Chennai Court October 1997 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.
M.J. Saravanaperumal and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC605
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorartified mandamus to call for the records of the respondents comprised in the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 passed in G.O.Ms.No. 892, Housing and Urban Development dated 10.9.1982 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 29.9.1982 and the consequential declaration under Section 6 of the Act in G.O.Ms. No. 966, Housing and Urban Development, dated 20.9,1985, and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 2.3.1985 quash the entire acquisition proceedings thereon including passing of the Award relating to the petitioner's lands in T.S.Nos. 205, 207/1, 207/2, 207/3, 207/4 and 208/2 of No. 81, Mugappair Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chingleput District, and direct the respondents no to acquire the abovesaid lands for any purpose, alleging as follows:The petitioners are brothers. They along with one Nandagopal Mudaliar constituted a Hindu joint family, which owned...
Caterpillar Inc., U.S.A. Vs. Jorange and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC407; (1998)IIMLJ105
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in C.S. No. 785 of 1996 aggrieved by the order dated 25-3-1997 passed by the learned single Judge in O.A. No. 639 of 1996 in the said suit. In this order, we will refer to the parties as they are described in the suit, for convenience. 2. The plaintiff has filed the said suit C.S. No. 785 of 1996 seeking mainly a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their proprietor/partners, their servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives or any of them from in any manner passing off or enabling others to pass off the defendant's jeans, shirts and other articles of clothing as and for the plaintiff's jeans, shirts and other articles of clothing by use of the trade mark CAT and CATERPILLAR or any mark similar thereto in any other manner whatsoever. 3. In the said suit, O.A. No. 639 of 1996 was filed for grant of an ad interim/ temporary order of injunction restraining the defendants in terms of the main r...
J. Jayalalitha Vs. Her Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu, Raj Bhav ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC493
ORDERJudgement pronounced by J. Jayalalitha1. These three writ petitions have been filed by the same writ petitioner. Common contentions have been raised in all the three writ petitions. Hence, all the three writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.2. In W.P.No. 14625 of 1997, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the order of sanction issued by the Governor as communicated by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 1516 Public (SC) Department dated 31.12.1996 and quash the said order dated 31.12.1996.3. W.P.No.8170 of 1997 has been filed praying for the issue of a writ ofcertiorari to call for the order of sanction issued by the first respondent ascommunicated by the second respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 1333 Public (SC)Department dated 14.11.1996 and quash the said order of the first and secondrespondents dated 14.11.1996.4. W.P.NO. 14644 of 1997 has been filed paying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the order of sanction issued by the G...
N. Srinivasan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR148(Mad)
ORDERRevisionary power invoked to set aside assessing officer's order of cancellation.Catch Note:Petitioner had been assessed to tax for the relevant assessment year by Agricultural Income Tax Officer--Subsequently within time petitioner applied before Agricultural Income Tax Officer under section 19 to cancel the order of assessment--Agricultural Income Tax Officer cancelled order of assessment made by him earlier--Justified-- Commissioner, however, invoked revisional power to set aside order of cancellation of Agricultural Income Tax Officer on ground that same was beyond power of Income Tax Officer--Not justified as order of Income Tax Officer was not a revision order but a concellation order, therefore, Commissioner's order was quashed.Held:Section 19 in plain and unambiguous language permitted the assessee to seek cancellation of the assessment if such an application was made in time and the conditions mentioned in that section were satisfied. Such an application had been made in ...
P. Selvamony Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR873(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessees are aggrieved by the order of the CIT suo motu revising the order of assessment made on the assessees for the asst. yr. 1987-88 as also the commutation permitted for the asst. yr. 1988-89. The CIT has set aside those assessments and has held that the income of the assessees who are husband and wife should be clubbed and the entire income assessed in the hands of the husband. 2. It is not in dispute that the husband and wife have separate holdings from which they derive agricultural income. It is also not in dispute that the properties were acquired by them in the year 1964 under sale deeds executed by their vendors, separately in the name of the husband and separately in the name of the wife. It is further not in dispute that the assessment of these two individuals were done separately from the year 1975-76 right up to 1987-88. The assessments were made on the basis of the returns filed by them separately and for the asst. yr. 1988-89 they were pe...
T. Jayaraman and Others Vs. State of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR476(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. Thuttapullam Estate is an assessee in the circle of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Coonoor. It is a registered firm. The firm consists of 13 partners.2. T. Jayaraman (applicant in T.C. (R.) No. 887 of 1990), Jayalakshmi (applicant in T.C. (R.) No. 888 of 1990) and T. Sivapackim (applicant in T.C. (R) No. 889 of 1990) were partners in the said firm, apart from other erstwhile partners. All the partners of the said firm had no lands individually except the proportionate share of the land held by them in the said firm. The partners have no individual income from agriculture. However, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Coonoor, permitted the partners of the said firm to have the matter compounded under section 65(3) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, and enabled them to pay tax accordingly.3. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Chepauk, Madras-5, in suo motu revision proceedings, cancelled the said order of the Agricultural Income-tax Of...
Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union Vs. Indian Overseas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ621Mad
Kanakaraj, J.1. The Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai :'Whether the demand of the workmen of the Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen represented by the Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union, Madras, for treating the staff of such canteens which are run by the local implementation committees, as workmen of Indian Overseas Bank for giving them the same status, pay and facilities as are available to other class IV employees of the bank is justified? If so, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled ?'This was taken on file as I.D. No. 72 of 1990. About one year later on December 17, 1991, the Government of India under the very same powers referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai:'Whether the demand of the Indian Over...
V.K. Thanikachalam Vs. Parameswari Ammal and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC746
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner in the revision as well as the appellant in the appeal is one and the same. For the purpose of convenience, I refer the parties as described in the revision. The petitioner filed O.P. No. 1 of 1984 for the grant of probate in respect of the will executed by one Rajammal. His case is that the deceased testator executed the Will on 25.12.1978 by bequeathing the properties in his favour. Earlier, he wanted to register the Will before the Joint Sub-Registrar No. 1, Vellore. The respondents opposed the same and after due enquiry, the Sub-Registrar refused to register the Will, finding that the Will is not genuine. As against that he preferred an appeal before the District Registrar, Vellore who also confirmed the order of sub- Registrar. Hence the O.P. has been filed.2. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner stating that the Will relied upon by the petitioner is a forged one. Further the deceased had already executed a registered Will on 4...
S.K. Rohini and 4 ors. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC481
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above revision has been directed against the order of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore made in CMA.No. 191 of 1990 dated 4.5.1993 and the order of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore made in I.A.No. 695 of 1984 in O.S.No. 109 of 1984 dated 27.11.1989. The petitioner herein filed O.S.No. 109/84 for possession of the suit property against the respondent. In that suit the respondent filed I.A.No. 695 of 1984 Under sectioon 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act. The learned District Munsif after enquiry, upheld the right and fixed Rs. 10,88,000 as market price of the said land. The respondent herein deposited the said amount and that also has been invested in the bank. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Munsif, the petitioners preferred CMA.No. 191 of 1990 before the Sub-Court, Coimbatore. The learned Sub- Judge enhanced the price payable by Rs. 1,28,000 and directed the respondent to deposit the said amount. As the amount fixed by the learned Sub-...
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. the Accredited ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC547
ORDERR.R. Jain, J.1. Since both these appeals are between the same parties involving identical question of law and facts, are disposed of by this common judgment. These appeals are arising from the arbitration proceedings ended between the appellant and the first respondent through the respondent No. 2, the arbitrator. Dispute between both the parties was referred to the second respondent the arbitrator, who after hearing both the parties, passed reasoned and elaborate award. The award published by the second respondent was filed in the court Under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and upon receiving the notice, the appellant and the first respondent filed applications Under Section 30 of the Act for setting aside the award to the extent they were aggrieved. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties, upheld the award and made a rule of Court, rejecting the objections filed Under Section 30 of the Act with modification for payment of interest at the rate of 15% p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »