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.
Tirupattur Nagarathu Vysiyargal Sangam, (Registered Under the Societie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ303
ORDERAR Lakshmanan, J.1. Tirupattur Nagarathu Vysiyargal Sangam, represented by its President is the petitioner in this revision. He filed this revision against the order made in I.A. No. 42 of 1994 in O.S. No. 23 of 1994, dated 20.1.1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirupattur, North Arcot District, granting leave to the respondent herein under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. According to Mr. V.S. Subramanyan, learned Advocate for the petitioner, the order passed by the Sub Court, granting leave without notice to the petitioner, who are vitally interested in the trust and the trust properties is materially irregular and illegal. He further contends that the learned Subordinate Judge has not even found that the respondent/proposed plaintiff has any interest in the trust properties or in the proper administration of the trust. Arguing contra Mr. V. Raghavachari contends that the civil revision petition itself is not maintainable against the order passed by the Sub Court in...
R. Subramanian Vs. Chellaiya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ131
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. By consent of both counsels the C.R.P. it-self is taken up for final disposal. The revision has been filed against the order dated 20.7.1995 in LA. No. 227 of 1995 in O.S. No. 212 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Aranthangi. The petitioner herein filed the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction and the said suit was decreed ex parte on 9.4.1990. The respondent filed the said LA. No. 227 of 1995 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1731 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. He has stated in the affidavit that he engaged one Mr. Kamesh as his Ad-vocate. The said Mr. Kamesh left the profession and the respondent was left in dark about the proceedings. The respondent received notice in the execution proceedings and he met another counsel. Mr. Padmanabhan who informed him that he has been appointed as the Commissioner and hence he could not appear. Thereafter the petitioner engaged the present cou...
Bhuvaneshwari Traders Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: [2006]143STC608(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as a dealer. In the registration certificate obtained by him on November 25, 1975 the assessee was authorised to purchase 'paints, varnish, turpentine, coal tar and pitch recin, chalk powder, brush, hardware materials, flint sand paper, emery sand paper and emery cloth'. Grease, and adhesive were not included in the certificate. The assessee nevertheless purchased grease and adhesive in the assessment year 1981-82 by using the 'C' forms for that purpose. The assessee had also purchased key chains worth about Rs. 2,100 during that period though the assessee had not been authorised to make use of 'C' forms for that purpose. The Commercial Tax Officer by his order dated June 4, 1983 in a proceeding under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, held that the purchase of grease, adhesive and key chain by using 'C' forms and availing of the concessional rate of tax at 4 per cent in respect of tho...
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary, Adi Dravidar and Tr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ390
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. R. Nagarajan, Government Advocate for appellants and Mr. A. Elango for respondents 1 and 2. The above writ appeal is directed against the order of Bhakthavatsalam, J., dated 16.7.1992 made in W.P. No. 865 of 1991 on the file of this Court.2. The respondents are the owners of the lands in question which is the subject-matter of the land acquisition under the present writ petition. The State of Tamil Nadu, Adi Dravidar and tribal welfare Department issued notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in G.O. Ms. No. 1786, dated 14.9.1989 and the same was published in the Tamil daily 'Dinamalar' on 10.11.89 proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners herein. After the notification under Section 4(1) was published the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department issued notice to the respondents for conducting an enquiry as contemplated in Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents submitted...
M. Mohammed Abdulla Vs. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Represented by Its S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ241
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard both sides. The petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorarified mandamus, after calling for the records from the file of the respondent pertaining to the proceedings in Ref.memo No. 2/42335/87 and quash the order dated 10.2.1997 and consequently direct the respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date on which his immediate juniors were regularised, together with all consequential benefits, award exemplary costs.2. Mr. Chandru, learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention that the petitioner was employed by the respondent as a Nominal Muster Roll employee by their Besant Nagar Division with effect from 5.8.1982. He was attending his duties as a watchman and such other duties allotted by the Engineer. He was working so, continuously without break including on Sundays and other holidays.3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the petitioner was terminated from service with effect from 12.2.1987 without ass...
Manjula Vs. Mani and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1476
1. The appellant is the complainant and the respondents are the accused 1 to 8 before the lower Court. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Complainant against the order of acquittal of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chengalpattu passed on 14-4-1988 in C.C. No. 391 of 1986. 2. The Appellant/Complainant filed a complaint before the lower Court stating as follows :- The Appellant/Complainant is the legally wedded wife of the 1st Respondent/1st Accused. The marriage between them was solemnised on 9-9-1984 at Kattuppakkam Village within the limits of Uthiramerur police station in Chengalpattu District. The Appellant/Complainant and the 1st Respondent/1st Accused were living happily at Kattuppakkam Village for about a year. The 2nd accused is the daughter of the 3rd accused and the 4th accused. The 5th accused is the brother of the 2nd accused. The 8th accused is the relative of the accused 1 and 2 and they are residents of Kattuppakkam Village. The 6th and 7th accused are th...
B.M. Mehta and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: [1999]238ITR725(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The issue involved in all the cases is the tax-ability of the interest earned by a partner of a firm engaged in the manufacture of tea and the salary income of the partner received from that firm. 2. All the revision petitioners are partners in the same firm. The assessment years in question are 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1980-81. 3. Learned counsel contended that income-tax has been paid under the Indian Income-tax Act, and the same amount cannot be subjected to tax under the State Act. Counsel relied on the decision of this court in B. M. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu : [1993]199ITR471(Mad) . 4. The statutory rule is quite clear namely rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1955, which provides that in respect of agricultural income from tea grown and manufactured by the seller in the State of Tamil Nadu the portion of the income worked out under the Indian Income-tax Act and left unassessed as being agricultural shall be assessed under the ...
General Insurance Corporation Ltd. and Others Vs. All India Insurance ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ1118Mad
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. All India Insurance SC/ST Employees' Action Committee which is a registered body under the Societies Act, is the petitioner in the writ ptition and respondent in the writ appeal. The Writ petition was filed for a mandamus direct ing the respondents/the General Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and four others, implement the Reservation Policy in promtions in Class-I category for SC and ST Officers t in the respondents Insurance companies in accordance to the Art. 16(4A) of the Constitution c of India. 2. The above prayer was amended by an order of this Court dated August 8, 1997 in t W.M.P. No. 19252/96 as follows : 'Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or Direction in the nature of a Writ, directing the respondents to reserve the post for SCIST employees in Class-I category in the Respondents 2 to 5 insurance companies in accordance to Official Memoranclums issued by the Government of India, dated December 23, 1974, February 25, 1976, Septem...
General Manager, Eveready Industries India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Eveready ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1228Mad
M.S. Liberhan, C.J.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that writ petition for issue of mandamus was not maintainable against a private party to implement the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as well as the settlement arrived at by the parties, which becomes (sic) statutory under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act'), and consequently ad interim relief cannot be granted.2. In our considered view, the single Judge, keeping in view the provisions of Section 72 of the Act, which is a social welfare legislation, injuncted the appellants from withdrawing the benefits given under the settlement, which concedingly governs the parties and was part of the conditions of service. The only grievance made by the counsel for the petitioner is that no writ can be issued to a private party to enforce the statutory provisions of the conditions of service incorporated in view of the settlement a...
St. Stephens Teacher Training Institute, Rep. by Its Manager Correspon ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC700; (1998)IMLJ66
ORDERM.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, herein after 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 petitioner-institution 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 t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »