Latest Cases

Muthuraj Vs. V.M. Kandasamy and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2007ACJ1230

.....conductor/cleaner who drove the vehicle without a licence and that technical plea has been rejected in order to give benefit to the victim. but, the facts of the case on hand are entirely different since appellant has approached a forum without jurisdiction for adjudication of his claim and that too, without letting in any evidence in support of his place of residence. thus, i am of the firm view that the question of jurisdiction is not a technical ground, rather a mandatory ground and thus the judgment relied on by the counsel for the appellant-claimant does not have relevance to the facts of the case on hand.10. in support of her contention with regard to territorial jurisdiction, the counsel for the appellant-claimant has also relied on a judgment of the high court of andhra pradesh in oriental insurance co. ltd. v. waheed khan : 1998(1)ald720 , wherein it is observed as under:(12) in the present case, it is fairly conceded by mr. rao that no challenge is made absolutely to the merits of the award. it is neither a case that the compensation has been improperly determined or that the compensation was not due. the whole objection is based upon the technical objection of lack of.....

Indian Refrigerator Company Limited Represented by Its Authorized Sign ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2006(113)ECC469; 2006LC469(Madras); 2007(210)ELT350(Mad)

.....company, in brief, is as under:a. the petitioner company, viz., indian refrigerator company limited (in short 'i.r.c.l.') is in the business of manufacture of electronic consumer goods such as colour television, washing machines, refrigerators, mixer grinders, compressors and parts thereof and for manufacturing those goods, it buys the unassembled parts in skd condition from videocon appliances limited, aurangabad and applicom india limited, attapalli and sells the finished goods to videocon international limited for the purpose of marketing.b. videocon international limited, keeping in mind the twin object of meeting out the competition and promotion of sales, placed on the order of combi-pack in the combination of refrigerator with mixer grinder from videocon international limited on the i.r.c.l. based on which i.r.c.l. placed order with and received the parts and accessories of both refrigerator and mixer grinder and also the equal number of wire and cord from videocon appliances limited. after manufacturing the finished goods, i.r.c.l. cleared them from its factory in the declared combination of mrp thereby paying duty for the same and availed cenvat credit towards duty paid.....

Commissioner of Income-tax Iv Vs. A.D. Jayaveerapandia Nadar and Sons

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2007)207CTR(Mad)428

.....24.2.2003 made in ita. no. 1911/mds/98, the revenue has preferred this appeal raising the following substantial questions of law:1. whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the amounts paid to associate concerns by way of reimbursement of day to day expenses would not be hit by section 40a(3)?2. whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conditions under section 40a(3) that payments should be made only by crossed cheque or demand draft do not apply to payments made to associate concerns?2. the brief facts of the case are as follows:2.1. the respondent/assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of export of garments and textiles. the assessee filed a 'nil' return of income for the assessment year 1993-94 on 29.10.1993. the return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and an intimation dated 2.3.1994 was sent to the assessee. 2.2. then, notice under section 143(2) of the act was issued and a detailed questionnaire dated 30.6.1995 eliciting explanation on various points was also served on the assessee. the assessee appeared for the hearing,.....

G. Sumathi Vs. Arumugham and

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2006)4MLJ1893

.....by the appellant.4. mr. r. gururaj, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the court below did not properly consider the fact that a notice is must to the bonafide purchaser; but, no notice was served on the purchaser prior to the attachment and also the fact that the purchase is in good faith. therefore, the sale should not be set aside, and the property should not be sold in auction for the reason adduced by the lower court to the extent that the first respondent and the second respondent colluded each other to defeat the right of the appellant.5. per contra, mr. r. sunilkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that to defeat the right of the first respondent, the judgement debtor sold the property after decree, and the sale deed has been executed after attachment, and therefore, under section 64 c.p.c., the sale is null and void.6. the following dates are most important for consideration:(a) the date of filing of the suit in o.s. no. 223 of 1998 is 15.7.1998.(b) the date of decree is 28.10.1999.(c) the date of attachment of the property is 18.1.2001.(d) the sale deed was executed on 26.2.2001.7. a perusal of the sale.....

S. Murugesan Vs. V. Vijay Sai,

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2006(5)CTC560

.....may compare the disputed signature, writing or seal of a person with the signature, writings or seals which have been admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written or made by that person. the court may rely upon its own comparison of the signatures, writing or seal. there is no legal bar to the court for using its own eyes to compare the disputed signature, writing or seal with the admitted signature, writing or seal under section 73 of the said act. thus, the trial court after careful comparison of ex.a3 to a6 with ex.a1, came to the conclusion that the signatures found in e.a1 and exs.a3 to a6 are not one and the same and they are not tallying with the admitted signature of the 1st defendant.it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the conclusion of the appellate court with regard to the finding in the rcop that exs. a3 to a6 are forged is binding on parties is not tenable in law. in a case of this nature, the principles of estoppel shall come into play. where an issue of fact has been judicially determined between the parties, the same issues comes directly in question in subsequent proceedings between the same parties, then it will.....

Employees State Insurance Corporation Rep. by Its Deputy Director Vs. ...

Court : Karnataka

.....to pay the damages for the period from 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992. aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the esi court, the corporation is in appeal. the facts that is necessary for the purpose of this order are to the following effect.a notice under section 45-g of the act dated 31.8.1998 was issued by the appellant to the respondent-m/s. swadeshi silks claiming contribution for the period from 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1982 and it is the case of the respondent that only when the inspector visited the establishment for the first time on 6.6.1991, the first respondent came to know of its liability to pay the contribution from 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992 and the contribution for the said period was accordingly paid. but however, subsequent inspection carried on by the inspector on 27.2.1995 put the burden on the respondent to pay the contribution for the period from 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1992 and therefore, aggrieved by the order passed by the appellant herein, the respondent moved the esi court contending that the respondent is not liable to pay the interest and damages for the period covering from 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1992. the esi court after considering the case of the parties held in favour of the.....

Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Pvt. Ltd. (a Wholly Owned Subsidiar ...

Court : Karnataka

.....lead evidence and to justify their action of dismissal of respondents from service. the tribunal committed an error in not applying its mind to the facts of the case and in not properly assessing the evidence on record. he further contends, that though there is a mistake in the advertisement, it will not give a right to the respondents. the tribunal committed an error in not considering the fact that as on the date of respondents applying for job, they have not produced the obc certificate issued by the government of india. reliance is placed on the following decisions.1. ritz theatre (private) ltd. delhi v. its workmen 1962 (ii) llj 4982. buckingham and carnatic co. ltd. v. venkatiah and anr. : (1963)iillj638sc 3. bharat iron works v. bhagubhai balubhai patel and ors. : [1976]2scr280 4. r. vishwanatha pillai v. state of kerala and ors. : air2004sc1469 5. mysore steel works v. jitendra chandra kar and ors. 1971 (1) llj 5434. per contra, sri. n.g. phadke, learned counsel for respondents contend, that the advertisement issued by the petitioners do not specify that the respondents are required to furnish the obc certificate issued by the government of india. in the absence of.....

The Regional Director, Esi Corporation Vs. Ganesh Mahal, a Registered ...

Court : Karnataka

.....esi corporation that there were 20 employees, cannot be accepted.7. in my view, the reasoning given by the esi court, cannot be accepted either on facts or in law. first, as admitted by the respondent himself he has given form no. 01 to the corporation. ex.r.3 which is form no. 01 was confronted to aw-1 in the course of his evidence and except denying the number of employees mentioned in ex.r.3, nowhere in his evidence aw-1 has gone on record to say that ex.r.3 was not submitted by his establishment.8. secondly, the esi court has observed that rw-1 examined on behalf of the corporation has not stated anything with regard to ex.r.3. this reasoning also does not appear to be a rational one because as already-observed by me, ex.r.3 was confronted to aw-1 in the course of his evidence and furthermore, the said exhibit has not been denied by aw-1.9. thirdly, the esi court, nowhere in the course of its order has referred to ex.a.5, which is alleged to have been the form no. 01 given by the respondent to the esi corporation. the entire order focuses only on ex.r.3 and no other document.10. section 2(a) of the 'act' reads thus:registration of factories and establishments:every factory.....

Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc (Respondents) Vs. Her Majesty's Com ...

Court : House of Lords

.....limitation as the commencement date of the proceedings in respect of those dividends.) all the payments were subsequently set off against mct. the facts are set out more fully in the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend lord walker of gestingthorpe, which i have had the privilege of reading in draft. 7. there is no dispute that if dmg had been entitled to make a group election, it would have done so. there is likewise no dispute that dmg is entitled to compensation for breach of statutory duty (the infringement of article 43) or by way of restitution of tax unlawfully demanded under the principle established in woolwich equitable building society v inland revenue commissioners [1993] ac 70. but the period of limitation for both of these causes of action runs from the date of payment and dmg wishes to claim in respect of the 1993 payment, which on any view was made more than six years before proceedings were commenced. in addition, if the proceedings in respect of the 1995 and 1996 act payments are treated as having been commenced on 19 august 2002, they would also have been more than 6 years earlier. dmg therefore argues that it has an additional cause of.....

Land Securities Group Plc (Appellants) Vs. Scottish Ministers and Othe ...

Court : House of Lords

.....on 3 march 2004 the planning and environment committee decided that planning permission for the development should be granted - despite the fact that, as they knew, a number of companies, including the appellants, had appealed to the court of session against the scottish ministers' decision to approve the alteration and the appeal was due to be heard by the inner house at the beginning of september. in proceedings brought by the standard life assurance company and land securities group plc, on 29 july 2004 lord carloway reduced the committee's decision to grant planning permission and interdicted the council from issuing any planning permission in pursuance of their purported decision of 3 march. 16. the appeal against the ministers' decision under section 238(1) of the 1997 act was duly heard by an extra division (lord kirkwood, lord marnoch and lady cosgrove) and on 30 march 2005 they refused it: 2005 csih 33. the appellants then lodged their appeal to this house. nevertheless, on 11 may 2005 north lanarkshire council announced urbi et orbi that work on the billion pound ravenscraig project had moved another giant step forward following the planning and environment.....