Chennai Court October 1994 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.
Jacob Koshy Vs. the Appellate Authority and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1994
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ328Mad
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The Writ Petition can be disposed of in a very short ground. The prayer is to quash the order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 41(2) of the Tamilnadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 in T.S.E.A. Case No. 5 of 1984 on March 25, 1985.2. The petitioner was an employee as Office Assistant-Cum-Driver under the second respondent. His services were terminated by an order dated February 8, 1984. The same was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act before the first respondent. A counter was filed by the second respondent in the appeal. The petitioner's counsel sought permission of the authority to lead evidence to decide the question as to the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the second respondent. Evidence was partly recorded. When the petitioner was in the witness box, the second respondent's counsel put some questions to the witness relating to the merits of the case. The ...
Metal Box India Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1994
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ763Mad
Somasundaram., J1. The 1st petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office at Calcutta. It has manufacturing units in several places including Tamil Nadu. They are engaged in the manufacture of metal containers, collapsible tubes, paper packages, plastic moulded goods etc. It is the case of the petitioners that they are incurring heavy losses for several years. They have therefore, applied for the relief under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as S.I.C.A.) on May 27, 1988 the company has been declared as a sick industry. Further proceedings relating to the framing of a scheme is pending with the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. With effect from December 20, 1987 the Madras Factory suspended its operation in view of the cumulative loss reaching the figure of Rs. 90.20 Crores till March 31, 1987. On the assurance given by the workers and on the advice of the Commissioner of...
Kunjuraman Nair Vs. Managing Director, Nesamony Transport Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC364; 1995ACJ413
C.V. Govardhan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kuzhithurai, dated 27.7.1990 dismissing the petition filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: On 9.9.1987 at about 4.45 p.m., the petitioner and two others were waiting in the bus stop at Methappangodu to go to Thoduvetti and at that time bus of route No. 106-B bearing registration No. TMN 2915 belonging to the first respondent came and stopped there. Passengers were alighting from the bus. When the petitioner was mounting the bus, the driver had taken the bus suddenly before any signal was given to him by the second respondent. The petitioner fell down, hit the electric post nearby and sustained injuries. He was given treatment in the Government Hospital, Kuzhithurai and then sent to Nagercoil for treatment. He had gone to the Medical College Hospital at Trivandrum after discharge and is taking treatment. The petitioner is u...
M. Jayaraman Vs. M. Santhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ251
ORDERSampathkumaran. J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif of Thiruvaiyaru dismissing the application I.A. No. 828 of 1988, filed by the revision petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 159 of 1987 before him, to recast issue No. 1. Issue No. 1 as it stands is, whether the marriage that took place between the plaintiff (petitioner herein) and the defendant (the respondent herein) is not valid and is against law. The petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 828 of 1988 before the learned District Munsif for recasting the issue as follows:Whether there was marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant as contended by the defendant and if so whether the said marriage is valid in law.The learned District Munsif who enquired into the petition held that the petitioner has alleged in the plaint itself that there was a marriage between him and the respondent herein, but, has only alleged that the marriage is not valid and therefore, it is for th...
Puthalath Perunthodi Lakshmi Vs. Kalluparambath Kochunni and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ131
K.A Swami, C.J.1. This civil revision petition is preferred under Section 113 of the Mahe Land Reforms Act, read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 22.8.1986 passed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Mahe, in A.A. No. 2 of 1985 affirming the preliminary order dated 7.1.1985 passed in original application 1/82-K by the Land Tribunal, Mahe.2. The Land Tribunal, Mahe by the aforesaid order has held that the petition scheduled house satisfied the requirement of Sub-clause (ii) of Section 2(24) of the Mahe Land Reforms Act, 1968 as substituted by the Mahe Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1980, that at the time of construction of the house, it had fetched a rent of Rs. 6 only, therefore, it was a hut as defined in the aforesaid Clause (24) of Section 2. Accordingly, it has allowed the petition and held that the 1st respondent who is the petitioner in the original application is a 'Kudikidappukaran'' and he is eligible to purchase the Kudikidapp...
K. Rukmani Vs. B.N. Rajarajeswari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ290
N. Arumugham, J.1. This revision arises out of the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in ASSR. No. 5317 of 1988 dated 16.6.1988 directing the revision petitioner to pay the balance Court-fee of Rs. 737.25 within one month time.2. The brief facts which are necessary to be extracted for the purpose of this revision is as follows: The respondent herein has filed the suit O.S. No. 9225 of 1985 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,480 being the Principal amount of Rs. 7,000 with interest accrued thereon at 24% per annum from 8.7.1979 onwards, after adjusting the payment of Rs. 3,000 made in the middle. The trial court after contest in full trial, passed the decree for the abovesaid sum on 23.12.1987 in favour of the respondent herein with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation with costs. Aggrieved at this, the defendant, who is the revision petitioner herein has preferred the appeal for the purpose ...
Kunjuraman Nair Vs. the Managing Director, Nesamony Transport Corporat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ249
Govardhan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kuzhithurai, dated 27.7.1990 dismissing the petition filed under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: On 9.9.1987 at about 4.45 p.m., the petitioner and two others were waiting in the Bus stop at Methappangodu to go to Thoduvetti, and at that time Route No. 106-B bearing registration No. TMN. 2915 belonging to the first respondent came and stopped there. Passengers were alighting from the bus. When the petitioner was alighting from the bus, the driver had taken the bus suddenly before any signal was given to him by the second respondent. The petitioner fell down, hit at the electric post nearby and sustained injuries. He was given treatment in the Government Hospital, Kuzhithurai and then sent to Nagercoil for treatment. He had gone to the Medical College Hospital at Trivandrum after discharge and is taking treatment. The petitioner is unab...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Ramanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR79(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. Under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal had referred the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the hundi loans of Rs. 1,15,000 and the interest thereon of Rs. 15,000 which was disallowed by the ITO under s. 69D of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee, S. Ramanathan, had taken loans of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 65,000, respectively, on 31st July, 1977, and 1st Aug., 1979, from the Mercantile Credit Corpn. The ITO treated these loans as hundi loans. Since the borrowings were effected in cash, the ITO applied s. 69D of the IT Act, 1961, and added the amounts in question to the income of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1980-81. The ITO also disallowed the interest amount of Rs. 15,000 involved in the same transactions since the payments in respect of the loans were paid in cash. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that s. 69D of the IT Act wou...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Eastern Seafoods Exports (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR64(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. Of the two questions under reference for the opinion of the court, the question whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the gross value of the assets should alone be taken as capital for the purpose of grant of relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by ignoring the provisions of rule 19A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, need not be answered in any detail as the law in this behalf has been settled by the pronouncement in the case of Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India : [1985]152ITR308(SC) and the same has to be applied strictly by all concerned. 2. The question, however, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the profit on sale of import licences of Rs. 5,70,704 was derived from the assessee's manufacturing activity for the purpose of deduction of relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in our opinion, ha...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jalaja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ829
M. Srinivasan, J.1. The insurance company is the appellant. The only question raised by the company is that the liability of the company is limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The total award is for Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest. The company contended before the Tribunal that according to the policy, the liability is limited to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It was argued that under the Act as it stood at the time of accident, the maximum liability of the insurance company was only Rs. 1,50,000/- for third party risk. The insurance company also produced a true copy of the policy which was marked as Exh. B-l. An employee of the company in the rank of Assistant has produced the document and given evidence in support of it. The document was signed by the Branch Manager as true copy.2. The Tribunal has chosen to reject the document and also the contention of the insurance company on the footing that the original policy has not been produced. The Tribunal has observed that the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »