Chennai Court October 1996 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.
Tvl. Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited, Represented by Its Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ22
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. All these writ petitions are filed by the various Transport Corporations challenging the validity of Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules, 1995, published under G.O.Ms. No. 718, Home (Tr. III), dated 18th May, 1995.2. There are certain petitions filed by some private operators to implead themselves as party - respondents in some of the writ petitions. As they are private operators and are interested in the subject-matter of these writ petitions, they are impleaded as party respondents and the petitions for impleading them are allowed.3. At the outset, the learned standing Counsel for the Transport Corporations submits that as the variations of conditions of permit granted to various private operators overlapping the notified routes have been annulled by Section 3 of Act No. 19 of 1996 and Section 4 thereof gives them the liberty to make an application for variation. In such an event, the Corporation would be entitled to object to it...
R. Margabandhu Vs. Sundaravadhanam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC88; (1997)IMLJ40
ORDERRengasamy, J. 1. These revisions are filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam, in I.A.No. 524 of 1996 in L.A.O.P.No. 160 of 1992 and other connected applications.2. The revision petitioner herein was an advocate for the respondents in all these revisions for filing the Land Acquisition Original Petitions claiming enhanced compensation and the respondents filed petitions seeking permission of the Court to revoke the vakalat given to the revision petitioner in which the revision petitioner contended that unless he was paid Rs. 5,000 in each petition towards his fees, the revocation could not be ordered. The learned Subordinate Judge fixed the fees of the revision petitioner at one-third of the fees which he might have got after the disposal of the petitions which ended in compromise. The revision petitioner, aggrieved of this order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam, has come forward with these revisions under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure cl...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kannappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ71
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. This is a revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the National Insurance Company against the order dated 16.4.1991 made in I.A. No. 137 of 1990 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The only grievance of the petitioner is lhat as per the provisions stood on the date of the petition filed by the first respondent/claimant, the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay of 658 days in filing claim petition.2. The accident took place on 20.4.1988. The first respondent herein said to have been sustained injuries filed the claim petition before the court below only on 1.10.1990. Mr. K.S. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amended provision came into force on 1.7.1989. As per the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Vinod Gurudas Rajkar v. National Insurance Co. Limited : [1991]3SCR912 , the person would be covered by the new Act and the delay f...
The Special Tahsildar, L.A., Neighbourhood Scheme and ors. Vs. Lakshmi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1996
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ25
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. These writ appeals are preferred against the common order dated 23rd December, 1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 8217 of 1984 and 9199 of 1984.2. Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petitions on the ground that the acquisition was for the purpose of the Housing Board and that Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act ought to have been followed.3. It may be pointed out here that Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act provides a procedure to be followed for acquisition of land for companies. It may also be pointed out here that the Housing Board is a local authority. It was been specifically pointed out in Section 158 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board shall be deemed to be a local authority for the purposes of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Local Authorities Loans Act, 1914. When the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act specifically provides that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board shall be deemed to be local authority fo...
T. Lakshmiammal and anr. Vs. M. Jothi Anandan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ167
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Defendants 2 and 4, in O.S. No. 219 of 1989 on the file of Sub Court, Udumalpet, has preferred this civil revision petition against the dismissal of their I.A. No.2241 of 1994 for excusing the delay of 415 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 1.9.1993 in the said suit. The said suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,15,141 as damages, with future interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of suit till realisation. The plaintiff respondent is a tenant under the defendants, carrying on business in the suit premises. According to the respondent/plaintiff the suit is laid on the ground that the petitioners herein have cut-of water supply and electricity to the said premises and thereby he suffered business loss. This claim is denied in the written statement. However, we are not very much concerned with the rival contentions on the merits of the suit. Originally there were two defendants in the suit. Pending suit first defendant died ...
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kannan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ375
ORDERSathasivam, J.1. This is a revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the United India Insurance Company against the order dated 22.1.1992 made in I.A. No. 414 of 1991 in unnumbered M.C.O.P. on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Madurai. In this case the accident took place on 24.9.1988. The first respondent herein who is the claimant before the court below, filed an application for compensation with a petition to condone a delay of 377 days in filing the claim petition on 6.4.1990. Before the court below the first respondent, namely, owner of the vehicle made an endorsement that he has no objection for condoning the delay. However, the second respondent though filed a counter affidavit, has not raised any serious objection. In view of the above circumstances, the TnibMi nal allowed the application on payment of cost of Rs. 150 each to the counsel for the first and second respondents therein on or before 20.2.1992. The sai...
Arantai Annadurai Vs. State Election Commissioner, Government of Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ136
ORDERJayarama Chouta, J.1. This writ petition came up before me on 24.9.1996 and I directed the learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. K. Balasubramaniam to take notice on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 and the learned Advocate Mr. R. Viduthalai on behalf of first respondent, and I directed the office to post this writ petition on 27.9.1996. On 27.9.1996 I heard Mr. R. Sellathurai, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. R. Viduthuali, learned Advocate for the first respondent and Mr. K. Balasubramaniam learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4.2. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other writ or order or direction in the nature of writ call for the records from the first respondent's pertaining to his notification published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No. 482, dated 18.9.1996 insofar as it relates to the election for filing the vacancy of member of Ward No. 4 Aranthangi ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Enfield India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR320(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the directions given by this Court dt. 4th Nov., 1980 in TCP No. 242 of 1980, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the proposed dividend in Rs. 2,40,000 should not be taken into account for the purpose of computation of capital for the purpose of allowing relief under S. 80J as a debt owed as on 1st Jan., 1971 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing motorcycles, agro industrial engines and other spare parts for the aforesaid, items. While furnishing the return for the asst. yr. 1972-73, the assessee claimed relief under S. 80J of the IT Act on Rs. 3,49,636, being 6% of the capital employed of Rs. 58,27,269. The ITO, however, computed the capital at Rs. 38,45,962 and restricted the relief ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Thulasidar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR425(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In compliance with the direction of this Court in TCP No. 342 of 1982 dt. 4th April, 1983 the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of s. 40(b) are not attracted in respect of the sum of Rs. 75,439 being the interest paid to the partner, Shri Ponniah, on loans taken by him and advanced to the firm ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm and the assessment involved is 1979-80. For the previous year being the calendar year ended with 31st Dec., 1978 the assessee-firm had no bank account of its own. Mr. Pooniah, who was a partner, was previously carrying on identical business as carried on by the assessee. After the conversion of the business into partnership, no separate bank account was opened by the firm. All the transaction of the firm ...
S.R.M. Ranjitham Vs. Joint Director of Secondary Education, Madras-6. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ578Mad; (1997)IMLJ357
ORDER1. This writ petition is for quashing the order of the first respondent in M.M. No. 227650/G7/87 dated November 3, 1987, directing the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment as Headmaster and post the third respondent in his place. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was appointed as graduate teacher in 1956 in the second respondent school. He has put in 31 years of unblemished service. He got B.T. Degree in 1956 and M.A. degree in 1984. He obtained B.Sc., degree in 1953 and B.T. Degree in 1956 itself. He was promoted as P.G. Assistant from October 18, 1985. Therefore he was appointed as Headmaster of the second respondent school from June 1, 1987, but the second respondent on November 3, 1987 set aside the promotion and directed the promotion of the third respondent. Hence the writ petition. 3. In W.M.P. No. 19230 of 1987 the third respondent has filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner has misrepresented the facts. The second respondent erred in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »