Chennai Court July 1990 Judgments
Dr. Valampuri John, M.P. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad151
ORDER1. This writ petition was filed at the time when the election to the Tamil Nadu State Assembly was being conducted. In fact, as the affidavit of the petitioner says he had filed a writ petition, W.P. No. 482 of 1982 for the issue of a writ of mandamus to forbear the Government Servants from interfering with the elections and from assisting the Prime Minister whenever he came for canvassing in favour of the candidate belonging to the Congress (I) Party. I have dismissed the said writ petition as infructuous on 27-6-1990 because the apprehension of the petitioner no longer subsists because the election itself is over. But the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that this writ petition which only challenges the validity of a rule in what is known as the 'Blue Book' still survives and requires a decision for the future guidance of the parties. The prayer in this writ petition is for a declaration to declare the following portion in R. 71(6) as ultra vires the Constitution of I...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Industries Vs. Government of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT519(Mad)
ORDER1. This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 14-12-82 and made herein and the records relating to the order in No. 251-B. 82 dated 17-7-82 on the file of the respondent comprised in the return of said respondent, to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. C. Rajappa Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. P. Narasimhan, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondent, the Court made the following order :-The petitioner herein, who is a manufacturer of Plastic bangles and is registered as a Small Scale Industrial Unit, holds an import licence for import of Cellulose Nitrate Films of 0.11 mm. thickness. The petitioner imported under the said licence Cellulose Nitrate Films, hereinafter referred to as C.N. Films, hereinafter referred to as C.N. Films and assessed to tax. It is alleged that the petitioner is entit...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Ashok Leyland Ltd. and Others Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1990
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ12Mad
Somasundaram, J.1. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 8646 of 1984 are the appellants in this writ appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given in the writ petition. 2. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 8646 of 1984 for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the award, dated 21st September, 1983, passed by the third respondent in I.D. No. 306 of 1977. 3. The case of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 8646 of 1984 is as follows : The first respondent company is engaged in the manufacture of chassis and industrial engines. Within two years of the commencement of production, in accordance with statutory obligations under the Factories Act, the first respondent-company started the second respondent - canteen for the sale of foodstuffs to the workers of the company. The canteen was started and was being run on a co-operative basis and for this purpose the second respondent - society was formed and registered under the provisions of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Central Art Press
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR618(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In this tax case reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of a sum of Rs. 70,000 representing retrenchment compensation and gratuity paid in the assessment year 1969-70 ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the payment was made in the course of carrying on of the business and not on the closure of the business based on valid materials and is sustainable in law ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm engaged in the business of running a printing press. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the accounting period ending on March 31, 1969, relevant for the assessment year 1969-70, the claim of the assessee for deduction of a sum of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Sugunaraj C.T. and ors. Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1990
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1198Mad
ORDERKanagaraj, J.1. The petitioners are the staff members of the Erode Branch of the Syndicate Bank which is a nationalised bank and is a creature of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1971. It is not disputed that the petitioners were absenting themselves for about 15 minutes every day between the dates July 2, 1981 and July 14, 1981 excepting the holidays. The petitioners, however, stated that they had attended office on all these days except for the short duration mentioned above. The respondents issued a show-cause notice by referring to the Circulars dated April 24, 1981 and July 1, 1981 directing that no employee shall leave his or her seat during the office hours without the permission of the concerned officer and calling upon the petitioners to submit their explanation as to why the full day's wages should not be deducted. The notice was affixed in the Staff Notice Board with a direction that it shall be treated as individual intimation. There wa...
Tag this Judgment!Nandan Durai Vs. Francis Rattisabose
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ466
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order permitting review of judgment and decree made in first appeal. The judgment in the appeal was delivered on 27.4.1983 and the application for review was presented on 30.11.1983. There is no question of limitation as under the provisions of the Pondicherry Limitation Act it is admittedly in time.2. The ground on which review was sought was that the appellate Court in the course of its judgment had referred to the circumstance that the prior title deed of the respondent herein dated 20.11.1956 was not produced before Court, and that inspite of the best efforts made by the respondent herein the document could not be obtained when the proceedings were pending before the trial Court and the appellate court. On that ground the document was produced before the court along with the application for review and review was sought as according to the respondent, his title was proved by the said document.3. The lower appellate court thoug...
Tag this Judgment!R. Thiagasundaram Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad82
ORDER1. The petitioner presented certain documents of sale for registration valuing the property at a particular rate. The Registering Authority having regard to the provisions of S. 47A of Indian Stamp Act has referred to the Collector the question of determining the market value of the property and whether the proper stamp duty has been paid on the instrument. It is at this stage, the present writ petition has been filed praying a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the proceedings of the Registering Officer dated 14-6-1990 by referring the matter regarding the market value under S. 47A of the Stamp Act to the Collector. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the properly certain minors have a share and in order to obtain permission from the City Civil Court for selling the share of the minors, O.P. No. 38 of 1990 was filed in the City Civil Court, Madras indicating the value of the property as recited now in the instrument presented for reg...
Tag this Judgment!S. Lalitha Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT161(Mad)
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for Petitioners. These matters have been posted for hearing after notice of motion. Since I was of the opinion that any interim order against the impugned notices would delay disposal of proceedings which, in the public interest, should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the merit of the Writ Petitions and since after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners I have come to the conclusion that the petitions are not maintainable, I do not propose to postpone disposal of these cases to any future date. 2. The petitioners herein have questioned the validity of notices issued under Section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. 'Whereas, I. . . . . . . . . . . . . being the Competent Authority under Section 5 of the Smugglers & foreign Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (13 of 1976), have on the basis of relevant information av...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Mahaboob Basha and ors. Vs. Kaneez Fathima
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1990
Reported in: (1991)372MLJ1
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The question that arises in the revision petition is whether the appeal filed by the petitioners herein before the appellate authority against the order of the Rent Controller refusing to appoint a Commissioner to inspect the building and note the physical condition was maintainable.2. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners submits that according to the judgment of Sathiadev, J., in N.P. Appulu v. A. Fatima Loera 96 L.W. 569 the order was an appealable one. There is a judgment of Natarajan, J. reported in V. Govindarajulu v. T. Govindarajulu (1989) 1 L.W. 540 taking a contrary view, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the conflict the matter must be referred to a Division Bench of this Court for resolving the conflict. In normal circumstances when there is a conflict of views between two single Judges of this Court, the matter should be referred to a Division Bench, But I find that the judgment of Natarajan, J. is based upon a judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. QuthubuddIn Syed Shah, Mohamm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ414
Abdul Hadi, J.1. Defendant is the appellant. The suit is for possession and damages for use and occupation. Admittedly, the defendant became the tenant of the suit property belonging to the plaintiff under Ex. A-1 lease agreement dated 4.6.1968, which gave a lease of the suit property for a period of five years with option to the defendant - lessee to renew the lease for a further term of 5 years from the expiry of the said term on a rent to be 'then mutually negotiated and settled'. Further, admittedly subsequent to the execution of Ex. A-1, the defendant under Ex. B-8 letter dated 4.7.1968 addressed to the plaintiff, undertook to reimburse the plaintiff the municipal property tax for the demised site every half year as soon as the plaintiff passes on the 'demand notice or the tax receipt for the amount paid' towards the said tax. It is also common ground that the defendant sent Ex. B-2 letter plated 11.1.1973 to the plaintiff expressing his option to renew the lease for a further per...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›