Chennai Court June 1989 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.
Technical Graduates Association (Affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Engineer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ18
S. Mohan, C.J.1. Based on the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission, the rules relating to the promotion of Assistant Directors of Town Planning were amended by virtue of the power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. This was done in G.O.Ms.No.170, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 5.3.1984. In effect and substance, the amendment is as under:.3. A. Ratio of Appointment: Appointment to the post by recruitment by transfer shall be made from among the holders of the post of Architectural - Cum - planning Assistant/Supervisor in the ratio of 3:1 between Degree and Diploma holders. Out of every .unit of four vacancies, the first three vacancies shall be filed from among the holders of prescribed degree qualification and the remaining vacancy from among the holders of the prescribed post Diploma or Diploma qualification. If persons with the prescribeddegree qualification as on the 1st September of the year for which the panel is prepared are not available, suc...
J. K. K. Natarajah Vs. Wealth-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1989
Reported in: [1990]32ITD370(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri R. Parthasarathy, Accountant Member - These forty wealth-tax appeals relating to four different assessees preferred by the department as well as the assessees are combined together and disposed of by this common order as common points relating to the valuation of the interest of these assessees in different firms are involved in all these appeals.2. At the outset, it may be useful to record a few relevant facts. The assessment years involved in these appeals are assessment years 1975-76 to 1979-80, for which the corresponding valuation dates were 31-3-75, 31-3-76, 31-3-77, 31-3-78 and 31-3-79 respectively. The four assessees involved in these appeals were partners in different firms.3. The first set of appeals in each case as indicated at the beginning of this order represents assessees appeals, while the second set of appeals in each case as indicated therein represents departmental appeals. The appeals have been filed against the appellate orders dt. 24-6-87 -(i) in W. ...
Union of India Vs. M/S. Cavalier Shipping Company, Madras and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-02-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad312
ORDER1. This is a case in which a shockingly inordinate delay of seventeen years and odd has been condoned by the Master without any notice to the defendants. No doubt. Rules do not insist upon notice being given to the defendants in the matter of condonation of delay in re-presentation. There is a judgment of this Court on the appellate side that in matters of condonation of delay in re-presentation, no notice is required to the respondent. But, that rule cannot be applied automatically as a rule of thumb without any reference to the quantum of delay in the particular case. 2. This suit was presented on 14th July, 1967. The prayer in the suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,35,602.77. The claim related to the consignment of cargo discharged in Madras Port during June, July, 1966. The plaint was returned for rectification of certain defects on 18-7-1967. It was re-presented only on 17-10-1984 with an application for condonation of delay.3. The affidavit in support of the application ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›