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.
C. Kailashchand JaIn and ors. Vs. Mohamed Kasim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ267
ORDERThangamani, J.1. Tenants who have lost in both the courts below have come forward with this civil revision petition. Present respondent instituted R.C.O.P. No. 10 of 1988 in the Court of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Mayiladuthurai seeking eviction under Sections 10(2) (ii) (b) and 10(2)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 on the allegations that the revision petitioners are using the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased and that they have committed acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building. It is the case of the landlord that the demised property is the ground floor measuring 10' x 95' of Door No. 5, Second Street, Mayiladuthurai Town. This non-residential premises was let out to the revision petitioners under Ex.P-1 agreement dated 31.7.1978 for the purpose of running Textile Shop, Jewellery shop and Medical Shop for a period of 15 years from 1.7.1978 on a monthly rent ran...
E.i.D. Parry (India) Limited Vs. the Regional Director, Tamil Nadu Emp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ261
ORDERJayasimhababu, J.1. The order of the respondent made on 12.10.1984 under Section 45-A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (Central Act 34 of 1948) (here-in after referred to as the Act) determining the amount of the contributions payable by the petitioner in respect of its employees in the Head, Regional and Branch Offices for the period from 28.1.1968 to 15.1.1977 in the sum of Rs. 5,49,277.11. has been challenged by the employer in this writ petition.2. It is the case of the petitioner that as the factories owned and run by it for the manufacture of ceramics products, fertilizers, marine products etc. are located at different places outside Madras and the company's Head Office, regional office and branch offices are all located in Madras and in other cities, the petitioner was under the impression that the Act was applicable only to the employees working in factories it was not necessary for the employer to cover its employees working in the head, regional and branch offi...
Hariraman Vs. State Thro Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3527
ORDER1. This revision is against the Order of the 1 Addl. Special Judge, Madras, in C.M.P. No. 4451 of 1987 dated 29-2-1988 in C.C. No. 36/86 dismissing the petition of the revision petitioner filed under Section 239, Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge him due to the delay of the trial. 2. The revision petitioner was working as Assistant Divisional Engineer in the Electricity Board. He was entrusted with the responsibility of arranging the electricity pavilion at various exhibitions conducted in Tamilnadu. In 1982, a complaint was filed against him alleging misappropriation of funds and he was arrested and chargeshetted for the offences under Sections 409, 487, 471 and 470 Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for the alleged misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs. 21,000 under forged bills in the year 1979 while he was incharge of the exhibition. The trial commenced in 1988 and at that time, he filed the petition under Sect...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trichy Distilleries and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR809(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. It is not necessary in the instant case to restate the case and the questions referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, in R.A. No. 503/ (Mds) of 1979 as the first question, 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the work-in-progress of the value of Rs. 1,24,352 should be included in the computation of capital for the purpose of granting relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?', has been answered by this court in ClT v. Southern Agrifurane Industries Ltd. [1988] 174 ITR 697 and the answer to the third question, i.e., 'whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the work-in-progress should be included in the computation of capital far granting of relief under section 80J in respect of its unit of manufacture of rectified spirit when the said work-in-progress related to carbon-di-oxide unit ?' is depending upon an answer to the second question,...
N. Krishnamurty Vs. Management of State Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1994
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR272]; (1995)IILLJ1035Mad
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner herein who has been employed in the Madurai Branch of State Bank of India from May 18, 1970 to February 28, 1971 with some short breaks, as temporary clerk-cum-typist, has in this writ petition, filed on October 15, 1984 sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-bank to reinstate him in service as clerk-cum-typist or in any other branches with continuity of service and for consequential relief. The termination of the services of the petitioner on February 28, 1971 is challenged on the ground that the employer had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act rendering the termination invalid.2. Though the respondent-bank in its counter has stated that the petitioner had worked only for 104 days and contended that the petitioner was not entitled to the protection of Section 25-F, in the light of the letters of appointment issued to the petitioner periodically between May 18, 1970 and Januar...
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and anr. Vs. K. Vijayalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ1008
M. Srinivasan, J.1. The appeal is filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board which is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident against the award of Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation to the claimants who are the wife and minor sons of the deceased. The memorandum of cross-objection is filed by the claimants claiming a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Subsequently, a petition has been filed by the claimants in C.M.P. No. 5797 of 1993 for amendment of the original petition by increasing the total claim to Rs. 15,50,000/-.2. The husband of the first claimant by name Kannaiah was Assistant Divisional Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. On 4.4.1984, when he was proceeding on official duty from Madurai to Srivilliputhur, the jeep by which he was 30.6.2002. The original petition gives the break-up figures of the salary which the deceased could have earned from 4.4.1984 to 30.6.2002 with periodical increases. The total comes to Rs. 6,85,080/-. Besides the said amount, a claim was mad...
N. Krishnamurthy Vs. the Management of State Bank of India Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ399
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner herein who has been employed in the Madurai Branch of State Bank of India from 18.5.1970 to 28.2.1971 with some short breaks, as temporary clerk-cum-typist, has in this writ petition, filed on 15.10.1984 sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent - bank to reinstate him in service as clerk-cum-typist or in any other branches with continuity of service and for consequential relief. The termination of the services of the petitioner on 28.2.1971 is challenged on the ground that the employer had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act rendering the termination invalid.2. Though the respondent-bank in its counter has stated that the petitioner had worked only for 104 days and contended that the petitioner was not entitled to the protection of Section 25-F, in the light of the letters of appointment issued to the petitioner periodically between 18.5.1970 and 29.1.1971 which letters have bee...
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Represented by Its Chairman and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ257
Srinivasan, J.1. The appeal is filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board which is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident against the award of Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation to the claimants who are the wife and minor sons of the deceased. The memorandum of cross-objection is filed by the claimants claiming a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000. Subsequently a petition has been filed by the claimants in C.M.P. No. 5797 of 1993 for amendment of the original petition by increasing the total claim to Rs. 15,50,000.2. The husband of the first claimant by name Kannaiah was Assistant Divisional Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. On 4.4.1984, when he was proceeding on official duty from Madurai to Srivilliputhur. the jeep by which he was travelling rolled down into a ditch by the side of the road on account of rash and negligent driving of the same. The jeep was lying on its side in the ditch which caused death of the deceased. The driver of the jeep escaped with minor injuries and...
Official Receiver, Representing the Estate of the Debtors in I.P. No. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1994
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ264
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The Official Receiver representing the estate of the debtors in I.A. No. 19 of 1977, pending before the Sub Court, Coimbatore is the revision petitioner.2. Messrs. United Finance, 299, Raja Street, Coimbatore, was conducting a chit fund in which the first defendant in the suit was one of the subscribers. He bid the chit and executed a promissory note as collateral security, for payment of the future instalments. Ex. A-1, dated 7.4.1972 is the said promissory note. Defendants 2 and 3 in the suit executed a deed of guarantee on the same date assuring the chit fund that in case the first defendants commits default in paying the amount, they would pay the amount. The relevant clauses in the deed of guarantee which are material for deciding this case read thus:Further I/We hereby agree that you be at liberty to give the said A. Ramalingam such extension of credit or time for payment and take renewals as you may think proper, and to take such documents for the said ...
Oonja Alias Lakshmiammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ522
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged the acquisition of the land bearing Survey No. 182 2-A (Part) and 182-6 situate in No. 50, Thallakulam Village Madurai North Taluk, Madurai measuring 32 cents under notification in G.O.Ms. No. 1774 R.D. & L.A., dated 18.11.1982 published in the Gazette dated 19.11.1982. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 8.11.1979. The purpose for which the property was acquired was for provision of market and school etc., in K. Pudur area of Thallakulam Village by the Corporation of Madurai. In the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, the purpose set out is more precisely for the construction of market and a school by the Corporation of Madurai.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was served with the notice of the acquisition and that she had also objected to the same. According to her, no enquiry as required under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted and the notice of the proposed a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »