Chennai Court August 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.
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Vs. Hidayathull ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ1114
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The appellant, a State Transport Undertaking and the owner of the bus registration No. TN O1 NO243 has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchy, made in M.C.O.P. No. 997 of 1994 dated 26.4.1996.2. The respondent herein who had sustained personal injuries and fracture of right hand and permanent disability filed M.C.O.P. No. 997 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruchy under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. He contended that the appellant's said bus driven rashly and negligently on 24.2.1994 at 2.30 p.m. by its driver had caused the accident and as a result of which the right side of the bus ran over the respondent's right hand causing the fracture and crush injuries. The claimant further contended that he was hospitalised for a number of days at Tiruchy, underwent operatio...
A.C. Muthiah Vs. Madras Refineries Ltd., Represented by Its Company Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC134
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. These review applications are filed against the common judgment, dated 18-3-1997, delivered in O.S. Appeal Nos. 171 to 174, 190 to 193 and 243 to 246 of 1996.2. Review C.M.P. No. 20 of 1997 is filed by Dr. A.C. Muthiah, who is the 2nd appellant in O.S.A. No. 243 of 1996. Review C.M.P. Nos. 23 to 28 of 1997 are filed by Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Director and Secretary Mr. A. Santhanakrishnan and SPIC Petrochemicals Ltd., rep. by its Company Secretary Mr. S. Natarajan, who are the appellants in O.S.A. Nos. 190 to 192 of 1996 and respondents 1 and 2 on O.S.A. Nos. 171 to 173 of 1996. These review applications are filed to review the common judgment, dated 18-3-1997, delivered in O.S.A. Nos. 171 to 174, 190 to 193 and 243 to 246 of 1996.3. In the said O.S. Appeals, this Court held that Madras Refineries Limited (MRL) has made out aprima facie case for grant of interim injunction in its favour; it has also established that bala...
St. Stephens Teacher Training Institute, Represented by Its Manager, C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ66
M.S. Liberhan, C.J.1. Learned Counsel for both sides agree that at this stage the writ appeal and the civil miscellaneous petition be disposed of by a common judgment On merits.2. In order to dispose of the question raised i.e., whether in view of Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, hereinafter called the 'Act' a deemed recognition would not confer a right on the petitioner to continue with the institution and make it incumbent for the respondents to permit those students to take examination. It does not debar the respondents holding the examination with respect to above referred institution.3. Concedingly the petitionerinstitution was given a temporary recognition before the Act came into force. The said temporary recognition continued when the Act came into force. On the premises of the temporary recognition, the petitioner admitted the students to the course, imparted training. The petitioner in terms of the Act applied for recognition within the stip...
M. Sekar Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Re. by Its Secretary to Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC472; (1998)IMLJ69
ORDERJudgement pronounced by Shivaraj Patil, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the written examination held on 24.5.1997 and 25.5.1997 for direct recruitment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) /Judicial Magistrate, First Class, conduct a fresh written examination, and pass such further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the petitioner as gathered from the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition briefly stated, is as follows:- The petitioner is a practising advocate at Ambasamudram for over 20 years. He completed his B.A. degree in 1973 and acquired his B.L. degree from the Madras Law College during 1976 and enrolled as an Advocate in the Bar council of Tamil Nadu on 19.1.1977. He belongs to a backward community. He was Government pleader for two terms and represented the Port Trust ofTuticorin, Educational agencies, etc. during the period of h...
Mrs. Vatsala Ramachandra (Decd.) (Through Legal Representatives, M. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR837(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J. 1. The property of the petitioner has been sought to be pre-emptively purchased by the Revenue on the ground that the market value stated in the agreement with the purchaser is not the market value and that the difference between the apparent consideration as worked out by and the market value as determined by the appropriate authority exceeds 15 per cent. 2. Form No. 37-I statement was furnished on October 13, 1992. The consideration for the transfer as set out therein is Rs. 67,50,000. The extent of the property is 4 grounds and 1,555 sq.ft. 3.A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging that a property comparable in value measuring 1 ground 1,350 sq.ft. at a location very near the property of the petitioner had been sold for Rs. 29,75,000 which worked out to a rate of Rs. 16.12 lakhs per ground and the consideration as set out in the agreement between the petitioner and the purchaser worked out to to a figure which was much less than the same and, t...
Union of India Vs. Tube Products of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: 1998(98)ELT23(Mad)
Raju, J.1. The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 27-9-1988 in W.P. No. 1833 of 1982 where under the learned single Judge of this Court was pleased to allow the writ petition filed seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the second respondent - Collector of Central Excise in C.N. III/10/488/81-IA (RC), dated 6-12-1982 and consequently, restrain the second respondent from collecting the amount of duty to the tune of Rs. 12,78,921.69 already refunded to the writ petitioner/respondent herein. 2. The relevant facts necessary for appreciating the issue raised before us are, that the respondent are manufacturers of iron and steel products and they held Central Excise licence for the same under Tariff Item 26AA and in addition, they also manufactured during the relevant point of time in their factory, (1) Collecting Electrodes Sections. (2) Punched 'C' Section. (3) Shutt...
Kallakurichi Agricultural and Marketing Society Ltd., Kallakurichi Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)IIMLJ631
M.S. Liberhan, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an order of the Hon'ble single Judge dated 29.1.1997, by which the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein seeking reinstatement was allowed. 2. In order to dispose of the appeal, it would be expedient to refer to the undisputed facts which run thus : The first respondent was employed with the appellant and was charge-sheeted on the charges of his failure to recover Rs. 57,252 due from a customer to the appellant, misappropriated p. 750 tons of paddy, caused deficiency of 21.085 tons of rice at various points of time. Enquiry was held against the first respondent and the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges stand proved. Respondent was dismissed. Industrial dispute was raised. The Labour Court, after confirming the finding that the charges were proved, affirmed the dismissal order. The first respondent challenged the order of the Labour Court in the writ petition. Honourable single Judge affirmed the findings...
U.A. Palanisamy and anr. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ429
D. Raju, J.1. The above writ appeal was been filed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 8.8.1994 in W.P. No. 4229 of 1995 whereunder the writ petition, seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the letter of the first respondent, dated 13.6.1984 as also the consequential proceedings, dated 9.11.1984 particularly paras. 1 and 4 insofar as it related to the promotion of respondents 3 and 4 as Assistants and consequently direct respondents 1 and 2 to promote the appellants as Assistants as against those vacancies. In the letter dated 13.6.1984, the Government rejected the request of the appellants herein to accord promotion in future vacancies and clarified the position that merely because some juniors acquired the qualification of training before their seniors, there was no justification to stop the deputation of the seniors who got qualified in passing the required test for the purpose of training in Pyakara Electricity for the req...
Mrs. Marayee Ammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ687
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved against the land acquisition proceedings, the petitioner has filed the writ petition to quash the acquisition proceedings on various grounds.2. In order to provide house sites to Navidars of Chinnasalem village on the recommendation of the third respondent, the first respondent initiated acquisition proceedings. The proposals under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) for acquisition of land in R.S. No. 339/1 to an extent of 0.93.5 Hectare out of 1.87.0 Hectares of dry land of Chinnasalem village, belonging to Marayee Ammal (petitioner herein), for provision of house sites to Navidars of Chinnasalem village were submitted to the Collector, South Arcot District and the same was approved on 30.7.1987. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 9.9.1987 and the said notification have also been published in two tamil dailies on 10.9.1987. The substance of the notification was pub...
M. Ravindranath and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Mad)206
ORDER UNDER S. 269UD--Validity. Ratio :Opinion on the part of the Engineer being blindly adopted by the appropriate authority is not a safe basis on which to hold that a transaction which is otherwise bona fide is to be regarded as an instance of deliberate undervaluation with a view to avoid payment of tax, therefore, order passed under section 269UD cannot be satisfied. Held :When an appropriate authority holds that the property has been undervalued, its determination is to be based upon firm foundations of fact and does not give room for arbitrariness. The authority is not required under the terms of the Act to direct purchase of each and every property in respect of which declarations are filed before it. It is not constituted as a buying agent for the government. It is only required to ensure that parties to the transactions transact honestly and do not avoid payment of tax by deliberately undervaluing the property. The reasons given by the Executive Engineer which reasons have be...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »