatemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-10-2002
Reported in : AIR2003Mad33
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.5078 of 1985 on the file of the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,100/- alleging that when he was working as a Watchman in the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Madras, he sent 16 hundred rupee notes valuing Rs.1,600/- and 15 hundred rupee notes valuing Rs.1,500/- in two registered insured covers, to his wife Smt. Tikimaya Devi Thapa, who is living at West Nepal, from the G.P.O., Madras, and when the said covers were opened, only newspapers cuttings were found, but not currency notes. 3. The suit was resisted by the respondents/defendants contending that even though two insured letters were alleged to have been sent by the appellant/plaintiff were received in good condition with 'Lahaseal' intact and forwarded to the addressee - the wife of the appellant/plaintiff, who received the covers without any tampering, she found o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-15-2002
Reported in : (2003)1MLJ194
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. P. Baskaran, the appellant herein filed a suit for declaration to declare his date of birth as 17-2-1935 and other consequential reliefs against the respondents, his employer Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited ('NLC') at Neyveli.2. The trial Court, on an appraisal of the materials placed by the parties before the Court, decreed the suit in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. Challenging the same, the NLC, the respondents herein, filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which in turn, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Hence, this second appeal by the appellant/plaintiff. 3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:-'(a) The plaintiff joined NLC as an unskilled labourer on 4-1-1961. The NLC which was at the initial stage, used to give employment to whomsoever willing to join its services. When the plaintiff joined the services of NLC, he gave his age as 26 years. (b) After few months, the appellant was made as a permanent employee. As soon as h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-25-2002
Reported in : (2003)1MLJ129
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to declare his date of birth as 16.8.1935 and for a direction to the defendants to effect the corrections in their official records. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that he was the only son to his parents and he was born in the month of August, 1935. The plaintiff lost his father when he was nine months old and his mother was illiterate. At the time when the plaintiff was admitted in the school, his date of birth was wrongly given by his mother as 8.10.1932 and the same was not correct. The plaintiff completed his school final in the year 1956 and in the certificate issued by the second defendant, his date of birth was wrongly entered as 8.10.1932. The plaintiff joined in the first defendant-Corporation on 26.5.1961 and there also, he has given his date of birth as 8.10.1932. It is stated that on 3.10.1988, he has obtained a certified extract of birth from the Taluk office, Villupuram and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-03-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)CTC161
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The writ petitioner challenges the validity of Condition No. 16 found incorporated in the tender floated by the first respondent calling for bids in respect of 'Annual Maintenance Contract' (AMC) as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and being opposed to principles of public tender laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Neyveli Lignite Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation', annually invites persons to submit tenders for awarding Annual Maintenance Contracts (AMC) and non-Maintenance Contracts (NMC). 'NMC' contracts are described as 'A' Schedule contracts and 'AMC' contracts are described as 'B' Schedule contracts. There is an annexure to the tender form issued for awarding 'AMC' contracts, Condition No. 16 with the note meant only for 'B' Schedule contracts is under attack in the writ petition, condition No. 16 in the tender is extracted hereunder:'16. Cases of Equal Binding: In case of equal bidding, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-31-2002
Reported in : [2002]255ITR194(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This revision is filed against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. A very novel question is involved in this revision.2. The assessee is a company. It was liable to pay the agricultural income-tax and was regularly paying the tax for the relevant assessment years. For the purposes of the assessment, the assessee-company had chosen its assessment year to be from July to June, that is for the year 1990-91, its assessment year was from July 1, 1989, to June 30, 1990. So also, for the year 1991-92, the assessment year was from July 1, 1990 to June 30,1991, and for the year 1992-93, it was from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992. However, it seems that the Agricultural Income-tax Act was extensively amended with effect from April 1, 1992, and the definition of 'previous year' as it appeared earlier vide section 2(t) underwent a change. The term 'previous year' is now defined as :' 'previous year' means twelve months ending ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-19-2002
Reported in : 2004ACJ727; (2003)1MLJ268
P. Sathasivam, J.1. United India Insurance Company, Madras-2 aggrieved by the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VI Small Causes Court), Madras dated 23-8-1995 made in M.C.O.P. No. 2428 of 1992, has preferred the above appeal.2. In respect of injuries sustained in a motor accident on 02-08-92, the claimant/first respondent herein made a claim for Rs. 43,000/- before the Tribunal. According to the claimant, on 02-08-92 at about 12.10 Hours, when he was riding a bicycle along with Selliamman Koil Street from north to south, an autorickshaw bearing registration No. TSK.2563 coming from behind in the same direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit against his bicycle, causing grievous injuries to him and damaging his bicycle. It is further stated that the first respondent therein, as owner of the autorickshaw and the second respondent therein, as insurer of the same are liable to pay compensation. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the autorickshaw, first respondent th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-19-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ2342
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Nithyanandam, the appellant herein, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) read with 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentence to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, has filed this appeal. 2. The short facts leading tot he conviction are as follows:'(a) P.W.3 Kalidhasan, the Sub Inspector of Police, NIB CID received the information Ex.P4 on 22.9.1993 at about 11.15 P.M. regarding the offenders involving in the possession of heroin at Periyamedu. He recorded the same in Ex.P5 and sent it to P.W.5,the Inspector of Police, NIB CID. Then, he proceeded to the spot for surveillance at the junction of Naval Hospital Road and E.V.R. Periyar Road at Periyamedu. He secured the help of one Jayakumar P.W.4 to be as a witness for search. (b) P.W.3 and Head Constable P.W.1 along with P.W.4 were watching the movements of the offenders. At that time, i.e. on 23.9.1993 early morning, they found two persons including the appellant wal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-12-2002
Reported in : (2003)181CTR(Mad)120
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. In compliance with the directions of this Court in TCP No. 434 of 1996, by order dt. 5th March, 1997, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for our consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the assessee's claim to the tune of Rs. 3,01,50,036 towards replacement of several items of machinery as revenue in nature ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the expenditure of Rs. 2,78,769 being cost of electrical yarn cleaners is to be allowed as revenue expenditure and not treated as capital expenditure ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1991-92. The issues that arise in both the questions are the same. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 3,01,50,036 as revenue expenditure on the ground that it was a replacement expenditu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-12-2002
Reported in : [2003]127TAXMAN398(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.In compliance with the directions of this court in T.C.P. No. 434 of 1996, by order dated 5-3-1997, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Appellate Tribunal) has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for our consideration :1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the assessees claim to the tune of Rs. 3,01,50,036 towards replacement of several items of machinery as revenue in nature 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the expenditure of Rs. 2,78,769 being cost of electrical yarn cleaners is to be allowed as revenue expenditure and not treated as capital expenditure ?2. The assessment year involved is 1991-92. The issues that arise in both the questions are the same. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 3,01,50,036 as revenue expenditure on the ground that it was a replacemen...
Tag this Judgment!