Chennai Court July 1997 Judgments
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Valliammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ1336; (1998)IMLJ427
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The first appeal, that is, C.M.A. No. 35 of 1988 has been preferred by the insurance company against the award of compensation for the death of one Palanisamy in a motor accident that took place on 21.9.1985. A compensation was claimed at Rs. 1,25,000. But the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000 to the claimant, the mother of the deceased Palanisamy. The insurance company has preferred the first appeal contending that there is no liability on its part since insured was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The other appeal C.M.A. No. 336 of 1988 has been filed for higher compensation.2. The question to be decided in both the appeals is important. Whether a person who is the owner of a vehicle, if met with an injury or death, is liable to be indemnified? In this case, the fact is that Palanisamy was driving the truck and he was the owner of the same which is not disputed. The accident has taken place on account of the rain and the truck skidded and da...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sankaralingam Poosari and ors. Vs. the Joint Commissioner, H.R. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ529
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. These three writ petitions show the sorry state of affairs in the management of a religious institutions. The trustees of the institution, though expected to conduct themselves in a manner which would command respect from the lay public and the worshippers of the deity, have been quarrelling among themselves in a manner which can only bring disrepute to themselves and to the institution.2. Sankaralingam Poosari, petitioner in W.P. Nos. 678, 732 and one of five petitioners in W.P. No. 1700 of 1997 who is one of the nine hereditary trustees of Arulmighu Mariamman Temple at Irakkunagudi Sattur Taluk, Kamarajar District who constituted and Board of Trustees of the Temple, is now past 80 years of age, although he is apparently unwilling to admit that fact, and has chosen to state in the affidavit and other documents that he is 'over 70' years of age. He, on his own, gave a petition to the Assistant Commissioner on 8.11.1996 stating that his ill-health and physical ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. E.A. Rajendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1997
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Mad)244; [1999]235ITR514(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the entire 'amount of additional conveyance allowance and 40% of incentive bonus received by the assessee as an employee of LIC of India is exempt ?' 2. The assessee is a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('LIC') and has received incentive bonus and also additional conveyance allowance to cover the expenses incurred by him on account of conveyance. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee that the additional conveyance and incentive bonus have to be exempted from tax. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed 40 per cent of the incentive bonus as deduction and also deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer with regard to the addi...
Tag this Judgment!Kothari and Sons (industries) (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. M.V. Subramaniam, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1997
Reported in: [1998]233ITR294(Mad)
N. Arumugham, J. 1. As the revision petitioners in both the above cases are almost the same and the respondent is also the same person and both the revisions involve the determination of a common question of law on identical facts, both the revisions were heard together and they are disposed of by delivering this common order. 2. The accused in both the cases in E.O.C.C. Nos. 503 and 504 of 1988, on the file of the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.-II) Court, Madras-8, have preferred these two revisions, challenging the propriety and legality of the impugned orders passed by the learned magistrate in M.P. Nos. 209 of 1995 and 210 of 1995 on 27th April, 1995, ordering the issuance of subpoenas to the prosecution witnesses. Two complaints were filed against the first accused in both the cases, namely, Kothari & Sons (Industries) (P) Ltd. Madras, and Teatex (P) Ltd., Madras, with its directors and employees for the offences committed by them under s. 120B r/w ss. 193, 420,...
Tag this Judgment!Narang Industries Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director, Devndeer Raj Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC229
ORDER1. Both these Crl.O.P.Nos.5067 and 5068 of 1996, filled against C.C.Nos.2685 and 3661 of 1994, on the file of the disposed of by a common order, as the parties as well as the issue involved are one and the same in both these proceedings.2. The petitioners 1 and 2, the Company, as well as its Managing Director, having office at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, approached the respondent, the complainant company, having its main office at Chamiers Road, Madras -18, and entered into an agreement on a hire purchase scheme, agreeing to pay the hire dues regularly as per the schedule for the purchase of redistillation plants.3. Towards the part settlement of hire dues, the petitioners issued two cheques on two different dates. One cheque dated 12.11.1993 for Rs.50,000drawn on Canara Bank, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi and another dated 17.3.1994 for Rs.2,81,000 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad Pragati Vihar New Delhi. On due dates the complainant, presented the above cheques for encashment throu...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasan and Others Vs. Government of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1997
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ986Mad
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court made in W.P. No. 21998 of 1993 dated September 13, 1995 dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/appellants herein who had retired from service before the scheme in question was introduced. There the learned Judge held that the writ petitioners cannot claim the benefits of the scheme which was not in existence, while they were in service. 2. The Government of India by its Ministry of Industry and the Department of Public Enterprises introduced a new scheme called Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Scheme for the Employees of Public Sector Enterprises on July 23, 1988. According to the scheme the revised ceiling for payment of gratuity on retirement or in the event of death of the concerned employees is effective from January 1, 1986. The Scheme formulates basic terms and conditions of gratuity scheme for public undertakings. Its clause 4(a) reads thus : 'Gratu...
Tag this Judgment!S.S.M. Soundappan and 5 ors. Vs. K.G. Balakrishnan and 14 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC385
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. C.R.P. No. 1511 of 1997 is against the order in (Arbitration) O.P. No. 394 of 1994, and revision petitioners are the petitioners in the O.P. also. That O.P. was filed Under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, to declare that there was no reference of disputes to respondents 1 and 2 by petitioners, to declare that respondents 1 and 2 were never appointed as Arbitrators, to declare that the letter dated 24.8,1993 purporting to appoint respondents 1 and 2 as arbitrators is forged, null and void, to declare that the document dated 31.10.1994 styled as Interim Award is null and void and not binding on the petitioners, and for consequential reliefs.2. C.R.P. No. 1661 of 1997 is against the order passed in (Arbitration) O.P.No. 425 of 1994, filed by the respondents 3 to 15 herein to pass a decree in terms of the Award of the Arbitrators who are respondents 1 and 2 therein.3. C.M.A.No. 787 of 1997 arises from O.P. No. 50 of 1996 filed by the petitioners herein ...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjammal and ors. Vs. Marappa Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ151
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Additional plaintiffs 2 to 7, who are legal heirs of original plaintiff in O.S. No. 105 of 1975, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Gobichettipalayam, (renumbered as O.S. 87 of 1982, on the file of Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam), are the appellants.2. The plaintiff filed the suit to declare the title over the suit property and also for other consequential re-liefs which are described thus:(a) Declaring the plaintiff's title of the suit property;(b) Declaring plaintiff's easement right in the suit cart track for using and taking carts, cattle and men through the cart track to the suit property;(c) Granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their relatives and on from inter-fering the suit property peaceful enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit property and from obstructing or preventing the free user of the cart track-by the plaintiff; and(d) Awarding the cost of the suit.The suit property is described thus:An extent of 2 acres and 933/4 cen...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Vs. Renuka and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ338
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Second defendant in O.S. No. 966 of 1981, on the file of III Additional District Munsif's Court, Coimbatore is the appellant. Plaintiff herein filed the suit to declare her title to the suit property, for execution of a conveyance, conveying or transferring, as the case may be, the house described in Schedule A in favour of the plaintiff, and for directing payment of the share perquisites and belonging described in Schedule B by first defendant to plaintiff, and for other consequential reliefs.2. The appellant's husband M.V. Nataraj Chettiar died on 30.7.1974. The suit house property described in Schedule A was allotted to Nataraj Chettiar under a Scheme of purchase on instalment basis by first de-fendant-Society. His membership number was 439. At the time of allotment, the cost of the house was fixed at Rs. 4, 123.63. The said amount was to be paid in monthly instalments spread over for a period of 35 years. Nataraj Chettiar had no issues and he took a special int...
Tag this Judgment!B. Thiagarajan and anr. Vs. K. Vedantham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ231
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant is O.S. No. 238 of 1979, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Paramakudi, renumbered as O.S. No. 107 of 1983, District Munsif's Court, Manamadurai, is the appellant.2. Suit filed by plaintiff was to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to recover the same. He also prayed for a mandatory in-junction to direct the defendants to demolish the construction put up by them in the suit property. Plaintiff also sought for consequential reliefs.3. In the plaint, it is averred that on 10.2.1957, large-area of property was purchased by plaintiff along with 19 others and there was a partition between the purchasers, as evidenced by Ex. A-2 dated 20.1.1959. As per the said deed, the 10th schedule item was allotted to the plaintiff. Schedule 21 was retained in common by all the purchasers. Item 2 in schedule No. 21 is situated on the northern side of Item 1 in 10th schedule Item allotted to the plaintiff. At the time when the parti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »