Chennai Court March 1990 Judgments
P.N. Ganesan Pvt. Ltd (In Liquidation) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1990
Reported in: [1992]196ITR455(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company. On September 15, 1973, the company passed a resolution for winding up the company and during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1974-75, the company retrenched its employees and paid them retrenchment compensation of Rs. 1,06,044. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee claimed the amount of retrenchment compensation as an admissible deduction and the Income-tax Officer allowed that claim. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax, on a scrutiny of the records, found that the order of the Income-tax Officer was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue in that the claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs. 1,06,044 paid as retrenchment compensation to the employees was really not admissible, as the payment was made consequent upon the closure of the business and issued a notice under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On a...
Tag this Judgment!P. Vidhyavathi and ors. Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ187
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. These writ petitions are by the non-selectees with regard to the posts of District Munsif, hereinafter called the posts, the selection in respect of which was done in May-June, 1988. The non-selectees in the case of W.P. Nos. 7480, 7518, 7993, 8166, 8534 and 8708 of 1988 are the members of the Bar. The non-selectees in the case of W.P. Nos. 8834 of 1988 and 162 of 1989 are service candidates. The quota for the Bar was 70 out of 128 vacancies; the balance 58 vacancies having had been required to be filled up by recruitment by transfer from amongst service candidates.2. The grounds of attack or in other words, the grounds of grievance over the non-selection are being expressed in the following manner : Firstly, it is contended that during the time of interview or oral examination, held for the selection for the posts, the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, was not in office at all, he having gone on ...
Tag this Judgment!Keelakarai Home Tax Payers Association Represented by Its Secretary S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ384
ORDERM. Srinivasan, J.1. These two writ petitions are directed against the special notices issued by the respondent-Panchayat for assessment of house-tax on the basis of general revision. It is the contention of the petitioners that the notices are not in accordance with the Rules framed under the Panchayat Act which have been interpreted by this Court in earlier cases.2. In Nemili Town Panchayat represented by Executive Officer v. Nemili Town Panchayat Tax payers' Welfare Association, W.A.No. 222 of 1989 of judgment dated 15.3.1989, a Division Bench of this Court has held that a notice informing the assessee of the enhancement of tax shall contain reasons for increase, if any, and unless the reasons are set out in the notice, it cannot be said that proper opportunity is given to the assessee to state his objections against the assessment. The Bench approved the earlier decision of a single Judge of this Court in Dalavai v. Government of Tamil Nadu : (1978)1MLJ93 .3. In these cases, th...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Shamsudeen and ors. Vs. the Dist. Judge and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ461
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. These 12 Civil Revision Petitions (except C.R.P. No. 3127 of 1989) are preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the appointment of trustees for the Trust called M.K.N.Madarasa of Adiramapatnam by the learned District Judge, West Thanjavur of Thanjavur in O.S. No. 21 of 1952 as modified as S. No. 6 of 1970, dated 5.9.1989.2. C.R.P. No.3127 of 1989 is filed for transferring the proceedings on the file of the first respondent herein, relating to the appointment of trustees for the trust M.K.N. Madarasa of Adiramapatnam.3. The Trust which is the subject matter of these petitions known as M.K.N. Madarasa of Adiramapatnam is a Muslim Trust with large endowments created by one Haji Khader Mohideen Maracair and his three brothers under two deeds of endowment dated 16.12.1900 and 6.4.1901. Undo the said deeds, the four donors constituted themselves as trustees for life and it was intended that their successors in their male line should...
Tag this Judgment!The General Secretary, Commercial Employees Association Vs. the Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1990
Reported in: (1991)ILLJ134Mad
ORDER1. These petitions coming on for hearing on Wednesday the 10th day of January, 1990 and upon perusing the petitions and the affidavit filed in support of W.P. No. 1672/89 on the file of the High Court and the order of this court dated 13th February 1989, and made in W.M.P. No. 2563/89 upon hearing the arguments of Mr. N. T. Vanamamalai for Mr. K. K. Parthasarathy, Advocate for the petitioner in both the petitions and of Mr. N. Bhaskaran, Government Advocate, on behalf of the respondent 1 to 3 in both the petitions and of Mr. Sanjay Mohan, Advocate for the 4th respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following order. 2. W.M.P. No. 2563 of 1989 is filed by the writ petitioner for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the fourth respondent-Management from in any way displacing or terminating the services of 14 workmen presently employed in the process of sweeping and scavenging in the fourth respondent establishment pending disposal of...
Tag this Judgment!Kathoom Bivi Ammal Vs. S. Mohamad Alias Sheik Mohamad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ42
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree rendered in O.S. No. 80 of 1981 dated 12-2-1983. As against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 80 of 1981, A.S. No. 15 of 1984 was filed before the District Court Pudukottai which was later on transferred to this Court and numbered as A.S. No. 986 of 1986. The plaintiff is the appellant 'herein O.S. No. 80 of 1981 was filed for declaration of plaintiffs title to the suit properties and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and for costs. The case of the plaintiff is as under : The suit properties are situate in Andaikulam and Santhiniapatti village. A-Schedule property is the house and its apartments and D-schedule properties are both wet and dry lands. The suit properties originally belonged to one Jain Bivi Ammal and her two sons viz., Kadhar Ibrahim Rowther and S. Sheik Mohamad alias S. Shah Mohamed, who is the f...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Johns Paulraj Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education, Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ207
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The Petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the termination notice of the third respondent dated 13.6.1988 and quash the same. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Principal of the Usha Higher Secondary School, West Thambaram, Madras temporarily. It is also stated that there was an agreement between him and the school for a period of one year from 1-6-1987 ending with the academic year. That agreement is said to be dated 1-8-1987. It is his further case that there were some misunderstandings between him and the Chairman of the school and that he was threatened with danger to his personal safety also. According to him, there was a police complaint and ultimately on 13-6-1988 he was prevented from entering the school and the impugned order was communicated to him. By the impugned order his services were terminated on certain grounds of discipline. I have not gone into the details...
Tag this Judgment!C. Thulasimani Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1990
Reported in: (1991)252MLJ1
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. There is no merit in this writ petition. The petitioner became the successful bidder in the auction held in 1987 and was granted a lease for a period of 3 years. He took possession of the shop on 27.2.1987. One of the specific conditions was that the lease will be operative for a period of three years from the date of taking possession. Consequently, his period ended on 26.2.1990. The second respondent notified and held a fresh auction on 4.1.1990. The 4th respondent is the successful bidder in the auction held on 4.1.1990. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent notifying the auction and quashing the same, and directing respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to continue in his shop as long as he pays the rent regularly.2. The first contention raised by the learned Counsel of the petitioner is that he is entitled to the benefits of G.O.Ms. No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Chitram and Co. Ltd. Represented by Its Senior Manag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ551
Nainar Sundaram. J.1. The petitioner in W.P.No. 1112 of 1984 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondents in that Writ Petition are the respondents in this writ appeal. Amongst the parties, we must indicate that the appellant is the Management and the second respondent was the Workman. The second respondent has obtained an award in I.D.No. 307 of 1982, directing his reinstatement by the appellant with backwages. This award, the second respondent obtained at the hands of the third respondent. We are told that this award is the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition, which is pending before this Court. The appellant has put forth an independent challenge of the constitutional vires of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes of Act 14 of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by filing W.P.No. 11112 of 1984. The grounds of challenge put forth by the appellant were examined by the learned single Judge who heard this writ petition and he repelled them and as a result dis...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Balasubramanian Vs. the Chief General Manager, State Bank of Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ114
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner has come before this Court praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing the order of dismissal of petitioner from service passed by the respondent on 29-9-1987 and directing the respondent to pay the petitioner his pension and other superannuation benefits due and payable to him.2. The petitioner entered service in the Imperial Bank of India, now called State Bank of India, in the year 1945 and after service 6f nearly 40 years the last post held by him was Officer in the Junior Management Cadre and as such was working as Branch Manager, Thandikudi Branch, Kodiakanal Taluk till he attained the age of superannuation, that is 58 years, the actual date of his retirement being 28-2-1985. Though he attained the age of superannuation on 28-2-1985, he was permitted to continue in service even after that date, since the competent authority in exercise of its powers under the proviso to Section 19(1) of the State Bank of India Officers' (Det...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›