Chennai Court November 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.
R. Asokan Vs. P. Muthusamy and 3 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC571; (1999)IMLJ341
ORDER1. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No. 356 of 1996 onthe file of the Sub-Court, Namakkal, impleading the first defendant thereinand the respondents 2 to 4 as defendants 3 to 5. The said suit was filed forpartition of plaintiffs 1/12 share in survey No. 533 and for injunctionrestraining the defendants 3 to 5 from putting up any new or additionalconstructions in S.No.533/1. In the plaint it is specifically stated that in anextent of 3.3.acres and 23 cents, shown in the 'A' schedule to the deed ofacknowledgment of partition, a partition was held between the plaintiff andthe second defendant. According to the plaintiff/first respondent, a subdivisionwas effected. The land in survey No.533 was subdivided into three portions.Survey No. 533/1 measuring 5 acres 56 cents belongs to the plaintiff anddefendants 1 and 2. It is also specifically stated that the plaintiff anddefendants 1 and 2 together completely hold survey No.533/1, which is thesuit property. The first de...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nayan Engineering Works
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: [2001]248ITR596(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1963-64. 34 years have gone by. The Tribunal made its order in the year 1981. 17 years have lapsed since then. The Revenue has collected tax from each of the two individuals in respect of half share of the income derived from the business carried on by them in the name of Nayan Engineering Works. Long after that relevant assessment year, proceedings were initiated to assess the association of persons. The Tribunal has held that to be unwarranted and has set aside the orders made by the authorities below.2. At the instance of the Revenue two questions have been referred to us. The first is as to whether the Tribunal's order is justified in law and the other is as to whether the assessment made on the other person, Seetha-lakshmi, had become final is justified and reasonable. Taking the second question first, the Tribunal has observed that the said Seethalakshmi has been assessed by the 13th Income-tax Officer, E-...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Chockalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: [2001]248ITR557(Mad)
1. The assessee, an officer belonging to Indian Administrative Service, claims exemption for the amount of the house rent allowance received by him relying on Section 10(13A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1982-83. During that period, the assessee was living in his own house and he had not incurred any expenditure towards payment of rent. The claim of the assessee had been rejected by the Income-tax Officer but was accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In so doing, reliance was placed on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Justice S.C. Mittal . Section 10(13A) of the Income-tax Act was amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1976, by adding an Explanation. The Explanation so added reads as under :'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is here...
N. Rajendran Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ160
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records from the first respondent relating to his Award in I.D. No. 112 of 1985, dated 14.12.1987 and quash the same.2. The case of the petitioner is that the joined services in the second respondent-Mill in April, 1981 as an apprentice in the Weaving Department. In October, 1983 the Management entered into a 12(3) settlement with the Premier Mill Workers Organisation without even disclosing the contents of the Settlement to its office bearers. In November, 1983, the Management asked the workers to give increased production. When the workers protested against the same saying that they were already giving high production and they could not increase production further, the Management said as per the settlement dated 5.10.1983 the workers had to give 85% efficiency and if they failed, disciplinary proceedings would be initiated and only then the workers came to know about the terms of the se...
Abdul Wahib Vs. Asstt. Commr. of Cus. (Prosecutor)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(113)ELT801(Mad)
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Abdul Wahib, the petitioner herein challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 135(1)(a)(i) of the Customs Act and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for six months imposed by the trial Court, confirmed by the lower appellate Court, has filed this revision.2. The short facts for disposal of this revision are these:- The petitioner is a casual labourer working in Air India at the Madras International Airport. P.W. 1 is an Intelligence Officer. On 3-5-1990 at the time of clearance of passengers, P.W. 1 found the petitioner entering into gents' toilet and after some time coming out. He was intercepted by P.W. 1 on suspicion. He was escorted to Air India Intelligence Unit room. In the presence of witnesses he was searched. The petitioner was having one plastic bag kept concealed inside his jatti. When the bag was opened, it was found to contain four 1 kg. gold bar...
R. Muthukrishnan and Etc. Vs. Agricultural Officer and Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1252
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. R. Muthukrishnan, the first accused has filed the appeals in C.A. Nos. 21,22, 23. 24, 25 and 26 of 1992 against the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court for Essential Commodities Act cases, Pudukottai in S.T.C. Nos. 20 to 25 of 1990 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) and 12aa(2)(f) of Essential Commodities Act for violation of the Clause 19(1)(a) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for three months.2. R. Rajamanickam, the second accused has filed the appeals in C.A. Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of 1992 challenging the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court for Essential Commodities Act cases, Pudukottai, in S.T.C. Nos. 20 to 25 of 1990 convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 7(1)(a)(ii) and 12aa(2)(g) of E...
Jagadeesa Gounder Vs. Rukmani Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ385
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 634 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tindivanam, who had succeeded before the trial court and lost before the first appellate court in the appellant herein.2. At the time of admission the following two substantial questions of law were framed by this Court:1. Whether the appellant would be bound by the execution proceedings in S.G.No. 176 of 1965, District Munsif Court, Tindivanam?2. Whether the lower appellate court was right in its conclusion that the respondents had perfected title by adverse possession?3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. For convenience, the parties to this appeal will be referred as arrayed before the trial court.4. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking for the relief of declaration of his title, for recovery of possession and for other consequential reliefs. The plaintiff though came forward with a specific case that the s...
R. Asokan Vs. P. Muthusamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ341
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 356 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal, impleading the first defendant therein and the respondents 2 to 4 as defendants 3 to 5. The said suit was filed for partition of plaintiff's 1/12 share in Survey No. 533 and for injunction restraining the defendants 3 to 5 from putting up any new or additional constructions in S. No. 533/1, In the plaint, it is specifically stated that in an extent of 3.33 acres and 23 cents, shown in the 'A' schedule to the deed of acknowledgment of partition, a partition was held between the plaintiff and the second defendant. According to the plaintiff/first respondent, a sub-division was effected. The land in Survey No. 533 was sub-divided into three portions. Survey No. 533/1 measuring 5 acres 56 cents belongs to the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. It is also specifically stated that the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 together completely hold Survey No. 533/1...
Lakshman Balaraman Vs. Punjab National Bank, Mount Road Branch
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ481
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by third respondent in Transferred Application No. 100 of 1996, on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madras. Respondent herein filed C.S.No. 852 of 1989, on the Original Side of this Court. When the recovery of debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 came into force, the suit was transferred before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and was numbered as Transferred Application No. 100 of 1996.2. Respondent filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of more than Rs. 21 lakhs and interest at quarterly rests, and for consequential reliefs. From the body of the plaint, it could be seen that the first defendant company availed financial assistance in the nature of term loan and cash credit facilities, as per application dated 19.11.1985. The same was sanctioned by respondent as per sanction letter dated 30.12.1985. As security for the loan, machineries were hypothecated, comp...
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Employees, Union Rep. by Its Gen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC126; (1999)ILLJ1112Mad; (1999)IMLJ150
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. These writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 18.9.1998 made by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.7085, 7086, 11394 and 11395 of 1998. Writ Petition Nos. 7085 and 7086 of 1998 were filed by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Employees Union, and Writ Petition Nos.11394 and 11395 of 1998 were filed by the concerned 'protected workmen', challenging the orders of transfer. Since the learned single Judge has given sufficient details leading to the filing of the writ petitions, we do not think it necessary to state the facts in detail again. 3. In the writ petitions, it was pleaded that the 'protected workmen', coming within the meaning of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') could not be transferred in view of the decision taken on 9.5.1989 on various demands, in the meeting held between the Management and the employees union. The respondents-corporation, in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »