Chennai Court June 1990 Judgments
P. Sekar Vs. Bhel, Ranipet and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1990
Reported in: (1991)ILLJ551Mad
1. The petitioner has come to this Court challenging the order of transfer by which he has been posted to Bharat Heavy Electricals, Ltd., Trichy. 2. The petitioner herein joined the services of the Bharat Heavy Electricals, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as B. H. E. L. ), Ranipet, the first respondent herein on 1st December, 1983, as Fitter Grade IV and was promoted from Grade IV to Grade III Fitter. It seems that the petitioner is a sitting executive committee member of the Boiler Auxiliaries Plant Staff Union, a recognised union. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the first respondent-management wanted to stifle the protesting voices of the union, in which he is an executive committee member, that it decided to victimise the vanguards of the union and was waiting for an opportunity to victimise the petitioner. It seems that there was an incident in which a gate was closed by which the workmen used to get in and come out of the canteen and to ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthusamy Gounder Vs. Janakiraman (insane Person), S/O Nataraja Gounde ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ516
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. For the sake of convenience, I am adopting the rank of the parties as in the main appeal. The appellant was the first defendant in the suit out of which the appeal has arisen. The first respondent was the plaintiff and respondents 2 and 3 were defendants 2 and 3.2. The suit relates to three Schedules of properties. A Schedule comprises of two items. B Schedule relates to certain houses and C. Schedule to certain lands. The first respondent prayed for a declaration of his title over the A Schedule properties and for delivery of possession of item No. 1 thereof and for injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of item No. 2 thereof. The prayer with reference to B Schedule was for a division of the same into nine equal shares and for allotment of four shares to the first respondent. With reference to the C Schedule, the prayer was for partition and separate allotment of 1/4th share. There was also a prayer for mesne profi...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Sterling Construction Vs. the Premier Transport
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad227
ORDER1. The landlords, who succeeded before the Rent Controller but failed before the Appellate Authority are the petitioners in the Civil Revision Petition. The petitioners herein filed RCOP No. 2418/84 on the file of the Rent Controller, Madras, under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. The case of the petitioners in RCOP No. 2418/84 is as follows:--The petitioners are the registered firm of partnership. The respondents are the tenants of the petitioners in respect of the non-residential flat No. IF comprised in Municipal door No. 131, Nimgambakkam High Road, Madras-34, on a monthly rent of Rupees 450/- plus Rs. 60/- for hire charges for two fans in all amounting to Rs. ISO/- per mensem. The said building was purchased by the petitioners by a registered Sale Deed dated 30-3-1984 from one Chandran. The respondents who are the tenants of the vendor of the petitioners attorned their tenancy to the petitioners on their purchase of the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishnan and ors. Vs. Rajasekaran Rajee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ319
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The Respondents 1, 2 and 4 in RCOP. No. 1 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tindivanam, who failed before both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. The Landlord filed RCOP. No. 1 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tindivanam, against the petitioners herein and others for eviction under Sections 10(2)(ii)(b) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 1960), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the case of the landlord in RCOP. No. 1 of 1981 is as follows;- The petition mentioned premises consisting of two items belongs to the respondent herein and it was leased out to one Ravanappa Naidu, 40 years prior to the filing of the RCOP. The said tenant, Ravanappa Naidu, died 15 years prior to the filing of the petition and after his death, the respondents 1 to 4 in the RCOP., who are the heirs of Ravanappa Naidu continued as tenants of the deceased Ellus...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sambu Films Represented by Its Partner and ors. Vs. Vijaya Picture ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ405
1. The Appellants in the O.S.A. are defendants 1, 3, 5, 6 to 13 and the legal representatives of the 4th defendant in C.S. No. 126 of 1969. The suit C.S. No. 126 of 1969 is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,28,299-42 together with interest on the principal amount of Rs. 91,393-55 from the date of plaint till the date of decree at 12% per annum and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of payment.2. The case of the plaintiff in C.S. No. 126 of 1969 is as follows: The first defendant firm started production of a Motion Picture in Telugu titled as Srikakula Andhra Maha Vishnu in the beginning of the year 1965. Defendants 2 to 5 are the partners of the first defendant firm. By distribution agreement dated 16.6.1965 marked as ExP.1 in the case between the plaintiff on the one hand and the first defendant firm represented by the 2nd respondent as its Managing Partner on the other hand, the plaintiff was granted the sole and exclusive rights of distribution over the said Telugu motion Picture...
Tag this Judgment!Pappa Vs. Shanmughathammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad90; (1991)IIMLJ555
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge Madurai, in O. S. No. 486 of 1977 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows : The appellant, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, filed the suit for a declaration that she is the trustee of the private trust established by Ramayee Animal, for delivery of possession of the suit properties and for rendition of accounts by defendants 1 and 2 on the following averments. One Andiappa Pillai son of Arumugham Pillai of Veeracholam village executed a registered will dated 12-12-1912 while in a sound and disposing state of mind and volition, whereby he made provision for carrying out the following charities (1) Performing daily pooja in the Vinayagar temple constructed and installed by him in his native village Veeracholam; (2) Arranging a payasakattala...
Tag this Judgment!G. Thirugnanasambandam Vs. R. Shanmugasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1990
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas401(Mad)
ORDERPadmini Jesudurai, J. 1. The accused against whom the respondent has filed a compliant, pending before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, at C.C. No. 21500 of 1989, for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended by Act 66 of 1988, has field the present application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the above proceedings. 2. According to the complaint, on January 13, 1989, the petitioner issued a cheque, post-dated as April 18, 1989, for sum of Rs. 3,50,000 drawn on the Bank of Madura Ltd., Annamalai Nagar Branch, Chidambaram. The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner requested the respondent not to present the cheque before April 18, 1989. The respondent presented the cheque at his bank, viz., the Indian Bank, Egmore, Madras, on September 9, 1989. The Indian Bank, having received a communication from the Bank of Madura Ltd., Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram, that the above cheque had been re...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.R. Niranjan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1990
Reported in: (1990)84CTR(Mad)259; [1991]187ITR280(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In compliance with the directions under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), in T.C.P. No. 232 of 1976 dated November 2, 1976, the Tribunal referred the following questions for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 27(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the Explanation thereto, the Appellate Tribunal was right in reducing the penalty from Rs. 2,53,351 to Rs. 45,737 on the ground that the loss returned by the assessee should not be added to the income finally assessed for the purpose of levy of penalty (2) Whether. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Appellate Tribunal had materials to hold that the addition of Rs. 29,000 representing unexplained credit should not be treated as the concealed income of the assessee ?' 2. The assessee in an individual doing contract business. The previous year relevant to th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gemini Pictures Circuit (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1990
Reported in: (1990)85CTR(Mad)7; [1991]188ITR101(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In accordance with the provision contained in section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of chapter XVII-C of the Income-tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the payment of Rs. 3,20,000 made on March 30,1968, in pursuance of an invalid estimate should be taken into account for the purpose of computing the penalty under section 273(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1968-69 ?' 2. The Income-tax Officer demanded advance tax of Rs. 3,38,711 for the assessment year 1968-69 under section 210 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed an estimate on june 14, 1967, in which he estimated the tax at Rs. 17,550. The assessee filed another estimate on march 30, 1968, estimating the tax at Rs. 6,32,500...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Thyaga Brahma Gana Sabha (Regd)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1990
Reported in: (1990)85CTR(Mad)77; [1991]188ITR160(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal referred the following questions for our opinion : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that, in so far as the income from letting out of Vani Mahal was concerned, the objects of the assessee were for general public utility within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that even assuming that letting out of the vani mahal was an activity, it was not an activity for profit?' 2. The assessee is Sri Tyaga Brahma Gana Sabha, a registered society, registered under the Societies Registration Act (Act XXI of 1860). The assessee is the owner of the hall called 'Vani Mahal'. For the assessment year 1973-74, the Income-tax Officer, after referring to the objects of the sabha, adv...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »