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!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 : 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 : 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!