Chennai Court August 1987 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.
Estee Hubs and Drives (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Ct), Zone ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: [1988]70STC345(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. Appeal admitted with the consent of the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) and the petitioner-appellant. 2. It is possible to dispose of the writ petition itself at this stage. The writ petition is directed against a notice under section 22 of the Revenue Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') whereby certain properties belonging to the petitioner-appellant were advertised for auction sale in revenue recovery proceedings. The contention of the petitioner-appellant was that the liability in respect of which revenue recovery proceedings have been started is itself the subject-matter of a proceeding which has not yet been disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner. It appears that at the instance of the petitioner-appellant, the Deputy Commissioner has been directed to take up the revision petition filed by the petitioner-appellant and to dispose it of in accordance with law by the order of the Tribunal dated 7th February, 1985. However, when t...
Susila Bai Ammal and anr. Vs. R.K. Sethuraman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ443
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. The unnumbered revision petition with the connected C.M.Ps. is posted before this Court for deciding as to its maintainability. The revision is filed by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 55 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, on being aggrieved by an interim order passed by the Court below in I.A. No. 891 of 1987 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. The said order runs as follows:The interim injunction is modified and restricted against sale, mortgage or make any alteration only in the suit properties pending enquiry in the I.A. This order is without prejudice to rights of parties in the suit. Call on 13.4.1987.The petitioners challenged the said order on the ground that the Court below erred in not considering the counter affidavit filed by the second petitioner (second defendant) while continuing the earlier Ex Parte order which was granted without giving any reasons, and that th...
Vairappa thevar Vs. the Special Tahsildar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ387
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The auction sale of arrack shop No. 2, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur district for the lease year 1973-74 was held on 21.7.1973. The appellant's bid for a monthly kist of Rs. 30,700 was accepted and the auction was knocked down in his favour. Apart from depositing Rs. 1,000 as per the conditions of the auction which enabled him to bid, the appellant did not make any further deposit. Under Clause VII of the Conditions of Auction Sale, every person whose bid is provisionally accepted shall at once deposit half a month's rent for each shop knocked down in his favour unless the initial deposit equals or exceeds two months rents. In this case the initial deposit was only Rs. 1,000 and therefore the question of its being equal or exceeding two months rent does not arise. The clause further provided that if he fails to deposit half a month's rent immediately, the initial deposit made by him with reference to condition No. 2 will be forfeited. As per notice of auction, the highest bi...
K. R. Loganathan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: (1988)65CTR(Mad)162; [1988]174ITR645(Mad)
S. A. KADER J. - These three appeals arise out of the common judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in O.S. Nos. 839 of 1974, 836 of 1974 and 52 of 1975, respectively. The plaintiffs are the appellants.The plaintiffs in these three suits, who are brothers have filed these three separate but identical suits against the defendants, who are the same in all three suits, for a declaration that the suit property, which is also the same in all the three suits, viz., an undivided one-third share in the premises bearing door No. 26/285, Big Bazaar Street, Coimbatore, is not liable for attachment or sale for recovery of arrears of income-tax of K. R. Radhakrishnan and for a consequential injunction. The averments in these plaints are as follows :The three plaintiffs in these three suits and K. R. Radhakrishnan are the sons of late K. Ramakrishna Pillai. The said Ramakrishna Pillai was carrying on business in jewellery at Coimbatore, in door No. 26/285 in the name and style o...
T. Alagarsamy and ors. Vs. Director of School Education and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1987
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ60
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, J.1. These five writ appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned single Judge in five writ petitions filed by the respective appellants challenging the provision made with regard to the determination of seniority as between the teachers who were originally employed in the District Boards Secondary Schools which were originally run by the District Boards before the abolition of the District Boards in the year 1960-61 and the teachers in the regular Government schools consequent upon the teachers in the employment of the erstwhile District Boards Secondary Schools being integrated with the teachers in the Government schools. The facts which gave rise to the five writ petitions which are filed in all by 23 teachers are not in dispute. Consequent on the formation of the Panchayat Unions, the District Boards were abolished in the year 1960-61. In 1963, the administration of the former District Board Schools was brought under the Control of the Special Dis...
General Secretary, Hindustan Teleprinters General Employees Union Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ159Mad
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for payment of ex-gratia bonus for the year 1979 for the employees of the second respondent. The body of the petition preferred to the Conciliation Officer runs as follows:The petitioner-Union raises this dispute against the respondent-Management, for not having paid ex-gratia amount for the year 1978-79 before Deepavali as per the existing practice in the previous years.In all the previous years, except the year 1976, despite the profit ratio, the Management was paying 20% of the total earning of an year as ex-gratia amount. But. This year, 1979, employees have been paid only 8.33% as ex-gratia amount. Quoting Section 20 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, the Management had announced that the employees are not eligible for bonus. In this connection, the contention of the petitioner-Union is that till 1978, the employees ha...
The South India Synthetic Stones Manufacturers and Dealers Association ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC170(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. We are giving reasons for dismissal of this appeal at the admission stage because the learned counsel has vehemently contended that a ruling on the question, whether an interim injunction granted by one learned judge can be vacated by another learned judge in the absence of any counter filed on behalf of the State Government or by other respondents in the writ petition, should be given by the Bench. If an interim injunction is so vacated, then to quote the words of the learned counsel, 'the judge steps into the shoes of the Government Pleader'. We are not taking a very serious note of the manner in which the contention is advanced, having regard to the fact that the counsel does not appear to have sufficient experience of arguing matters in this Court. 2. It is rather astounding that it should be argued that the power of the court to vary, modify, confirm or set aside an interim order must depend upon whether a counter has been filed or not. There may be any num...
C. Muniswamy Vs. T. Rajamoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1987
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ210Mad
P.K. Sethuraman, J. 1. This appeal coming for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition of appeal, the order of the lower Court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. R.K. Ravindran for M/s. V. Natarajan and Nicholas, Advocates for the applicant and of Mr. T. Dhanyakumar, Advocate for the respondent the Court made the following order:The appellant-workman is the appellant. The appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Salem, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant for compensation for the injury received by him during and in the course of employment under the respondent. The appellant filed the application stating that he received an injury, namely, the loss of his fingers while he was employed by the respondent for feeding the harvested paddy crop into the machine and he lost his fingers while he was feeding the harvested paddy crop into the thrashing machine. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 6,0...
Annamalai and ors. Vs. Regional Manager, RegoIn Iv, State Bank of Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1987
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ174Mad
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The original petitioner, who is no more and who was working as Head Clerk of Gobichettipalayam Branch of the State Bank of India, was proceeded against in disciplinary action under paragraph 521 of the Sastry award, read with paragraph 18.28 of the Desai Award. There were four charges levelled against the original petitioner. We need not trouble ourselves with the details of the charges in view of the scope of the controversy raised before this Court in this writ petition. On the basis that the original petitioner admitted guilt in respect of all the charges, the first respondent, by order dated 12th July 1980 dismissed the original petitioner from service. The original petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent and the second respondent gave the benefit of doubt to the original petitioner in respect of charge II, but, however, maintained the order of dismissal of the first respondent with reference to the other charges. In this writ petition, th...
V. Nagarathinam Ammal Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sankari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC464(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. Soundamman Textiles, Komarapalayam, was a partnership firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of handloom cloths. For the assessment years 1960-61 to 1963-64, accepting the returns filed by the firm, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruchengode, assessed the firm and collected the tax. Long after that, the assessing officer reopened the assessment for the said years on the ground that certain sale of imported silk yarn and dyes were also liable for sales tax as they were not utilised in the manufacture of handloom cloth. After following the procedure, the assessing officer made a reassessment order on 25th March, 1966 in respect of the assessment year 1960-61 and on 31st March, 1966 in respect of the three assessment years, namely, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64. The same assessing officer assessed the firm for 1964-65 also on 21st February, 1966. The assessing officer also levied penalties under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »