Chennai Court February 1995 Judgments
A. Ramar Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director, Union Bank of India a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ91
Somasundaram, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 31.12.1994 dismissing W.P. No. 5585 of 1994 wherein the appellant has challenged the order of transfer.2. The appellant, joined the respondent-Bank on 31.3.1979 as a clerk at the Madurai Office. He belongs to the Samban community, which is listed as a scheduled caste community. His wife is also working in another nationalized bank viz., Indian Bank. In the year 1992, the appellant was promoted as Personnel Officer in the Junior Management Grade (hereinafter referred to as JMGS -I). On 10.6.1992, the appellant gave a representation that, on promotion, he may be retained at Madurai itself, because at that time, his wife was also working in Madurai. The said request of the appellant was declined and he was relieved on 22.8.1992 from Madurai branch and was asked to proceed to Calcutta for training in JMGS -I grade. The appellant accordingly reported for training at Calcutta and after the com...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Engine Valves Limited, Represented by Its Vice Chair ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ322
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 2.9.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 15336 of 1994.2. In the writ petition, the appellant herein sought for quashing the order dated 31.5.1994 passed by the first respondent in I.D. No. 47 of 1979. In that dispute reference has been made for adjudication of the following issue:Whether the non-employment of the workmen in quashing is justified and if not, to what relief they are entitled? To compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms of money if it could be so computed?The Industrial Tribunal on a preliminary issue, has held in the impugned order as follows:So, taking into consideration all these facts, I find that the enquiry held against these 3 workmen V.O. Ganesan, I.V. Jayaraman and Rangamani were not just and fair. In the counter, the respondent has stated at page 33 that if under the circumstances it becomes necessary to let in evidence on merits of the enquiry against any of these workmen, i...
Tag this Judgment!Vairavan Vs. K.S. Vidyanandam and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad353
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this first appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 466 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The said suit is for specific performance of Ex. A.1, sale agreement dated 15-12-1978 filed by the appellant against the defendants. The Court below has negatived the relief of specific performance, but has granted the return of advance amount paid, of Rs. 5,000/- with interest paid, under the said agreement; (total sale consideration there on was Rs. 7,60,000/- and the property agreed to be sold was a house in Madurai). Since the specific performance relief has been negatived by the Court below, this appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, claiming the said relief.2. The plaint allegations are briefly as follows:-- The defendants who owned the above said suit property agreed to sell it for Rs. 60,000/- to the plaintiff and accordingly executed the sale agreement dated 15-12-1978. As per the sale agreement, the ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sadaksharavel Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC266
ORDERRaju, J.1. Having regard to the nature and scope of consideration involved both in the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions and the main revision, a date has been fixed for the hearing of both the petitions by an order dated 19-12-1994. Hence, both are taken up together for hearing. The above revision has been filed against the order of the learned 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, dated 24.1.1994 in I.A.No. 9 of 1994 in OS.8 of 1985, wherein the application filed by the second defendant (defendant) in the suit came to be rejected. In the said application filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, read with Section 125 of Companies Act, the second defendant sought for treating the issue regarding limitation and the sale of shares, as preliminary issue and dispose them of as such before finally adjudicating the suit.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was stated that the suit by the plaintiff was for the recovery of Rs. 2,96,87,614/-, tha...
Tag this Judgment!Meyappa Velar Vs. Tamil Nadu Temple Administration Board and 6 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC221
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 2nd December, 1994 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 6905 of 1993. As the petition has been dismissed, petitioner therein has come up in appeal.2. The petitioner sought for quashing the order dated 17th March 1993 passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No. A.2/49112/92 appointing respondents 4 to 7 and one Ayyappan as Trustee of Arulmigu Vettudaiyar Kaliamman Temple Ariyakurichi, Sivaganga Taluk, Pasumpon Muthuramalingam Thevar, District.3. The contention of the petitioner/Appellant is that as per paragraph 2 of the scheme framed by this court in Appeal Suit 377/27 dated 11th November, 1930, a true copy of which is produced in the typed set of records it is only the male representative of the family of the Poojaris can be appointed as a Trustee and as such, the appointement of a female as the representative of the family of the poojaris is opposed to the Scheme; that such a provision is not repugnant t...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Sivaprakasa Mudaliar and Another Vs. M/S. Sethuramdas Maheshkumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad176; (1995)IIMLJ316
ORDER1. This revision is filed against the order passed by learned principal sub Judge, Salem dt. 9-1-90 on a memo filed by the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 797/1982 for amending the decree.2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 71,333.66 on two promissory notes. After trial, the learned sub Judge has granted a decree for the said sum. A decree has been drafted by the Office of Sub Court, in which interest has been awarded at 24% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 50,000/-from the date of plaintiff till date of decree and at 6% per annum thereafter till date of realisation. The defendant has filed a memo before the Sub Judge, Salem seeking amendment of the decree contending that the Court has not awarded any interest from the date of suit and from the date of decree, in the judgment and therefore, awarding of interest in the decree is not correct and it has to be amended. The learned sub Judge has rejected the memo holding that the decree has been drafted as per the ...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Administrative Branch, Represented by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ119
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 14.11.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 13733 of 1994. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the official memorandum dated 4.12.1992 and also sought for a mandamus to restore the official memorandum dated 21.5.1985. Both those official memorandums contain the guidelines for the purpose of effecting transfers of the employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The learned single Judge has quashed the official memorandum dated 4.12.1992 on the ground that the Mettur Power Thermal Station and Mettur Power Thermal Project should not have been treated as one and that the earlier Memorandum dated 21.5.1985 is more reasonable than the latter one.2. First of all, we would like to make it clear that these official memorandums being the guidelines for the purpose of effecting transfers, the same do not confer any enforceable right on the employees of the Board and they are intended to ensur...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Sivaprakasa Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Sethuramdas Maheshkumar by Part ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ316
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. This revision is filed against the order passed by learned Principal Sub Judge, Salem dated 9.1.1990 on a memo filed by the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 797 of 1982 for amending the decree.2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 71,333.66 on two promissory notes. After trial, the learned Sub Judge has granted a decree for the said sum. A decree has been drafted by the Office of Sub Court, in which interest has been awarded at 24% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 50,000 from the date pf plaint till date of decree and at 6% per annum thereafter till date of realisation. The defendant has filed a memo before the Sub Judge Salem seeking amendment of the decree contending that the court has not awarded any interest from the date of suit and from the date of decree in the judgment and therefore, awarding of interest in the decree is not correct and it has to be amended. The learned Sub Judge has rejected the memo holding that the decree has been draft...
Tag this Judgment!Gupta Garments Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)52TTJ(Mad)574
ORDERS. KANNAN, A. M. :ITA No. 493/Mad/1992 is the assessees appeal against the order dt. 18th Dec., 1991 of the CIT(A)-VI, Madras, relating to the asst. yr. 1989-90. Cross-objection No. 56/Mad/1991 filed by the assessee is related to the Departmental appeal bearing ITA No. 1655/Mad/1991 (asst. yr. 1988-89). The cross-objection in question, however, raises no issue which is common to the issue raised in the said Departmental appeal. On the contrary, the issues raised in the said cross-objection are common with the issues raised in the assessees appeal relating to the asst. yr. 1989-90.In the circumstances, therefore, the Departmental appeal bearing ITA No. 1655/Mad/1991 (asst. yr. 1988-89) was delinked for being heard separately together with the Departmental appeal relating to the asst. yr. 1987-88. Cross-objection No. 56/Mad/1991 was, however, heard along with the assessees appeal bearing ITA No. 493/Mad/1992 (asst. yr. 1989-90).2. The facts of the case are that the assessee, a firm ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Elgi Rubber Products Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Mad)417; [1996]219ITR111(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department in the asst. yr. 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, the Tribunal referred the following questions of law, said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal for our opinion, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : Tax Cases Nos. 422 and 423 of 1982 (1974-75 and 1975-76) : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of s. 43A of the Act, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the fluctuation in the rate of exchange paid by the assessee to the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd., is a revenue expenditure and should accordingly be allowed (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the excess payment made by the assessee to the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd., on account of fluctuation in the rate of exchange cannot be treated as part of the cost of the capital assets impor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »