Chennai Court October 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Commissioner and Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ218
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The scope and ambit of Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules has come up for consideration in this appeal.2. The respondent herein retired as a Superintendent from the Tamil Nadu Medical Services on the afternoon of 31.3.1978. At the time of retirement he was working as Superintendent in the Employees State Insurance Hospital, Madras. Later, on 26.2.1979 he was served by the Director of Medical Services and Family Welfare with a memo containing the following two charges:(1) That as a Superintendent being the head of the Institution he ought to have conducted 'on the spot enquiry' and submitted a report to the Director of Medical Services and Family Welfare about the circumstances leading to the death of patient Thiru Vasudevan who died in unusual circumstances. Thus he failed to do his legitimate duty.(2) That he had not cared to conduct an enquiry nor did he depute some one else holding administrative responsibility to conduct an enquiry immediately and send a...
R.S. Gopalan Vs. the Currently in Charge and Managing Director L.i.C o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1984
Reported in: (1986)ILLJ272Mad
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. These writ petitions raise common questions relating to the interpretation of Regn. 39(3) of the (Staff) Regulations, 1960 framed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The Common questions are, as to whether in a disciplinary enquiry it is open to the Life Insurance Corporation, under Regn. 39(3), to appoint the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries, Central Vigilance Commission, to enquire into the misconduct alleged against an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation and further whether in such an enquiry a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Branch, can be appointed as the presenting officer. 2. The questions raised mainly relate to the interpretation of Regn. 39(3). Since we are not concerned with the merits of the charges in respect of which departmental proceedings against the petitioners in all the above four petitions are being taken, only such facts as are necessary for appreciating the contentions raised ...
Workmen of Indian Bank Vs. Management of Indian Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)ILLJ6Mad
ORDER1. The piquant poser for consideration in the main petition, viz., WP 8653/84, is whether the management of the Indian Bank is entitled to implement its unilateral decision to withdraw the facility of duty relief extended to a certain number of Office-bearers of the Federation of the Indian Bank Employees' Union and its affiliated constituent Unions. The adjunct question in the writ miscellaneous petition, viz, WP 13878 of 1984 is, whether the Federation of the Indian Bank Employees Union and its affiliated constituent Unions (hereinafter referred to as the Union) is entitled to an order of injunction of the impugned order of the management, till such time the writ petition is disposed of. A brief narration of back-events is necessary for viewing the question in its proper perspective. 2. Pursuant to a Code of Discipline being evolved with reference to the rights and obligations of the employees and the employer, the management of the Indian Bank gave recognition on 18th August, 1...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. N. Jothi Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1984
Reported in: [1986]157ITR785(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court at the instance of the Revenue as arising out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Gift-tax and in holding that the transfer of Rs. 1,60,000 by Shri N. Jothi Kumar to his minor daughter from out of the assets of the Hindu undivided family was to discharge his obligation to maintain the minor daughter and, therefore, there was no element of gift involved in it.' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It filed a return of gift on January 16, 1975, showing the total value of the gifts at Rs. 11,115. Assessment was made accepting the said return on October 31, 1975. Later, it was found by the Commissioner that the return of gift at Rs. 11,115 did not include the value of the fixed deposits of Rs. 1,00,000 with one Gopalakrishna Mills and Rs. 60,00...
Popular Lungi Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1984
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(Mad)181; [1986]158ITR656(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following question has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 212(3A) are attracted and the levy of penalty of Rs. 8,977 under section 273(c) is justified in law ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm and for the assessment year 1970-71, the Income-tax Officer raised an advance tax demand under section 210 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in a sum of Rs. 49,722 in August, 1969, based on the then latest completed assessment for the year 1964-65 which showed a total income of Rs. 2,13,750. The assessee, without complying with the said demand, sent an estimate under section 212(1) on September 6, 1969, estimating its total income at Rs. 1,16,000 and the tax thereon at Rs. 14,916. Thereafter, the assessee filed a return of income for the year 1970-71 showing an income of Rs...
S. Hidhayathullah Sahib Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1984
Reported in: [1986]158ITR20(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following two questions have been referred to this court for its consideration at the instance of the assessee by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : - '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the agricultural lands in Periakuppam village which had a population of less than 10,000 constitute a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the population referred in section 2(14)(iii)(a) refers to 'municipality' and not to 'area' comprised in it ?' 2. The assessee in this case is an individual. On November 2, 1973, the assessee had sold 15 cents of agricultural lands together with a tiled house situate in Periakuppam village within the Trivellore Municipality for a consideration of Rs. 27,000. Before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee claimed that the capital gains arising out of the s...
Shelat Brothers and Etc. Vs. Lodd Narendradas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad95
ORDER1. These civil revision petitions arise out of proceedings in eviction instituted by the respondents in C.R.P. Nos. 313 of 1984 and 314 of 1984 and the petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 1285 of 1984 under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) and S. 10(3)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.(XVIII of 1960) (as amended by Act XXIII of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In R. C. O. P. No. 2534 of 1981, 2533 of 1981 and 3202 of 1981 before the Rent Controller (Viii Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, the subject-matter of R.C.O.P. No. 2533 of .1981 filed by the respondent in C.R.P. No. 314 of 1984 is the eastern half portion of the ground floor of premises bearing door No. 5, Luckmudoss Street, Madras-3. Similarly, the western portion of the same premises formed the subject-matter of R. C. O. P. No. 2534 of 1981 filed by the respondent in C. R. P. No. 313 of 1984. Another portion in the ground floor of the western half of the premises bearing door No. 5, Luckmu...
Shelat Brothers, Represented by Its Partner, Rohitkumar Vs. Lodd Naren ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1984
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ16
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. These civil revision petitions arise out of proceedings in eviction instituted by the respondents in C.R.P. Nos. 313 of 1984 and 314 of 1984 and the petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 1285 of 1984 under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960)(as amended by Act XXIII of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in R.C.O.P. Nos. 2534 of 1981, 2533 of 1981 and 3202 of 1981 before the Rent Controller (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. The subject-matter of R.C.O.P. No. 2533 of 1981 filed by the respondent in C.R.P. No. 314 of 1984 is the eastern half portion of the ground floor of premises bearing Door No. 5, Luckmudoss Street, Madras-3. Similarly, the western portion of the same premises formed the subject-matter of R.C.O.P. No. 2534 of 1981 filed by the respondent in C.R.P.No. 313 of 1984. Another portion in the ground floor of the western half of the premises bearing Door ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›