Chennai Court October 1998 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.
Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd. Contract Thozhilalar Sangham Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ1270Mad
ORDERY. Venkatachalam, J.1. The petitioner Sangam herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent herein to refer the issue of non-employment of the 25 workmen mentioned in the Annexure for adjudication.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested that their writ petition may be allowed as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, the 2nd and 3rd respondents have filed separate counter affidavits rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.3. Heard the arguments advanced by thelearned counsel appearing, for the respectiveparties. I have gone through the contents of theaffidavit and the counter affidavits together withall other relevant material...
Oriental Insurance Company Vs. R. Mani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ247; (2001)IIILLJ276Mad; (1999)IMLJ117
S.S. Subramani, J.1. The second opposite party in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 227 of 1997 on the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore, is the revision petitioner. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. First respondent in this revision filed the claim petition making the second respondent and the petitioner liable for getting compensation. First respondent herein is the driver of a vehicle belonging to the second respondent and he met with an accident. Making petitioner also liable, he produced an insurance policy. Steps have been taken by the second respondent against the petitioner. Relying on the insurance policy, award was passed making the petitioner also liable and directed it to pay a sum of Rs. 1,21,099. The insurance policy was marked in the case as Exhibit A5. 3. After the award was passed it was found that the policy produced before the Court was fabricated and therefore the petitioner filed an unnumbered interloc...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R. Mani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ117
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The second opposite party in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 227 of 1997 on the file of Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore is the revision petitioner. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. First respondent in this revision filed the claim petition making the second respondent and the petitioner liable for getting compensation. First respondent herein is the driver of a vehicle belonging to the second respondent and he met with an accident. Making petitioner also liable, he produced an Insurance Policy. Steps have been taken by the second respondent against the petitioner. Relying on the Insurance Policy, award was passed making the petitioner also liable and directed it to pay a sum of Rs. 1,21,099. The Insurance Policy was marked in the case as Ex.A-5.3. After the award was passed it was found that the Policy produced before the court was fabricated and therefore the petitioner filed an unnumbered in...
Arulmigu Ramanathaswamy Devasthanam Represented by Its Executive Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ145
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. These two revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the orders of assessment made by Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ramanathapuram whereby the petitioner is assessed to pay taxes under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxurious Hotels and Lodging Houses Act, 1981.2. Ramanathapuram Arulmigu Ramanathasamy temple is running its cottages for occupation of the worshippers and pilgrims and used to collect rental charges from the occupants by issuing receipts. It is also said that it collected rent at the particular rate from the occupants and the same is liable to be taxed under the provisions of that Act.3. In the objection raised by the assessee/petitioner, it is said that it is one of the oldest Devasthanam in India and it is neither owning a hotel or other building which attracts the provisions of the said Act and it is said that it is not doing business which alone attracts tax under the Act. It is only doing services to the Pilgrims ...
M. Subramania Mudaliar Vs. K. Janardhanam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ360
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. C.R.P.Nos. 236 to 245 of 1997 are filed under Section 115, C.P.C. They have not been admitted so far. The other revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In that case, I have ordered notice of motion, and when that revision was heard, it was represented that C.R.P.Nos. 236 to 245 of 1997 are also to be heard and, therefore, as per order passed by My Lord the Honourable Chief Justice, all these revision petitions were heard together.2. Since respondents have also entered appearance in all the revisions, I am disposing of all these revisions on merits, even though there is no formal order of admission in the other civil revision petitions.3. C.R.P.No. 1111 of 1998 is filed by plaintiffs in O.S.No. 6994 of 1972, on the file of V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, and the other revisions are filed by the 24th defendant in that suit, who was additionally impleaded.4. Before going to the individual revisions, a short history of the li...
S. Ravindra Reddy Vs. K. Veerabhadrachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ251
ORDERS. M. Sidickk, J.1. Heard both counsel.2. The revision petition in C.R.P.No. 2602 of 1998 is directed as against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No. 4264 of 1997 in O.S.No. 1701 of 1995 on 6.7.1998 on the file of 1st Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.3. The revision petition in C.R.P.No. 2603 of 1998 is filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No. 4263 of 1997 in O.S.No. 1701 of 1995 on 6.7.1998 by the very same Judge of the lower court.4. The revision petition in C.R.P.No. 2604 of 1998 is filed as against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No. 4266 of 1997 in O.S.No. 1701 of 1995 on 6.7.1998 on the file of the very same Judge of the lower court.5. The revision petition in C.R.P.No. 2605 of 1998 is filed as against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No. 4265 of 1997 in O.S.No. 1701 of 1995 on 6.7.1998 on the file of the very same Judge of the lower court.6. The application in I.A.No. 4263 of 1997 referred to above was filed by the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N. Rama Devi L/H of T. Nataraja Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Mad)435
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The Tribunal has recorded a finding that there was concealment of income and that finding is not an issue before us. The Tribunal further proceeded to hold that the law applicable in the matter of levy of penalty is the law as on the date of return and not on the date of the initiation of the proceedings and, therefore, the penalty that was imposed by the Income Tax Officer is not correct, since he has acquired jurisdiction to impose penalty only on and after 1-4-1971 while concealments was found to be made in the returns filed on 27-2-1970, and 27-10-1970, for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, respectively. The amounts concealed were Rs. 19,552 and Rs. 16,645 respectively.2. The revenue , being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, has caused the reference of the following two questions for our consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of section 274(2) as amended by the Taxation La...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vajrapani Naidu, N.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: [2000]107TAXMAN277(Mad)
Babu, J. The question referred to us at the instance of the revenue is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount paid for discharging the debts due on mortgage of the property in connection with the transfer of the property should be deducted in computing the capital gains arising from the transfer of the property ?'2. The assessee who is an individual sold immovable properties belonging to him under 13 sale deeds in the previous year ended 31-3-1982 for a total consideration of Rs. 6,64,000. Rs. 3,79,500 out of that sum was paid by the vendee to the creditors of the vendor including the mortgagees of the properties which was the subject-matter of the sale. The assessee claimed that the amount so paid directly to his creditors including the mortgage was deductible for the purpose of computing capital gains. His claim was rejected by the Income Tax Officer as also by the Commissioner.3. The Tribunal on further appeal took the view that the amoun...
P.G. Murugesan Vs. the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC661
ORDER1. In W.P.No.8377 of 1998, petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records comprised in proceedings No. Rc. 3634 of 1998 Gaw 8 on the file of respondent, dated 15.6.98 and quash the same.2. Petitioner is the auction purchaser of IMFL shop No. 11, Coimbatore, and he wanted to locate his shop at Ward No. 18, bearing Door Nos.34-34A, Avarampalayam Main Road, Coimbatore. Respondent/officials inspected the shop and recommended for issuance of licence. On 27.5.1998, respondent issued licence permitting the petitioner to carry on the business, whileso, on 8.6.1998, respondent issued a communication, directing the petitioner to shift his business to an unobjectionable place. The reason alleged therein was that there were objections from the public and the M.L.A. also recommended to take action on such objection. A civil suit was also filed by a third person as O.S.No.910 of 1998, on the file of District Munsif's Court, to prevent the petitioner from conducting the ...
M/S. Tribol Engineering Private Limited, Rep. by Its Managing Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC385
ORDERJudgement pronounced by Shivappa, J. 1. The C.M.P.No. 10631 of 1998 has been filed for removal of respondent No.2 Arbitrator on the ground of reasonable apprehension of bias and to appoint an independent Arbitrator in his place. 2. In order to determine whether or not to revoke the authority of respondent No.2, it is appropriate to set out certain facts and circumstances pertaining to his appointment, conduct during the arbitral proceedings and the pecuniary interest in the Respondent No.l organisation. They are stated as under:- Respondent. No.1 invited tenders on March 24, 1988 for the construction of L.S.H.S. (Low Sulphur Heavy Stock) Project for Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The petitioner's tender was accepted by respondent No.l who issued a letter of intent dated June 27,1988, for execution of the said project and the petitioner had completed the job which was awarded to it. One of the conditions stipulated therein was that disputes, if any, that would arise in relation to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »