Chennai Court April 1997 Judgments
C. Jayarama Reddy (Died) and ors. Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer/Spe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ85
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The first petitioner is the owner of the land situate in T.S. No. 6/2, Block II, Saligramam Village, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Madras District. The first petitioner has constructed a pucca building in the said land. In the year 1981, the first petitioner was served with a notice under Rule 3 of the Rules framed under Section 55(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by the first respondent calling upon the first petitioner to file his objection, and to appear for the hearing on 21.10.1981. The notice showed that the land was proposed to be acquired for constructing a Kalyana Mandapam at Vadapalani by Vadapalani Andavar Temple. The first petitioner filed his objection. There was no further proceeding. In the year 1984, according to the petitioner, the petitioner received a letter from the first respondent stating that his objections were overruled and the matter was sent to the second respondent to issue the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax and anr Vs. T. N. K. and V. Educational Tru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)145CTR(Mad)537
ORDERABDUL HADI, J. :All these tax case references preferred by the Revenue under s. 256 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are connected and hence they were heard together.2. Out of the above cases, the following cases, which relate to the same respondent-assessee, viz., T.N.K. & V. Educational Trust, Madras, relate to the assessment years as shown below :Case No.Asst. yr.T.C. 786 of 19841970-71T.C. 411 of 19841971-72T.C. 412 of 19841972-73T.C. 413 of 19841973-74T.C. 414 of 19841974-75T.C. 415 of 19841975-76T.C. 416 of 19841976-77(2) The respondents-assessees and the assessment years in respect of the rest of the cases are as follows :Case No.Name of the respondents-assesseesAsst. yr.T.C. 1 of 1997K. N. Varadarajan Family Trust1988-89T.C. 18 of 1997-do-1987-88T.C. 2 of 1997P. Natarajan Family Trust1987-88T.C. 3 of 1997-do-1988-89T.C. 4 of 1997Ramesh Family Trust1987-88T.C. 5 of 1997-do-1988-89T.C. 6 of 1997Chandrasekhar Family Trust1987-88T.C. 7 of 1997-do-1988-8...
Tag this Judgment!M. Rajamanickam Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ408Mad; (1998)IMLJ359
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The Writ Appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 1623/1983 dated February 17, 1983 dismissing the W.P. filed against the order dated April 3, 1989 passed by the first respondent confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dated November 8, 1980 removing the appellant from service w.e.f. November 10, 1980. 2. The short facts of the case of the appellant are as follows : The appellant was appointed as a Pharmacist in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Tiruchirapalli, in the year 1965. On July 7, 1980 he was served with a Charge sheet by the Deputy General Manager/Personnel and Accounts the second respondent herein which reads as follows : 'You were restored to work between 8.OO AM and 4.30 PM on July 4, 1980 in the Casualty counter. At about 1.OO PM on July 4, 1980 Shri Ayyappan, staff No. 208845, Security Guard (Intelligence) apprehended one Smt. Kannammal said to be the mother-in-law of Shri B. Meenakshisundaram, staff ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Khader MohiuddIn Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ111Mad; (1997)IIMLJ272
1. This Writ Appeal is directed by the unsuccessful petitioner against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 9968 of 1983 dated August 21, 1992 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The petitioner joined the services of the 1st respondent Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') as Junior Assistant on November 1, 1973. According to the appellant, some of the officials of the Commission were personally prejudiced against him and have been foisting false allegations of misconduct against him and inflicted penalties like warning, censure, cut in increments and the like. On November 12, 1979, the Joint Secretary of the Commission issued a charge sheet asking the appellant to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for using intemperate language while submitting explanations to the charges framed against him. The charge sheet alleged that the appellant had used intemperate la...
Tag this Judgment!M. Rajamanickam Vs. the Executive Director, Bharat Heavy Electricals L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ359
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 1623 of 1983 dated 17.2.1983 dis-missing the W.P. filed against the order dated 3.4.1989 passed by the first respondent confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dated 8.11.1980 removing the appellant from service w. e. f. 10.11.1980. 2. The short facts of the case of the appellant are as follows: The appellant was appointed as a pharma-cist in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Tiruchirapalli, in the year 1965. On 7.7.1980 he was served with a charge sheet by the Deputy General Manager/Personnel and Accounts the second respondent herein which reads as follows:You were restored to work between 8.00 a. m. and 4.30 p. m. on 4.7.1980 in the Casuality counter. At about 1.00 p. m. on 4.7.1980 Shri Ayyappan, staff No. 208845, Security Guard (Intelligence) apprehended one Smt. Kannammal said to be the Mother-in-law of Shri B. Meenakshi-sundaram, staff No. 2005379, Sr. Dresser...
Tag this Judgment!Rt.Rev. Lawrance, Mar. Ephaream, Auxiliary Bishop of Arch, Diocease by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC334
ORDER1. Hears Ms. Anandavalli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Elango, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16th December, 1993 in S.R.A.No. 6 of 1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai.2. The civil revision petition was originally filed by His Grace the Archbishop of Trivandram by Attorney C.P. Chacko. C.M.P.No. 1039 of 1997 was filed to substitute the original petitioner since deceased. Theaffidavit in support of the above C.M.P. was filed by the power of attorney holder of His Grace the most reverend Benedict Mar Gregorios Arch Bishop of Trivandrum for and on behalf of the Arch Diocese of Trivandrum. It is stated in the affidavit that His Grace the Arch Bishop was expired on 10.10.94 and after his demise Rt.Rev.Lawrance Mar Ephaream the auxiliary Bishop of the Arch Diocese was selected as administrator of Arch Diocese as per Rule 221/2, 3 and 5 of the Cannon Law, in its meeting held on 1...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajalakshmi Textile Processors Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR778(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. Pursuant to the directions of this court, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to item No. 32 of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee would be entitled to development rebate at the enhanced rate of 25 per cent. in respect of certain machineries installed in the factory ?' 2. The assessee is a company engaged in bleaching and finishing of raw cloth as well as dyeing and finishing of cloth and yarn. In the original assessment for the assessment year 1974-75, the Income-tax Officer allowed initial depreciation as well as development rebate on the ground that the assessee was engaged in the production and manufacture of textiles. The Income-tax Officer, however, ...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Sudharasan and anr. Vs. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC28; (1997)IIMLJ392
ORDERK.A. Thanikkachalam, A.C.J.1. C.M.P.No. 1307 of 1997 in Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 1997 is filed by one Jai Sudharasanan, for enlarging him on bail, on his own band, pending disposal of the above Contempt appeal.2. C.M.P.No. 1499 of 1997 in W.A.No. 102 of 1997 is filed by Jai Sudharasanan and Vasanthi, for enlarging them on bail, on their own bonds, pending disposal of the above writ appeal.3. Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 1997 is preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge in suo motu Contempt Application No. 182 of 1996, dated 17.12.1996. Writ Appeal No. 102 of 1997 is preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 4538 to 4542 of 1996, dated 18.12.1996.4. W.A.No. 102 of 1997 was filed after obtaining leave from this Court since the appellants in the writ appeal are not parties to the proceedings in W.P.Nos.4538 to 4542 of 1996.5. In the common order dated 18.12.1996 in W.P.Nos.4538 to 4542 of 1996, the learned single Judge found that Jai S...
Tag this Judgment!T. Leonard Thangaprakasam Vs. C. Ramaian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ189
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. Maninarayanan, for petitioner and Mr. P. Prabhakar, for respondent.2. This revision is directed against the Order in I.A. No. 256 of 1994 in O.S. No. 291 of 1992 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, dated 29.6.1994, allowing the petition under Order 8-A, C.P.C. That application was filed by the defendant in the suit. The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 291 of 1992 against the sole defendant (respondent herein) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,000 towards principal together with interest at 12% per annum, in all amounting to Rs. 26,462. It is the specific case of the petitioner herein that the respondent/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 18,000 from the petitioner and executed a promissory note at Tanjore on 12.9.1989 agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at 12% per annum to the petitioner or to his order on demand. In spite of repeated demands, the respondent has not chosen to pay any sum due on the promissory note and th...
Tag this Judgment!C.B.M. College, Represented by Its Secretary, Mr. C.M. Ramaraj Vs. V.R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ639
Raju, J.1. The above writ appeal has been filed by, the College management against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 7.10.1991 in W.P. No. 9635 of 1983, whereunder the learned single Judge was pleaded to allow the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the second respondent herein Private Colleges Appellate Tribunal dated 29.7.1983 in T.A.C. No. 6 of 1982, wherein the Tribunal has chosen to allow the appeal filed by the appellant-Management by setting aside the order of the State Government, holding that the orders of the appellant Management dated 23.3.1981 relieving the first respondent from the post of Head Clerk of the College, is bad in law and directed reinstatement in service with immediate effect.2. The first respondent herein has joined the services of the appellant - College ever since its inception and due to certain unpleasant happening of events, the fir...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »