Chennai Court December 1982 Judgments
The Management of Indian Steel Rolling Mills Limited Nagapattinam, Tha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1982
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ287Mad
ORDER1. This writ petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court dated 8th January, 1981 and made herein and the records relating to the order in I.D. No. 294/79 dated 26th August, 1980 on the file of the second respondent and comprised in the return of the 2nd respondent to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Sanjay Mohan for M/s. King and Partridge, Advocates for the petitioner, and of Mr. G. Nagarajan, Advocate for the first respondent the Court made the following order : This writ petition filed by the management of Indian Steel Rolling Mills Limited, Nagapattinam, is directed against the award passed by the First Additional Labour Court, Madras, directing reinstatement of the first respondent in I.D. No. 294 of 1979. The First Respondent herein was a crane driver under the petitioner-Management. On 5th June, 1978 at about 5 p.m. a memo was served on him ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mohan Vs. Balakanta Lakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1316
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. This revision is directed against the preliminary order made' in M. C. 806 of 1980 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Edmore, Madras, rejecting the contention of the revision petitioner (respondent in M. C. 806 of 1980 -- husband) that the Court below did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. filed by the respondent herein (wife).2. It is a very unfortunate case wherein the highly educated couple are perpetually fighting with each other obviously for the reason, that they are not able to get on together amicably. It is seen from the records that after the marriage, both the parties resided at Bangalore and that the revision petitioner filed an original petition for annulment of the marriage before the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore city. Be that as it may, the respondent had left Bangalore and thereafter had filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. before the Second Metropolitan Mag...
Tag this Judgment!Jeevakhan and Ors. Vs. Officer-in-charge of 'Q' Branch of Tamil Nadu P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1009
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The above petition had been originally filed on behalf of four petitioners, namely, (1) Jeevakan, (2) his brother Mahalingam. (3) Chinnaswamy and (4) Rathnam, seeking a writ of habeas corpus to produce all of them before this Court and set them at liberty for the reasons Stated in the verified petition.2. The first petitioner, namely, Jeevakan, along with some others is involved in a case registered in Crime No. 331 of 1979 of Mathur police Station, The second petitioner is said to be the Secretary of the local A. I. A. D. MK party and the third and fourth petitioners are the friends of the first and second petitioners. The first petitioner sent a petition to the Chief Minister with copies to others alleging that he has been falsely implicated in a criminal case and sought for protection. However, the second petitioner contacted his counsel Mr. K. V. Sankaran and engaged him for surrendering the first petitioner in Madras and, in fact, a part of the fees also had...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswamy and ors. Vs. Deivathal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1982
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ90
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of facts by the two Courts below. Defendants 1 to 3 in the suit are the appellants in this second appeal. The plaintiff in the suit is the respondent. The plaintiff claims herself to be the wife of the first defendant. The second defendant is the father the third defendant is the mother of the first dafendant. The plaintiff laid the suit for separate maintenance, past and future, as well as for a charge over the plaint schedule properties. The defendants contested the suit stating that there was no valid marriage between the plaintiff and the first defendant and they also wanted to deny to the plaintiff the relief of maintenance past and future as well as the charge claimed by her. Requisite issues have been formulated in the first Court and findings have been rendered thereon and the first Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs. 1,000 towards past maintenance and for future maintenance at t...
Tag this Judgment!N. Govindaswami Vs. R. Bakkim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ207
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner in O.P. No. 344 of 1980 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent herein, is the respondent in the said Original Petition. The petitioner is a mortgagor in respect of two mortgages, one dated 29th July, 1974 marked in this case as Exhibit R-5 and the other, dated 7th May, 1975 marked in this case as the Exhibit R-7. Principal amount secured under the first mortgage is Rs. 15,000 and the principal amount secured under the second mortgage is Rs. 10,000 The rate of interest stipulated under the first mortgage is 12 per cent per annum and the rate of interest stipulated under the second mortgage is 15 per cent per annum. The respondent is the mortgagee. The petitioner filed O.P. No. 344 of 1980 under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act depositing a sum of Rs. 29,000 as the amount remaining due nnder both the mortgages This quantum, the petitioner arrived at as the co...
Tag this Judgment!K. Rangaswamy Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ149
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein applied for a no objection certificate from the Collector of Coimbatore for locating a semi permanent cinema in Gudalur on 7th September, 1978. The said application for no objection certificate was duly published. No objections were received for the issue of a no objection certificate applied for by the petitioner within 14th October, 1978, the date fixed for the receipt of objections. However, the fourth respondent filed his objections on 8th March, 1979. Since the objections were received beyond 14th October, 1978, the date fixed for filing objections, the Collector rejected the objections of the fourth respondent and granted the no objection certificate to the petitioner on 25th March, 1979.2. As against the order granting the no objection certificate, the fourth respondent filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue which after considering the merits dismissed the appeal on 9th August, 1979. Thereafter the fourth respondent filed a revi...
Tag this Judgment!Government of India and ors. Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1982
Reported in: 1983(14)ELT2168(Mad)
ORDERPadmanabhan, J.1. The question that falls to be decided in this writ appeal is about the determination of the excisable value of the motor vehicles and certain other products manufactured by the respondents Messrs Ashok Leyland Ltd., for the purpose of excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for Short the Act). The appeal has been filed by the Union of India against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents in W.P. No. 4764 of 1978. 2. The facts giving rise to the question for determination in the writ appeal may briefly be stated as follows - The respondents sell their products to the main dealers appointed by them. They enter into agreement with the main dealer. The price at which the respondents sell their products to the main dealers varies with the price at which the main dealer sells the same products. It is contention of the Union of India that the main dealer appointed by the respondents is on...
Tag this Judgment!N. Viswanathan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1982
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ36Mad
1. Since the points involved in both the writ petitions are the same, they are dealt with together. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2432 of 1981 was working as Assistant Station Master at Pudur in Madurai Division and by an order passed by the Ministry of Railways, he was transferred to the Western Railway, Bombay. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2532 of 1981 who was working at Ramanathapuram Station of Madurai Division was transferred by the Divisional Railway Manager from Ramanathapuram to Kolathur Station within the said Madurai Division. The orders of transfer in the case of both the petitioners have been challenged by the petitioners in these writ petitions on four grounds : (1) The orders of transfer have been passed without jurisdiction. (2) The transfer order virtually amounts to punishment. (3) The transfer orders affect adversely their seniority and consequently their chances of promotion are also adversely affected. (4) The transfer orders have been passed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. O.M.S.S. Sankaralinga Nadar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1982
Reported in: [1984]147ITR332(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. There are two questions of law which have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in this reference arising under the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The assessee in this case is a partnership firm carrying on business in cereals, pulses and tamarind at Virudhunagar. During the account year ended September 7, 1975, the assessee firm spent Rs. 3,622 in relation to customers who visited the assessee's place of business. The ITO disallowed the entire expenditure under Section 37(2B) of the Act. On appeal, the Tribunal went into the nature of the expenditure and found that it represented the cost of supply of coffee, tea and other refreshments, to the assessee's customers. According to the Tribunal, these expenses were petty in nature and could hardly be regarded as entertainment expenditure, because there wasnothing lavish or entertaining about it. On this ground, the Tribunal set aside this part of the assessment order of the ITO and allowed the entire expendi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-v Vs. Sitalakshmi Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1982
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(Mad)100; [1983]141ITR415(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The assessees who figure in these tax cases are different. But the issue for our decision in each case is the same, and we dispose of it in this common judgment. 2. The issue arises this way. In the industrial establishment of each of the assessees before us, there is a gratuity scheme for the workers and the staff. Gratuity would be payable on certain events happening, such as the employee's retirement, resignation, retrenchment or death. In this sense, the liability is said to be a 'contingent liability'. But owing to modern systems of actuarial valuation, it would be possible to ascertain the present discounted value of the employer's commitment to pay gratuity to his entire labour force as and when the time comes. This value, if ascertained on actuarial basis, would be possible to ascertain the present discounted value would register an increase. This actual increase is often called 'increment value'. According to sound principles of commercial accounting, th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »