Chennai Court December 1994 Judgments
Employees' State Insurance Coprn. Rep. by Its Regional Director Vs. Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)IILLJ1142Mad
Governdhan, J.1. C.M.A. No. 881 of 1986 and C.M.A. No. 130 of 1987 arise out of the order passed by the learned E.S.I. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras dated 17.10.1984 in E.S.I.O.P. Nos. 18 of 1983 and 17 of 1983 respectively. 2. The averments in the petitions viz., E.S.I.O.P. Nos. 18 and 17 of 1983 are similar and are as follows : The petitioner is an employer within the purview of the Employees State Insurance Act. The petitioner has been remitting contributions to the respondent-Corporation in respect of their employee employed by them. In April, 1980, the respondent proposed to levy damages of Rs. 9,570 alleging that there had been delay in respect of remittance of contributions during the period from 7/1979 to 11/1979 which is the subject matter of E.S.I.O.P. No. 17 of 1983. The respondent proposed to levy damages of Rs. 34,637 alleging that there had been delay in respect of remittance of contribution during the period from 11/1976 to 5/1979 which is the subject matter of the E.S...
Tag this Judgment!C. Kuppuraj and ors. Vs. R. Vasudevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ463
Govardhan, J.1. Defendants are the appellants.2. The averments in the plaint are briefly as follows: The defendants 1 and 2 and their father Chakrapani Chettiar mortgaged the suit property belonging to them in favour of the plaintiff on 5.11.1972 and borrowed Rs. 20,000 towards their family expenses, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum and at 21 % if there is any default. The father of defendants 1 and 2 died in 1979. Defendants 1 and 2 are his heirs. They have not paid any amount towards the principal or interest. Defendants are aware of the suit mortgage deed due to the plaintiff even during the proceedings, in O.S. No. 283 of 1975 filed by the brother of the plaintiff. Chakrapani Chettiar was an assessee of income tax. Therefore he is not entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Acts. Defendants are assessed to sales tax. Therefore, the plaintiff claims interest at 18% per annum towards the amount due under the mortgage.3. The second defendant in his written...
Tag this Judgment!Employees State Insurance Corporation Represented by Its Regional Dire ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ433
Govardhan, J.1. C.M.A. No. 881 of 1986 and C.M.A. No. 130 of 1987 arise out of the order passed by the learned E.S.I. Judge. City Civil Court, Madras dated 17.10.1984 in E.S.I. O.P. Nos. 18 of 1983 and 17 of 1983 respectively.2. The averments in the petitions viz., E.S.I. O.P. Nos. 18 and 17 of 1983 are similar and are as follows: The petitioner is an employer within the purview of the Employees State Insurance Act. The petitioner has been remitting contributions to the respondent-Corporation in respect of their employees employed by them. In April, 1980, the respondent proposed to levy damages of Rs. 9,570 alleging that there had been delay in respect of remittance of contributions during the period from 7/1979 to 11/1979 which is the subject matter of E.S.I. O.P. No. 17 of 1983. The respondent proposed to levy damages of Rs. 34,637 alleging that there had been delay in respect of remittance of contribution during the period from 11/1976 to 5/1979 which is the subject matter of the E....
Tag this Judgment!S. R. Bhupeshkar Adn Etc. Etc. Vs. Secretary, Selection Committee, Sab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad383
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This batch of 'sea-sional writ petitions' if we may say so, challenges the selection of students for theprofessional courses in the year 1994-95. Thanks to the spasmodic brain waves of the persons in charge of education in the State, higher education has become a fertile breed-.ing ground for litigation. Aspirants for higher studies with dreams of a bright prosperous future are made to undertake a pilgrimage to the temple of justice with prayers to fulfil their desires. It was only four years ago, the State Government attempted to introduce a system of awarding five bonus marks to applicants for professional courses if they happened to be the first in their families to apply for such admission and there was no single graduate among the members of their families on the day of the application. This Court had no (to) strike down the G.O. as unconstitutional. This year, the Government decided to shower their blessings on sportsmen at all levels by generously awarding ...
Tag this Judgment!Selvaraj Nadar Vs. Aruppukottai Agraharam, Pattabiramaswami Koil Durga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ406
Govardhan, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant.2. The averments in the plaint are briefly as follows:The suit properties originally belonged to one Pichumani Iyer and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. The plaintiff purchased the properties from the heirs of the said Pichumani viz., defendants 6 to 9 on 5.1.1961. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same since then. It is alleged that Pichumani Iyer had executed an agreement of sale in favour of one Mallaiah Chettiar in respect of the suit properties. Mallaiah Chettiar obtained a decree in O.S. No. 214 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Manamadurai, for specific performance of the agreement against Pichumani Iyer. Subsequently he died. The defendants 3 to 5 are his legal representatives. Defendants 1 and 2 filed O.S. No. 5 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Sivagangai against the heirs of Pichumani Iyer, plaintiff and Mallaiah Chettiar for declaration and possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Mariyammal and ors. Vs. Sathu Saravanan Trustee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ489
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction against the petitioner herein in a proceeding under Section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It is seen from the certified copy of the petition and order produced by the petitioner that though notice was served on the petitioner herein, even before 6.2.1989, he was repeatedly taking time for filing his statement of objection. On 19.9.1989 time was granted finally till 5.12.1989. The court recorded that, inspite of time having been given for filing statement of objection such statement was not filed. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner herein and he was called absent and set ex pane. The matter was posted to 23.12.1989 for evidence. On that day, learned Rent Controller examined the landlord as P. W. 1 and passed the following order:P.W. 1 examined. The wilful default is proved. Hence this petition is allowed. Eviction ordered. Time two months.2. When the landlord f...
Tag this Judgment!Lilly Bai Vs. Chinna Thai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1994
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ131
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Second defendant in O.S. No. 882 of 1990, on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Madurai, has filed this second appeal.2. The following substantial questions of law has been raised for consideration in this second appeal:(1) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court could be sustained on the facts and circumstances of this case in the light of the principles of law applicable thereto? and(2) Whether the view of the lower courts that the suit is competent is sustainable in law?3. Plaintiff is the first respondent, 1st defendant is the second respondent and defendants 3 to 5 in the suit are respondents 3 to 5 in this second appeal. The parties to this second appeal are mentioned hereafter according to their rank in the suit.4. The plaintiff filed the suit for the following reliefs:(a) To pass a decree of declaration declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to continue in the post of Tamil Pandit even after 31.10.1990 as such entitled to all the benefits, salary,...
Tag this Judgment!Anna Transport Corporation Limited and Others Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR800(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In accordance with the direction given by this court, the Tribunal referred the following questions for our opinion in the cases of the assessees and the Department under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the various assessment years. The questions in all the assessees' references are : Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd. : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the compensation for the route permit as an eligible expenditure in computing the profits and gains of the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 Cholan Roadways Corporation : 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the compensation for the route permit as an eligible expenditure in computing the profits and gains of the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 ?' 2. The questions in all the Departmental references are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chemists and Druggists Association Buil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR741(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court in TCP Nos. 53, 54 and 55 of 1979, the Tribunal referred the following questions for our opinion under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yrs. 1971-72 to 1974-75 : 1. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from property No. 1, Memorial Hall Road, and Nos. 511 and 512, Mint Street, Madras, should not be assessed in the hands of the assessee 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding that the assessee was not the owner of the properties is based on valid and relevant materials and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case ?' 2. The assessee is a trust constituted under a deed dt. 14th Aug., 1951, under which five trustees were appointed to manage and administer certain properties. The properties were to be held for the benefit of the Chemists and Druggists Association and any surplus ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Malini Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR749(Mad)
1. After seeing the reference, we are inclined before answering the questions, to observe that whatever little determination was necessary to clear any doubt or ambiguity as to rule 1D and Explanations I and II thereto of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, is removed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT : [1994]207ITR1(SC) . The Supreme Court has held in the said case that rule 1D is perfectly valid and effective and it has to be followed in every case where unquoted equity shares of a company (other than an investment company or a managing agency company) have to be valued. Rule 1D is exhaustive on the subject. Explanation I to rule 1D is a perfectly valid piece of delegated legislation and has to be followed and Explanation II in rule 1D contains two clauses : clause (i) provides that two items shown as assets in the balance-sheet shall not be treated as assets for the purpose of rule 1D and clause (ii) says that six items shown as liabilities in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »