Chennai Court September 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.
Aditya Agro Industries Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. the R.P.F. Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ118Mad
ORDER1. W.P. No. 9426 of 1987 is for quashing the order of respondent dated June 1, 1987 in TN/SDC/6567/Accts. 87, demanding a sum of Rs. 35,157.29. The said order is for recovery of damages from March 1975 to May 1976; April 1975 to June 1975; May 1977; October 1977; November 1977; April 1978 to October 1978; March 1979; April 1979; July 1979 to October 1979; December 1979; February 1980; March 1980; May 1980; June 1980; August 1980 to October 1980; December 1980 to May,1981; July 1981; September 1981; October 1981; December 1981; January 1982; March 1982; May 1982; June 1982 and also August 1982 are claimed. 2. The petitioner was engaged in manufacturing of 'Aditya' power sprayers. The petitioner could not continue the production and ultimately closed down in the year 1974-75. Thereafter the petitioner started manufacturing ancillaries for automobiles and defence. The firm became sick. Hence they could not make even statutory payments like Provident Fund, E.S.I. Etc., on time, due to...
The Management of Industrial Rubber Products Vs. the Regional Providen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ1202Mad
ORDERS.M. Abdul wahab, J.1. W.P. No 10733 of 1987 is for quashing the order of the respondent dated July 24, 1987 claiming a sum of Rs. 19,549.60 from the petitioner.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of rubber products for automobiles at its factory at A-21/22 Industrial Estate, Guindy, Madras as covered under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) In earlier proceedings dated August 20, 1979 in TN/SDC/336/Accts/79 the respondent levied damages of Rs. 55,175.05 for the period March, 1975 to February, 1978. By order dated June, 14 1986 in W.P. No. 4443 of 1979 this court re-mended the matter for fresh disposal. After remittance, the impugned order dated July, 24, 1987 has been passed. The respondent by its notice dated March 5, 1987 called upon the petitioner to show-cases as to why the levy of damages under Section 14-B of the Act should not be made for...
Venkatammal and ors. Vs. Kadhirappa Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC592
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiffs in O.S.No. 450 of 1983, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Krishnagiri, are the appellants.2. Suit filed by them was one for declaration of title and to restrain the defendants and their men from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, and for consequential reliefs.3. Originally there was only one plaintiff. But, on his death, his widow and children were impleaded as plaintiffs 2 to 4.4. The material averments in the plaint are as follows:-(Deceased) Plaintiff purchased the property having an area of 3.22 acres in Survey No. 120. The suit property is a portion of the same, having an area of 1.97 acres. The entire 3.22 acres was purchased by the deceased plaintiff as per sale deed dated 22.6.1945, and ever since that date, he was in possession.5. It is alleged that the deceased plaintiff borrowed certain amounts from his sister-in-law (Late) Gopamma, and in order to secure the amoun...
S. Arunachalam and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC129
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J. 1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for quashing the Government Order, G.O.Ms.No. 542, Local Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 29-4-1986. They have also sought for consequential relief flowing from quashing of the aforesaid Government Order.2. The said Government Order (Translated copy) reads thus:GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU: MABSTRACT Municipalities and Corporation -- records -- sending of objection to the Registration Department within 45 days when layout sites are sold or brought to Registration -- Instructions -- issued -- order.MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No. 542 Dated: 29-4-1986...
D. Chandran and Others Vs. State Assistant Commissioner of Police (L a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1945
ORDER1. The order passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Madras while he was incharge of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, in Cri. M.P. No. 1332 of 1996 in Cri. M.Ps. 870 and 925 of 1996 dated 12-3-1996 is being challenged in this revision by the petitioners who are the accused, for its want of legality and propriety. 2. The first petitioner is the son and the fourth petitioner is the daughter of petitioners 2 and 3. The first petitioner was employed as Assistant in Revenue Department at Ezhilegem in Madras. The first petitioner is alleged to have got married on Meenstchi, the deceased as his second wife and she was found dead in suspicious circumstances on 2-1-1996. A complaint under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was registered and subsequently, after the inquest, the case was altered into Section 304(B) of Indian Penal Code by the respondent herein. On filing a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for anticipatory bail,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Padmavathy Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Mad)384; [1998]230ITR922(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the order passed by this court, dated March 3, 1981, in T.C.P. Nos. 349 and 350 of 1980, the Tribunal referred the following common question of law relating to the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, for the opinion of this court under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 4,60,782 being the compensation determined by the Government of Tamil Nadu should be taken as the market value of the lands as on the valuation dates March 31, 1970 and March 31, 1971, especially when the compensation has not been determined or paid during the assessment year and the assessee continued to be the owner of the estate ?' 2. For the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, the relevant valuation dates are March 31, 1970, and March 31, 1971, respectively. The assessee possessed vast tracts of agricultural lands of about 1,918.98 1/2 ac...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Shipping Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Mad)256; [1997]225ITR451(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of sections 139(5), 144B and 153(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the assessment and directing the Income-tax Officer to consider as valid the revised return filed by the assessee on August 27, 1977, after the Income-tax Officer had sent the draft order to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 144B ?' 2. In the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee filed its first return of income on August 26, 1974, admitting an income of Rs. 3,60,51,313 before adjustment of carry forward losses, development rebate and relief under section 80J of the Act. After adjustments of the above reliefs, the assessee's income as per the return was 'nil'. The Income-tax Office...
Syed Abdul Gani Syed Abdul Kader Vs. the Regional Passport Officer and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC180
ORDERKanakaraj, J. 1. The Writ Petition is for the issue of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the Government of India communicated by the fourth respondent in his proceedings dated 6.5.1996 impounding petitioner's passport and to direct the respondents to return the petitioner's passport V-475478 issued at Madras on 20.10.1995. The petitioner is a Indian citizen and earlier he had been issued a passport K-870249, issued at Hong Kong on 27.4.1992. That passport was valid up to 26.2.2002. According to the petitioner he had lost his passport and therefore, he had applied for a new passport before the Passport Officer, Madras, on 6.6.1995. Since the petitioner's Hongkong residential visa was to expire in the first week of November, 1995 he sought for urgent orders on the request for a new passport. It is under these circumstances that the subject passport V-475478 was issued on 20.10.1995 valid up to 18.10.1996. Under the strength of this passport the petitioner trave...
Puthiavinayagam Pillai Vs. Sivasankaran Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ199
Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 548 of 1980 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur, who succeeded before the learned Trial Judge, but lost before the first appellate court. The parties hereto are brothers, who are sons of one late Vellaiappa Pillai. The suit was filed for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit schedule property and for possession of the same from the defendant. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court was that he purchased a vacant site in the year 1948 and constructed two houses in the year 1949, that the plaintiff and defendant are brothers, that they had no ancestral properties, that the plaintiff was working as a teacher and he was also an Artist by profession and the houses in question were constructed from put of his self earnings, that in the year 1956 he had purchased a vacant site, north of the suit house and constructed two small houses, that he was taking care of the...
R. Krishnamoorthy Vs. the Director of Technical Education and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ602
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent dated 3.11.1989 and to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity and backwages.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in second respondent Institution during 1985-86 in a regular vacancy. Initially, he was appointed as an Instructor. Thereafter, his appointment was also approved by the first respondent on 19.2.1986. He was on probation for two years. On 24.6.1986 he was designated as Associate Lecturer. The said appointment was also approved on 11.12.1986 by the first respondent. On 19.6.1987, his appointment was terminated and no reason was given. The condition contained in the appointment order is unconscionable in nature and opposed to public policy. In spite of the representation dated 13.7.1987, there was no reply. Hence the petitioner had filed W.P. No. 9741 of 1987. This Court pas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »