Chennai Court January 1995 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.
P. Karuthumayan Vs. Regional Manager, State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ253Mad; (1995)IIMLJ440
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dt. October 21, 1992, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5199/1984. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. The Second respondent therein has come up in appeal. The first respondent/writ petitioner sought for quashing the order dt. February 27, 1984, passed by the Appellate Authority under the Tamilnadu Shops and Establishments Act in Appeal No. 12 of 1982. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order dt. April 1, 1982, passed by the 1st respondent, terminating the services of the appellant and directed the 1st respondent to reinstate the appellant.2. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the bank in question was exempted from the purview of the Tamilnadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, and therefore, the appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority was not sustainable and that the matter has to be adjudicated under the Industrial Disputes Act and it is...
P. Karuthumayan Vs. the Regional Manager, State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ440
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 21.10.1992. passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 5199 of 1984. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. The second respondent therein has come up in appeal. The first respondent/writ petitioner sought for quashing the order dated 27.2.1984, passed by the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act in Appeal No. 12 of 1982. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 1.4.1982. passed by the 1st respondent, terminating the services of the appellant and directed the 1st respondent to reinstate the appellant.2. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the bank in question was exempted from the purview of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, and therefore, the appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority was not sustainable and that the matter has to be adjudicated under the Industrial Disputes Act and it is not just ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Greenham Estates (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR80(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In all these tax case petitions, the CIT requested this Court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal along with a statement of facts under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee who is a partner in the firm of Kadammane Estate and derives share income on its holding 40 per cent share, is to be regarded as an industrial company within the scope of s. 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1981 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. The assessee is a partner in the firm, Kadammane Estate holding a 40 per cent share therein. The firm, Kadammane Estate is rearing tea plants and also manufacturing tea. The assessee claims for the asst. yrs. 1977-78 to 1983-84 that the assessee is in receipt of substantial share income from the registered firm, Kadammane Estate. According to the assessee, sin...
Bell Products Company Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: 1996(54)ECC88; 1995(78)ELT404(Mad)
ORDER1. These Writ Petitions may be dealt with together since they involve common issues for consideration and counsel appearing on either side also made submissions in common. These Writ Petitions have been filed for the following identical relief :- 'Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records comprised in the impugned Notification No. 59/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994 issued by the first respondent and quash the paragraph 4 of the said Notification dated 1-3-1994 and consequently directing the respondents to grant exemption to the petitioner under Notification No. 175/86-Central Excise as amended by Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993.' 2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 9869/94 claims to be a partner of the petitioner-firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of paper pins made of steel and brass falling under Chapter and Heading 7319.00 and 7415.29 respectively and paper clips made of steel falling under Chapter 8305.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff A...
V. Rajamanickam Chettiar Vs. T. Dakshina Moorthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC17
ORDERArumugham, J. 1. This revision was heard after listing it for final disposal to-day. The order passed by the Special Deputy Collector. Revenue Court and the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act in P. No. 40 of 1988 dated 23.4.89 filed under Section 3(4)(a) of the Act 25 of 1955 for the eviction of the tenant by name T. Dhakshinamoorthy by the landlord by name V. Rajamanickam Chettiar was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove the wilful default of the tenant in the payment of rent.2. By virtue of Section 3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act No. 25 of 1955, the petition for eviction of the tenant was filed by the landlord on the ground that the rent for the demised land consists of 10 cents in survey No. 230/3 and an extent of 3.20 acres situated in survey No. 231 in Azinjamangalam village in Nagapattinam Taluk at the rate of the compulsory rental of 78 kalams of paddy has not been paid by the te...
Hayath Begum and ors. Vs. Sahib Basha and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ570
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Defendants 1 to 8 are the petitioners in this civil revision petition against the order of the court below dated 10.3.1994 allowing O.P. No. 169 of 1990 on its file and thereby permitting the 1st respondent-plaintiff to sue as an indigent person. The suit is for declaration of plaintiffs title to the suit B schedule property and for possession of suit C schedule property, which is part of suit B schedule property.2. The only submission made by. learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the court below ought to have rejected the original petition under Order 35, Rule 5(f), C.P.C. which runs as follows:The court shall reject an application for permission to sue as an indigent person where the allegations made by the applicant in the application show that the suit would be barred by any law for the time being in force.According to the said learned Counsel the suit would be barred by res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of the earlier...
Govindaraj Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2383
Janarthanam, J.1. The appellant was the accused in S.C. No. 111/1985 on the file of Court of Session, Thanjavur West. He was found guilty under Ss. 302, 392 and 201, IPC, convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under S. 302, IPC, besides sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to rigorous imprisonment for six months for each of the other offences, with a direction for the substantive sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present action had been resorted to.2. Brief facts are :-(a) One Pattammal (since deceased). a widow, hailing from affluent circumstances had been living all alone in her house situate at West Street, Thanjavur. At the time of her death, she was at the ripe old age of 80 years. She was blessed with two daughters and they were happily married. They, on their marriage, as birds of passage in the journey of ife, migrated and took shelter in t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ayyappan Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1995
Reported in: [1995]215ITR863(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions of law : Assessment year 1974-75 : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the dividend proposed out of general reserve should be deducted from the general reserve which is aggregated for computing the capital of the company for the purpose of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, under rule 2(ii) of the Second Schedule thereto ?' Assessment year 1975-76 : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the provision for gratuity should be regarded as reserve included in the capital computed foe the purpose of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deductions computed under section 80G of the Income-tax Act could be included as income not includible in the total income of the assessee for the purpose of rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act ?' 2. The Tribunal has disclosed no inform...
Nanya Imports and Exports Enterprises Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(50)ECC89; 1996(82)ELT202(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 13th December, 1994 passed in Writ Petition No. 19343 of 1994. Learned Single Judge has directed the respondents to complete the investigation within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the order, decide the matter and issue show cause notice within a period of 10 days after the investigation is concluded and complete the adjudication within 3 weeks after the show cause notice is issued. 2. The appellant/petitioner is not aggrieved with the aforesaid direction. However, at the instance of the petitioner, learned single Judge has permitted the petitioner to take benefit of Section 49 of the Customs Act, in the event it pays the duty payable on the admitted value of the goods as entered in the bill of entry. The said portion of the order reads thus :- 'If the petitioner wants to have the benefit of bonding of the goods under Section 49 of the Customs Act, pending completion of the investigation and adjudication, he may ...
S. Sadagopa Ramanujam Vs. S.R. Rengasamy Iyengar and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC547
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 arc the sole hereditary trustees of the temple and the plaintiff is a joint hereditary trustee, along with defendants 1 and 2. One Chinna Ramanuja Iyengar, who was a common ancestor of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and. 2 was the sole hereditary trustcc of the said temple throughout his life. Before him, his ancestore were .the hereditary' trustee. Chinna Ramanuja Iyengar owned considerable lands in many villages and major portion of the lands belonging to the temples were endowed by Chinna Ramanuja Iyengar and his forefathers. Chinna Ramanuja Iyengar died in 1867, and left him surviving his five sons. Besides the hereditary trusteeship of the three suit temples, the family owned a big temple in Katteiri and was performing a large number of Charities, Mandahappadis etc., in several places. Several valuable properties were endowed for the said purpose and Chinna Ramanuja Iyengar was managing and administering all th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »