Chennai Court March 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.
The President, Srirangam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. Vs. the Presidin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ216Mad
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Srirangam, Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Srirangam, Tiruchy (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') against the order dated October 28, 1995 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 7321 of1995. In the writ Petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the award dated February 26, 1985 passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 248 of 1993. That award came to be passed in the dispute raised on the following points:(1) Whether the non employment of Thiru K. Nagarajn is justified, if not to what relief he is entitled? (2) To compute the relief, if any awarded in terms of money if it can be so computed. The facts which lead to the above said dispute are as follows: The petitioner, thiru K. Nagara-jan was appointed in the bank as Clerk, from April 1, 1974 and he was paid a total salary of Rs. 261/- per month. He continued as such till May 31, 1975 when his services were terminated. He did not take any action with regard to his terminati...
E. Shanmugham Vs. Pottiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC43
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This is a revision filed by the petitioner Shanmugham, eldest son of the respondent Pottiammal, against the order of maintenance dated 12.2.1993, in M.C. No. 2 of 1992, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kancheepuram, on the application filed by the respondent/ mother, claiming maintenance Under Section 125, Cr.P.C.2. On 6.1.1992, the petition Under Section 125, Cr.P.C., was filed by the respondent/mother in M.C. No. 2 of 1992 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kancheepuram. The petitioner being the eldest son of the respondent herein has filed his counter on 18.3.1992. Thereafter, mother/Pottiammal was examined before the Trial Court on 4.6.1992 and 10.7.1992. The son/Shanmugham was examined on 28.1.1993. After the evidence of both mother and son was over and after hearing both the parties, learend Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 12.2.1993, allowed the case of the respondent herein, directing the petitioner to pa'^ a sum of Rs. 300/- ...
Murugaswamy Vs. State Represented by S.i. of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC160
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated, 7.9.1993 in C.A. No. 102 of 1991, on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. Originally, the petitioner Murugaswamy was convicted for the offence under Section 493, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to undergo R.I. for one month, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam in C.C. No. 624 of 1989, dated 8.7.1991. Against this judgment, the above said criminal appeal had been preferred by the petitioner herein, in which the learned lower appellate Court while dismissing the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the trial Court.2. The facts leading to the judgment of conviction are as follows:-P.W.1 Bhagawathiammal is a resident of Mudalipalayam. When she was staying at Melkathavukarai village, she had developed intimacy with the petitioner, who was the neighbour. Since the petitio...
Parry and Co. Ltd. Vs. Southern Roofings Private Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC614; (1996)IMLJ656
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant herein . The averments in the plaint briefly stated areas follows:The defendant entrusted to the plaintiff, the work of electrical installation in their factory at Mudichur. The plaintiff carried out the electrical installation and in respect of the said work of supplying materials, installing and commissioning 250 K.V.A. Transformer sub-station complete with medium pressure installation, a sum of Rs. 44,118.45 had become due from the defendant. The transformer was energised in 1974 and the factory of the defendant started production. The entire amount due to the plaintiff was however not paid inspite of repeated demands. A statement of account as on 30.6.1975 was sent to the defendant after adjusting the credits and it was found, that a sum of Rs. 38,907.55 was due by the defendant. The defendant acknowledged their liability and undertook to pay the amount in instalments on account of the financial difficulty faced by them. No payment wa...
R. Doraiswamy, Prop. Santha Industrials Vs. Integrated Engineering Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ554
Govardhan, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant.2. The plaintiffs case is briefly as follows: Plaintiff is engaged in the manufacture and sale of wet grinders. The conventional wet grinders, are lacking in drainage facilities. After a great deal of research and thinking, the plaintiff invented a system and a model called 'TILTING TYPE' wet grinder which is a new type of grinder. This type is the first of its kind and a novel one. The plaintiff has applied to the Controller of Patents and Designs for registration of its design of 'TILTING TYPE' wet grinders and obtained certificates of registration under registration Nos.152396, 152397 and 152398 dated 21.10.1982. The plaintiff is therefore the exclusive owner of the registered designs and he has acquired a copyright for the exclusive use of the same under the Indian Designs Act. This 'TILTING TYPE' wet grinders of the plaintiff has gained a high reputation and market for its design, get up system, quality and performance. The sixth defendan...
Lakshmi Vs. Ponnusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ580
Govardhan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein. The plaint averments briefly stated is as follows: The defendant is the younger brother of the plaintiff. The suit property originally belonged to their mother Chinnammal. The mother was very affectionate towards the plaintiff, even after the marriage, of the plaintiff. Chinnammal died intestate on 22.9.1981 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant. She was unwell and was bed ridden for more than 6 months. She had no sound and disposing state of mind, and she was not able to distinguish right and wrong. In October, 1982, the defendant began to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, gave a police complaint. The defendant had informed the police that their mother has bequeathed the property in his favour by means of a registered Will and the plaintiff was not aware of it. Even if there is any such Will, it is not true, genuine and valid. The thumb impression in ...
A. G. S. Tiber and Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Mad)467
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :At the instance of the assessee the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act :'Whether, on the facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the relief under s. 80J of the Act ?'2. There was an industrial undertaking owned by a partnership firm by name Arasan Splints & Veneers Factory, Sivakasi. The said partnership firm was allowed deduction under s. 80J of the Act for the three preceding years. The assessment year with which we are concerned in this tax case is 1980-81. In the relevant previous year the assessee-company under an agreement, dt. 2nd April, 1979, took on lease the land and buildings and the entire plant and machinery of the said industrial undertaking previously run by Arasan Splints & Veneers Factory and carried on manufacturing of splints and veneers. The assessee claimed continuation of relief under...
B. Palaniswamy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Mad)368; [1997]225ITR432(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following common question, for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1978-79, for the opinion of the court, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the share income which arose to the assessee's daughter-in-law in the two firms, Vijayalakshmi Colour Company and Singarappan Palayakat Company, were includible and assessable in the hands of the assessee under section 64(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and derives share income from two firms called Singarappan Palayakat Co. and Palaniappan Palayakat Co., both at Pudupet, in which he is a partner. During the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1977-78 (sic), the assessee made two gifts to his daughter-in-law, Smt. P Vijalakshmi, totaling Rs. 12,000 of which Rs. 6,000 each was invested on Ap...
N. Gajapathy Vs. the Secretary to the Government, Home (Courts) Depart ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ57Mad; (1996)IIMLJ458
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. The petitioner was the Principal Subordinate. Judge, Vellore. He applied to the Government by a communication dated September 5, 1985 for meeting the expenses to be incurred by him in connection with a coronary bypass surgery in the United States of America. In that letter he has stated that the said operation could not be performed in India, as the facilities are not available and he has been advised that he could have the operation only in Houston, U.S.A. He has also stated that the expenditure would come to about Rs. 4-1/2 lacs. The Government passed G.O.Ms. No. 686 dated March 17, 1986 sanctioning payment of an interest free loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- as a special case to meet the expenses of the petitioner's bypass surgery. Paragraph 4 of the said G.O. is in the following terms : '4. Thiru N. Ganapathy, Principal Sub-Judge, Vellore is authorised to draw the amount sanctioned in paragraph 2 above. He is requested to adjust the amount on return after treatment fro...
K. Balu Vs. K. Karmegam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ315
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Having failed in both the courts below, the defendant has preferred this civil revision petition against the concurrent order of the lower appellate court confirming the dismissal of his I.A. No. 5116 of 1995 praying for setting aside the ex parte money decree dated 11.9.1992 in O.S. No. 9875 of 1990 passed in favour of the respondent- plaintiff who is none other than the brother of the defendant.2. From the impugned order of the lower appellate court in C.M.A. No. 157 of 1995, it is found as follows:For the hearing on 5.3.1991, the suit summons taken by the plaintiff to the defendant was refused by the defendant and hence the bailiff effected service by affixture.' The bailiff's endorsement in this regard as follows;Refused-affixed. 6.2.1991 I went to the address and I tender the copy of the summons, the defendant had come to know about the matter, refused to receive the summons. Hence I affix the copy on the outer door of the address.[Italics supplied]However, s...