Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-16-1996
Reported in : (1997)2MLJ228
Srinivasan, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent, as to the maintainability of this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The respondent obtained a decree in O.S. No. 192 of 1974 and in execution of the same, brought the properties to sale. Sale was held which was sought to be set aside by the appellant herein by an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Section 151 of the Code. The application was dismissed by the Executing Court and on appeal in C.M.A. No. 775 of 1986, a single Judge of this Court affirmed the order of the Executing Court, it is against the said order, the present L.P. Appeal has been filed.3. An objection is raised by the respondent that the C.M.A. filed in this Court was under Section 104, read with Order 43, Rule 1(j) of the Code and therefore, by virtue of the provision of Section 104(2) of the Code, no further appeal will lie from an order passed in the said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-04-1996
Reported in : 1997(1)CTC331
ORDERJayarama Chouta, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioner is one and the same i.e. P.S.G. & Sons Charities, represented by its Chief Executive. Coimbatore and the respondent is the City Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner. Coimbatore. Since common facts are involved and the parties are one and the same in all these writ petitions, by consent of counsel on both sides. I am disposing of all these writ petitions by this common order.2. The prayers in these writ petitions are to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ calling for the records of the respondent made 'in assessment in 9029. 9815. 9031. 9814 and 9030 dated 24-4-1992 respectively and quash the same and consequently, forbear the respondents from levying or demanding property tax in respect of the properties belonging to the petitioner. Trust used for the PSG Institute of Medical Sciences and Research and PSC Hospitals.3. W.P. No. 13190 of 1992 relates to assessment in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-26-1996
Reported in : 1997(91)ELT545(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner Dr. G. K. Pillai, Collector of Customs, the accused in C.C. No. 8499 of 1994, on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, has preferred this revision, against the order of dismissal, dated 24-2-1995 on his petition to drop the proceedings and to recall the summons issued in the above case by the Magistrate. 2. The facts leading to the present revision need narration :- The complaint, Renowned Auto Products ., has its factory premises at No. 122, SIPCOT, Industrial Estate, Hosur. The complainant is dealing in the business of production and manufacture of shock absorbers and automobile spares.3. The petitioner/accused, through his subordinate officers conducted a raid in the factory premises of the complainant on 17-5-1994 and 19-5-1994. On the basis of the materials collected from the premises during the raid, the Managing Director of the Complaint/company was interrogated. After perusal of the records, books of account, the complaint/company was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-19-1996
Reported in : (1996)ILLJ849Mad; (1996)IMLJ523
ORDERAr. Lakshmanan, J.1. The prayer in W.P, No. 18969 of 1994 is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in their respective categories as they are working now in the service of the Indian Council of Medical Research, CJIL Field Unit or any other unit before the expiry of the last extended period of March 31, 1994 to March 31, 1995 with continuity of service and statutory service entitlements and benefits.2. The prayer in W.P. No. 15648 of 1995 is to call for the records of the respondents in CFU/Scheme/ESTT/94-95/83 dated March 27, 1995 in respect of the petitioners and quash the same and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to regularise the service of the petitioners in their respective categories in the Indian Council of Medical Research, CJIL Field Unit or any other unit with continuity of service and all the entitlements and benefits.3. The petitioners were recruited by the Central Jalma Institute for Le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-12-1996
Reported in : 1997(3)CTC660
ORDERD. Raju, J. 1. The above batch of writ petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1996 (Presidential Ordinance No. 2 of 1996), hereinafter referred to as the impugned ordinance and the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, hereinafter referred to as the impugned pension scheme. Subsequently, the Parliament has enacted the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment Act, 1996, Central Act, 25 of 1996 hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act and President's assent was also accorded to the same on August 16, 1996. Orders have been passed by this Court to suitably amend the references in the nature of relief sought so as to substitute the name of the Act in places where the name of the impugned Ordinance, without driving the various petitioners to the necessity of filing formally individual petitions seeking for such amendment and thereupon the challenge st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-04-1996
Reported in : [1997]88CompCas471(Mad)
S.S. Subramani, J.1. All these appeals arise against the order in Company Petition No. 3/111(4) SRB/94 [See Tracstar Investment Ltd. v. Gordon Woodroffe Ltd. ]. Except C.M.A. No. 132 of 1996, all the other appeals are preferred by the various respondents in the company petition. C.M.A. No. 132 of 1996 is filed by the petitioner in respect of that portion of the finding which went against them. 2. For the sake of convenience, the reference to the parties hereafter will be according to their rank before the Company Law Board. 3. In its first meeting after the board of directors was reconstituted on June 2, 1994, the following subjected came for discussion and resolutions were passed by the second respondent as under : It was reported to and noted by the board that the share certificate No. 47768 for 5,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each fully paid-up of Gordon Woodroffe Ltd., registered in the name of the company, bearing Distinctive Nos. 02617978 to 03117977, both inclusive, has been lo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-09-1996
Reported in : 1996(2)CTC421; (1997)IMLJ393
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Since respondent entered appearance by filing caveat, by consent, the revision was heard on merits. This Revision is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.208 of 1993, on the file of the District Munsif's Court Gingee, to declare that the licence granted to the first defendant by defendants 2 to 7 to run a rice milling industry is invalid and to restrain the first defendant from running any such industry by a permanent prohibitory injunction.2. It is the case of the plaintiff, petitioner herein, that he is running a rice mill from 21-1-1993 and that he has taken electric connection for the said purpose. He also says that even before 21.1.1993, he has been conducting the rice mill and the electric connection was granted to him originally on 28.5.1991. It is said that for running a rice mill, certain regulations are provided, one of which is that no licence should be granted for a running a rice mill within a distance of 5 kms. After the expiry of the period, he appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-24-1996
Reported in : 1998(99)ELT214(Mad)
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by Kanakraj, J., in W.P. No. 3870/96, dated 16-8-1996 : dismissing the writ petition which is filed for issuing a writ of Certicrarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed in proceedings No. O.S. 377/96, dated 18-3-1996 and to quash the same and further direct the respondents to release the weapons, and direct the payment of costs and punitive damages to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs. 2. The order dated 18-3-1996 which is sought to be quashed is an order holding that the five fire arms brought by the appellant from London are not entitled to the benefit of the Customs Notification 146/94, that the value of the fire arms was Rs. 4,02,379/- and that the Fire Arms had been imported without valid import licence, in contravention of the provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 and was liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1992. A fu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-08-1996
Reported in : (1997)ILLJ756Mad; (1996)IIMLJ164
ORDER1. These three writ petitions arise from a common question between the same parties.2. Ale main relief sought for is to quash the Award of the second respondent dated May 27, 1994 whereby it declared that the workmen of the Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen be treated as employees of the Bank and they be paid on par with Class IV staff.3. The material facts which necessitated the filing of these writ petitions are as follows : The Central Office of the Indian Overseas Bank at Madras has got canteen for its employees. As per Ex. M-1, on November 25, 1972, the - Indian Overseas Bank, petitioner herein, acceded to the request of All India Overseas Bank Employees' Union to float a society in the name of 'I.O.B. Staff Co-Operative Canteen'. As regards the terms and conditions, the Bank agreed to supply free of cost, premises, furniture, utensils, electricity (other than fuel), upto a maximum of Rs. 500 per mensem to meet the cost of fuel against production of relative bills, and water...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-10-1996
Reported in : [1998]232ITR700(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. As per the direction of this Court in TCP No. 237 of 1981 the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of s. 154 of the IT Act could not be invoked to withdraw the unabsorbed development rebate already allowed in the asst. yr. 1967-68 ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company. For the asst. yr. 1967-68 the income determined as per the order dt. 1st February, 1973 is as under : Rs. Rs.Total income after giving effectto the AAC's order 86,60,247Development rebate set off for theasst. yr. 1962-63 71,53,652For the asst. yr. 1963-64 15,06,595 86,60,247 ----------- ----------- Nil -----------3. The ITO subsequently sought to rectify the above order under s. 154 of the Act. The grounds for rectification were stated as : (i) The assessee has not created the necessary reserve to the exte...
Tag this Judgment!