Chennai Court January 1990 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.
Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Government of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: (1991)ILLJ113Mad
1. The petitioner challenges the order of the Government passed in G.O. Ms. No. 2746, dated 12th December, 1988, referring the dispute under S. 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947). The dispute is between the employees of the third respondents and the third respondent. Reference made by the Government is as follows : 'Whether the demand that the security guards under contractors are eligible to get the same wages and other benefits enjoyed by the regular security guards of the Ashok Leyland, Ltd., is justified, if so to give appropriate directions'. 2. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that the reference is not competent as far as the petitioner is concerned and it could not be made against the petitioner who admittedly is not the employer of the security guards concerned. It is also alleged that there is no dispute that the security guards are all employees of the third respondent and as such the Government has made the reference without jurisdiction...
Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board Vs. S. Ruban Peter and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ92Mad
ORDERDr. A.S. Anand, C.J. 1. The short, but meaningful, question which we are called upon to decide at this stage, is regarding the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to deal 'service matters' after the coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the Act, for short) with effect from 1st November, 1985 and in particular as to 'who' are the persons who are required to approach only the 'Tribunal' for the adjudication of disputes concerning their services and to whom the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is no longer available for the adjudication of those disputes. The question arises in the following circumstances : 2. A number of writ petitions came to be filed in this Court, which are still pending adjudication, seeking the issue of certiorarified mandamus to quash the letter dated 15th April, 1989 written by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Madras (hereinafter referred t...
Trichur Cotton Mills Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: [1990]77STC162(Mad)
1. These two tax cases arise out of a common order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai, dated 22nd February, 1979 and made in T.A. Nos. 881 and 882 of 1977. 2. The assessment years in question are 1974-75 and 1975-76. 3. The petitioner, who is common in both the cases, is a dealer in cotton yarn having a sales depot at Pillayar Natham, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu, for the sales of cotton yarn. It may also be mentioned that though the petitioner is having the sales depot, as stated above, at Pillayar Natham, the spinning mills of the petitioner are situated at Nattika in Kerala State. It appears, for the sales of yarn at the sales depot of the petitioner, assessments were completed for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. Subsequently, it was found, that the petitioner had purchased cotton in this State and pressed the same into bales at Tiruppur and thereafter transported them to its mills at Nattika in Kerala State. Therefore, the assessments for t...
V.N. Raghavan Vs. V. Vijaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ80
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order of the District Munsif, Coimbatore passed in E.P.No. 35 of 1988 in R.C.O.P.No. 9 of 1985 dated 15.9.1989.2. The petitioner was a lessee of the premises which belonged to the respondent herein. The petitioner herein has been carrying on tailoring business under the name and style of 'Suresh Tailors'. The respondent-landlady filed R.C.O.P.No. 9 of 1985 under section 14 (1) (b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for eviction. The petitioner herein did not file a counter in that petition before the Rent Controller. On 8.2.1985, a memo was filed before the Rent Controller which is to the following effect:.Memo filed by the respondent. The respondent agreed to vacate the premises within six months and prepared to deliver possession. Therefore it is prayed Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant six months time to vacate the premises and handover...
Rahima Bi and ors. Vs. R. Menezez and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ323
E.J. Bellie, J.1. This second appeal is by the mortgagors who filed the suit. It appears the mortgaged property has been sold in auction under Section 69-A of the Transfer of Property Act and in that auction it was sold to the second defendant. The mortgagee, is the first defendant.2. The plaintiff-mortgagors filed the suit before the auction sale was registered for the relief of redemption after scaling down the debt under the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Acts and for a declaration that the auction sale held on 8.10.1977 is null and void and for consequential relief of injunction restraining the first defendant mortgagee from executing a sale deed. According to the plaintiffs they are joint owners of the mortgaged property; it was mortgaged under a registered deed on 20.10.1965 in favour of the first defendant for a sum of Rs. 3,500 agreeing to pay interest at 12 per cent per annum; the plaintiffs have till 20.9.1977 paid to the first defendant-mortgages several sums in mo...
E. Chandra Vs. the Member-secretary. Madras Metropolitan Development A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ537
ORDERS. Sivasubramaniam1. This Contempt application has been filed for punishing the first respondent for contempt for having wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 16.3.1989 and made in W.P.No. 3897 of 1989.2. In the affidavit filed in support of this contempt application, the following contentions have been raised: The petitioner applied for a planning permission in respect of the additional construction put up by her on the fourth floor and the same was rejected by the first respondent herein. The application was rejected as per the order in Letter No. K.Dis/C/16202/86 dated 17.2.1987. Even at the time of the said order, the additional construction of fourth floor was in existence and the first respondent rejected the planning permission only after inspection of the building by his officials. No construction has been put up thereafter. The measurements found in the application submitted to the Government for exemption were on the basis of the violations reported by the off...
V. Natarajan Vs. Veerabadra Udayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ20
E.J. Bellie, J.1. First defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was filed on the allegations that the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant of the suit land having taken it on lease from the first defendant and the first defendant purporting to have leased it to the second defendant is trying to unlawfully evict him and therefore an in junction be granted restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession.2. As against this the first defendant is contending that the plaintiff has been given only the right to take the usufructs of the cocoanut trees for a period of two years commencing from 16-2-1979 on payment of Rs. 175 per year and the lease time having been over on 15-2-1981, the plaintiff has no right to take the usufructs. It is further contended that the allegation that the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of the land is false. It is also contended that having taken advantage of the first defendant being away at Madras, the plaintiff is causing troub...
Om Prakash Ummat Proprietor, Techni Science Industries Vs. the Honoura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ76
ORDERArunachalam, J.1. The petitioner who appears to be the proprietor of M/s Techne Science Industries, is carrying on his trade at No.209 Linghi Chetty Street, Madras, 1. The petitioner preferred a complaint before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T., Madras against one G. Nagarajan, Chairman, Seethai Animal Polytechnic, Keelakandani, Sivagangai for an alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The entire details-stated in the complaint, need not have to be gone into, for the disposal Of this petition. Suffice to state, that towards discharge of his liability, the accused issued cheques, the subject-matter of this prosecution in favour of the petitioner.2. The accused issued two cheques dated 26.9.89 and 26.10.89 in favour of the petitioner, drawn on the Bank of Madura Ltd., Sivaganga Branch. The petitioner deposited the cheques with his bankers, Karur Vysya Bank, Madras, situate within the jurisdiction of the VII Matropolitan Magistrate. These cheques wer...
G. Chandrasekharan Vs. the Chairman, Madras Port Trust and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1990
Reported in: (1990)IILLJ337Mad
ORDERDr. A.S. Anand, C.J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in Writ petition No. 14035 of 1989 decided on 1st December 1989. 2. The appellant herein was working as a Traffic Manager with the Madras Port Trust at the relevant time. On the allegation of being in possession of property disproportionate to his known sources of income, a criminal case was instituted against him. The appellant was placed under suspension. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 329 of 1989 seeking enhancement of the subsistence allowance, since he was paid only 50% of his pay as subsistence allowance. The writ petition came to be allowed on 3rd March 1989 and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the appellant for the grant of the enhanced subsistence allowance (1990-II-LLJ-5). In the meanwhile, the first respondent also initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and a charge memo was drawn up on 14th February 1989 containing four cha...
Sree Meenakshi Mills Thozhilalar Co-op. Stores Ltd. Vs. the Asst. Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1990
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ280Mad
SRINIVASAN J. - This is consolidated reference made under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act on the application of three different assessees covering three assessment years and three chargeable accounting periods under the Excess Profits Tax Act. The assessee are public limited companies engaged in the manufacture and sale of yarn at Madurai. Each of the assessee has a branch at Pudukkottai for effecting sales of yarn. The Madurai Bank, which has its head office at Madurai, has also a branch at Pudukkottai. The sale proceeds of the yarn of the three assessees realised in Pudukottai which was during the assessment years and chargeable accounting periods a Native State, were being banked by the respective assessees with the Pudukottai branch of the Madurai Bank. The accumulation of such sale proceeds was in the shape of fixed deposits with that branch. Interest was earned on these fixed deposits. Now it would appear that in the usual course of their businesses, the assessee-compa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »