Chennai Court September 1997 Judgments
Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sankarammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ1171
S. Jagdeesan, J.1. The Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. has filed an appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurai dated 12.2.1997 in M.C.O.P. No. 743 of 1995.2. The respondents herein have filed the said claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of one Pahlraj alias Kalappa Gounder, the respondent No. 1 is the wife of the deceased, the other respondents are the children.3. The case of the claimants is that on 25.6.1994 at 8.00 p.m., the bus bearing registration No. TOP 4112, belonging to the appellant herein dashed against the deceased within the campus of Thirumangalam Bus Stand and due to impact the deceased died. Hence the claim petition has been filed. The claim was contested by the appellant herein contending that the deceased was trying to get into the bus when the bus was moving, in order to get a seat and in his attempt to get into the bus he slipped, fell down, and got injured. The driver of the bus drove the vehicle ve...
Tag this Judgment!Employees State Insurance Corporation Represented by Its Regional Dire ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ719
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the respondent in E.S.I.O.P. No. 41 of 1987 on the file of the District Judge, Coimbatore (Employees State Insurance Court). The respondent in this appeal is the petitioner in that proceedings. In this judgment, the parties to this appeal are referred to in the same rank in which they are described in the original proceedings before the Employees State Insurance Court. 2. The dispute relating to payment of contribution arose in respect of payments made to carpenters, cartman, persons entrusted with the work of stitching the materials given by the petitioner and the amount paid to Sampathkumar and Krishnakumar. The petitioner is a partnership concern engaged in the business of manufacture of hosiery items. The dispute raised by the petitioner in the above proceedings was opposed by the respondent. The Insurance Court, after going through the materials placed before it found that the petitioner is liable to contribute in respect of...
Tag this Judgment!Contemner: M. Babu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC115
ORDER1. The contemner herein filed O.P.No. 749 of 1993 for grant of Letters of Administration with a Will dated 5.8.1991 executed by R. Muni Maistry alias R. Munian. Along with the said O.P., the contemner filed consent affidavits of the other legal heirs of the deceased R. Muni Maistry alias R. Munian. By order dated 21.2.1995, this Court ordered the said O.P. and issued the Letters of Administration as prayed for by the contemner herein on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,000 Pursuant to the said order, the Letters of Administration was issued. Subsequently one of the Legal Representatives of the deceased R. Muni Maistry alias R. Munian by name M. Balachandran filed an application in Application No. 872 of 1997 for revocation of the Letters of Administration on the ground that he never filed any consentaffidavits in the said O.P.No.749 of 1993 and that the consent affidavit filed therein is a forged one and he did not sign may consent affidavit. On a perusal and comparison of ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharath Kumar JaIn Vs. Kanta Ben
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC111; (1998)IIMLJ156
ORDER1. The present revision has been preferred against the fair and decretal order dated 31.3.1997 in E.A.No.827 of 1997 in E.P.No.1721 of 1996 in O.S.No.5485 of 1994 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The respondent is the owner of the premises bearing door No.71, Mulla Sahab Street, Chennai. He let out the house and premises, being flat situated in the left hand side in the ground floor of the said premises bearing door No.71 to the petitioner herein on a monthly rent of Rs.1800 for residential purpose on and from 1.9.1989.2. The respondent instituted O.S.No.5485 of 1994 for recovery of possession and for recovery of Rs.18,000 being arrears of rent due for the period commencing from May, 1993 to February, 1994. The suit was presented on 10.3.1994. The petitioner herein, though served with the suit summons, absented himself and the trial Court passed an ex parte decree on 12th October, 1995, directing the defendant in the suit to pay Rs.18,000, together ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Nallasenapathi Sarkarai Mandradiar Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR302(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J. 1. The assessment was made against the petitioner on December 3, 1980, in respect of the assessment year 1978-79. The assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 was also made on December 3, 1980. Those orders of assessment were sought to be revised in 1981 and a notice was sent to the assessee in that year. The notice so sent was a printed form in which the line which set out that the assessment had been done at too low a rate was struck off. The assessee did not file any reply to that notice. More than six years thereafter, on November 13, 1987, the assessments made for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 were purported to be revised. In the revised assessment order, it is merely stated that there was an escapement of income from cumbu. Aggrieved by these orders, the assessee preferred appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who found fault with the assessee for not having replied to the notice and proceeded to affirm the revised order of assessment. The Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!Tmt. Chakkratthai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC428
ORDERC. Shivappa, J.1. The wife of the detenu has challenged the order of detention, dated 5.6.1997, passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Dharmapuri, in exercise of the powers conferred Under Section 3(2)(a) read with Section 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities like P.D.S. Rice (Public Distribution System for Ration Cards) to the Public of Tamil Nadu.2. It is the case of the petitioner that though the name of her husband was not cited as an accused in the F.I.R., he was detained on 7.6.1997 under the Act. However, as an abundant caution, he moved anticipatory bail in Crl. O.P.No. 5956 of 1997 and was released by order dated 21.5.1997, with a condition that he shall report before the Triplicane Police Station, Triplicane, Chennai, every day until further orders. When he was complying with the ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Velappan Nair Vs. the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and 2 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC693
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved against the proceedings of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise (first respondent) dated 6.5.93, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the said order on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:- The petitioner was granted Licence to run 9 arrack shops and 5 toddy shops in Vilavancode Taluk for the Excise year 1982-83. Due to rivalry in trade, he was not able to carry on business properly and failed to remit monthly kist for the month of November, 1982. In the meanwhile, the third respondent sent a notice askin; him why the licence should not be cancelled and re-auction fixed. After knowing this, he filed O.S.No. 605 of 1982 before the District Munsi Kuzshithurai for an injunction. By order dated 29-11-1982 of the Distric Munsif he secured an interim in junction order. Subsequently the said order was dismissed on 8.1.1983. Thereafter, without conducting any action the third respondent sent a n...
Tag this Judgment!State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Leather Garment Unit Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ56
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of Y. Venkatachalam, J. dated 15.11.1995 in W.P. No. 9462 of 1985 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, on the ground that the Handicrafts Handloom Export Corporation of India is a subsidiary of the appellant establishment and it is a covered establishment at New Delhi and therefore the respondent had rightly asked the appellant to implement the scheme provisions from 8.1.1979 to the Leather Garment Unit and effect the contribution at the rate of 3% as is being extended by the appellant to its employees.2. The short facts are as follows:The subject matter of the writ petition is the proceedings of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry in No. D5/TN/12190/Regl./85, dated 28.6.1985 by which the respondent had issued a notice under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which has given rise to this present writ petition. Accor...
Tag this Judgment!Cheran Transport Corporation Limited, by Its Managing Director Vs. Mar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ118
S.M. Abdul Wajab, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore, in M.C.O.P. No. 221 of 1986, dated 24.8.1987.2. On 6.4.1986 when Karuppusami, a passenger in the bus T.M.L. 4606 belonging to the appellant died when the vehicle suddenly started moving fastly when. he attempted to get down from the bus. For the said motor accident, the respondents 1 to 5, the legal heirs of the deceased Karuppusami, filed a claim petition for Rs. 1,62,000. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 60,750 with interest at 12% per annum. Aggrieved by the award, the appellantCheran Transport Corporation has filed this appeal.3. After hearing the counsel for the appellant when the court was about to pass orders dismissing the appeal on merits, the learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants raised a point that he should be allowed to contend that the award of compensation is very much less and an excess compensation should be awarded e...
Tag this Judgment!Perumal and anr. Vs. Talath and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ529
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. C.R.P. No. 2483 of 1993 is against the order in M.P. No. 1933 of 1988 in Eject Suit No. 96 of 1972 dated 28.2.1972, on the file of the II Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras.2. C.R.P. No. 2970 of 1993 is against the order in M.P. No. 1935 of 1988 in Eject Suit No. 97 of 1972, dated 28.2.1992, on the file of the II Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras.3. M.P. Nos. 2933 and 1935 of 1988 were filed by the landlord against the tenant for fixation of the value of the building under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act III of 1922 as Amended by Act 2 of 1980. the said two petitions were ordered by the II Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, directing the appointment of a Commissioner for the purpose of valuation of the building. Aggrieved by the said orders, the tenants have filed these two civil revision petitions.4. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the civil revision petitions are as follows: the tenants filed a petition under Section 9(1)...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »