Chennai Court March 1994 Judgments
The Manager, Andhra Bank Vs. Inspector of Labour and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ274; (1994)ILLN501
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. Andhra Bank, salem (petitioner) is a nationalised bank. One G. Balasubramanian (second respondent) claiming to be an employee of the petitioner-Bank filed a Claim Petition No. 4 of 1993 under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act No. 46 of 1981 for short 'Permanent Status Act') before the Inspector of Labour, Salem (Appellate Authority thereunder first respondent) stating that he had completed 480 days during the period from 1.9.1990 to 31.8.1992, that is to say, 24 calendar months and therefore, he must be accorded 'Permanent status'.2. The petitioner, on receipt of the notice from the first respondent, approached this Court by way of writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 12894 of 1993 praying for issue of a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the first respondent from proceeding further, contending that the provisions of the Permanent Status Act cannot a tall be made applicable ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sahabudeen Represented by His Power of Attorney S. Mohammed Mansoor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ264
Srinivasan, J.1. This is a petition filed by the tenant against the Order of eviction passed by the appellate authority, viz. VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. The appellate authority has reversed the Order of the Rent Controller, XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, dismissing the petition for eviction filed by the respondent/landlady.2. The only ground of eviction is wilful default in payment of rent for the period from June, 1983 to September, 1984. The agreed rent is Rs. 145 per mensum. It is not in dispute that the landlady had received a sum of Rs. 3,000 by way of advance to be returned at the time of vacating the premises after the expiration of the tenancy. The tenant contended that he was paying rent regularly from the inception of the tenancy and also for the period of question. According to him, the landlady used to issue receipts every month and she did so upto May, 1983, but she stopped issuing receipts from June, 1983, though rent was being paid regularly, th...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesan Vs. Rasammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Mad366
ORDER1. Revision petitioner Gansesan is the husband of respondent-Rasammal. He filed H.M.C.P. No. 75 of 1990 in the Court of Subordinate Judge of Vridachalam under S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency of the petition, the wife came forward with I.A. No. 199 of 1992 claiming interim alimony under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The trial Court awarded Rs. 250/- per month for the wife, Rs. 75/- per month for her child and Rs. 5,00/- towards litigation expenses from 1-8-1992 by way of interim alimony. It also directed to husband to pay the money within two weeks. And this order is challenged in this revision petition 2. The wife has stated in her affidavit that she was driven out of her husband's house snatching away her jewels. She has a male child. She is leading a life of misery, in her father's house. She requires Rs. 5,00/- per month for herself and Rs. 150/- per month for her child for their sustenance. She has to be paid Rs. 1,000/...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kothari and Sons (Agencies) P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR928(Mad)
Venkataswami, J. 1. In all these references, a common question of law relating to the same assessee has been referred to this court for its decision. The assessment years pertaining to Tax Cases Nos. 1293 to 1296 of 1980 are 1972-73 to 1975-76. As regards Tax Case No. 1252 of 1980, the assessment year is 1976-77. 2. For the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76, the question reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the proviso to sub-clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 72 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the business carried on by the assessee was one and the same and, accordingly, the assessee was entitled to set off of the losses of the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 from the managing agency business against the income of the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76 even though the said managing agency business was not continued in the relevant years?' 3. For the assessment y...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chettinad Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR194(Mad)
Venkataswami, J.1. As directed by this court in Tax Case Petitions Nos. 403 and 404 of 1978 by order dated October 15, 1979, a common question of law in respect of the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 has been referred to this court for its decision. The common question of law reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company satisfied all the requirements of Notification No. 2007 (see [1967] 65 (St.) 8, dated June 6, 1967, and was, therefore, eligible to be exempted under section 104(3) of the Income-Act, 1961, from the liability to additional tax leviable under that section ?' For the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee, a company, a company having income in India as well as in Ceylon, while filing a return of income, claimed benefit of a notification, namely, Notification No. 2007 (see [1967] 65 ITR 8), dated June 6, 1967, issued under section 104(3) of the Income-tax Act. This claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer hold...
Tag this Judgment!Alagammal Vs. Sivasubramanian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ422
ORDERThangamani, J.1. This revision is directed against the order in I.A. No. 599of 1993 in O.S. No. 576of 1991 in the Court of District Munsif of Valliyur. The parties to the suit are the sons and daughters of one Chithiraputhira Thevar and Sivanupillaiammal, The sons filed that action against the sisters for declaration and injunction in respect of an extent of 2.45.0 hectares in S.F.No.537 of Valliyur village stating that it is their ancestral property and after the death of their father, their mother and sisters have executed a relinquishment deed in their favour in respect of this property on 28.5.1971 and the plaintiffs alone are exclusively in enjoyment of this land. It appears that O.S. No. 749 of 1990 between the same parties in respect of some other property is also pending trial. And defendants have instituted O.S. No. 309 of 1991 in that Court seeking partition in respect of the present suit property and other items. The revision petitioner/second defendant came forward wit...
Tag this Judgment!Mariya Francis and anr. Vs. Peter and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ191
ORDERThangamani, J.1. Revision petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in the trial court. The present respondents instituted O.S. No. 373 of 1984 against them in the Court of District Munsif of Tirukoilur for a declaration that they are the owners of suit A and B schedule properties and for permanent injunction in respect of 'A' schedule property and recovery of possession in respect of 'B' schedule property. Revision petitioners contested the suit. The suit came up for trial and one witness on the side of the plaintiffs and three witnesses on the side of the defendants were examined. Exs.A-1 to A-22 and Exs. B-1 to B-24 were also marked. At that time the plaintiffs came forward with I.A. No. 1150 of 1987 under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. seeking certain amendments of the plaint. The amendments mainly related to date of death of their grand-father, inclusion of a property schedule comprising of lands that came to the respective sharers in an earlier partition in 1954, among the fathers of par...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Balasubramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR119(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the direction given by the High Court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal referred the following questions for our opinion : Question in R. A. Nos. 938 and 939 of 1976-77 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the dividend income of Rs. 15,000 accruing to Sri S. Balasubramanian on the shares allotted to him on partial partition should be assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his wife and daughters excluding the minor son ?' Question in R. A. No. 938 of 1976-77 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that Sri S. Balasubramanian, the karta of the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his wife, daughters and a son constitutes, and can claim the status of another Hindu undivided family with himself again a...
Tag this Judgment!Pandian Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1994
Reported in: 1995(76)ELT567(Mad)
ORDER1. Heard. It is seen that a quantity of 112.500 kilograms of ganja was seized from the house of the petitioner on 14-8-1993 by the respondent and since it involves the offence one punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act, law was set in motion, petitioner was arrested and lodged to judicial custody and the case is consequently being investigated. This application is the second attempt made on behalf of the petitioner to enlarge him on bail and the first one was made in Crl. O.P. No. 1625 of 1994, in which, the same learned counsel Mr. A. Natarajan contended that the mandatory nature and directions in built in Sections 54A read with 2(c) and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with and after hearing both sides, this Court has dealt with the matter elaborately and after having canalised the same, dismissed the petition for bail on 4-3-1994. 2. In this second attempt, learned counsel would rely upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in S...
Tag this Judgment!M. Manoharan and anr. Vs. Gandhimathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1994
Reported in: 1996ACJ1030
M. Srinivasan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company as well as the owner of the vehicle. The only challenge before us is as regards the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. No argument has been advanced as regards the finding on the question of negligence.2. The deceased was aged 37 years. He was employed in the Railways as a khalasi. He was getting Rs. 1,548/- p.m. as total emoluments. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 22 and calculated the total loss of income at Rs. 4,08,672/-. In view of the fact that the compensation has been paid in lump sum, the Tribunal deducted one-third therefrom and fixed the compensation at Rs. 2,72,448/-. In addition thereto, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/-towards pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000 towards loss of love and affection for minor respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and thus, in all a sum of Rs. 2,97,448/-.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in not deducting any amount for the pers...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »