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.
Stephen A. (Deceased) and anr. Vs. Management of B.H.E.L. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1174Mad; (1999)IMLJ197
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:To issue orders, directions or writs in particular a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in I.D.No. 355 of 1985, dated June 27, 1989 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with backwages, continuity of service and all other consequent benefits and award costs.2. Initially the writ petition was filed by one A. Stephan, since he died pending disposal, second petitioner herein is substituted as the legal representative of the deceased first petitioner as per the order of this Court dated September 17, 1998 in W.M.P. No. 4191 of 1994.3. The case of the first petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:He joined the service of the first respondent management, namely, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited on September 19, 1977. On May 14, 1984, he set out for the morning parade in the early hours from Trichy town. The Parade was ...
Salem Stainless Steel Suppliers Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: 1999(106)ELT303(Mad)
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner as well as the respondents are common in both the writ petitions. The petitioner has purchased quantity based advance licence bearing No. 0325984, dated 16-8-1994 from one Amar Enterprises, Bombay. The said licence was issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Bombay for the import of non-magnetic stainless steel sheets/coil made of AISI-304. He also purchased another licence bearing No. PK 0545079, dated 24-1-1995 from M/s. Rajan Overseas Private Ltd., Delhi-26 which was issued by the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi for the import of non-magnetic stainless steel sheets/coil made of AISI-304. Both the licences relate to the policy year 1994-1995. The licences were issued under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Scheme. As per the Import-Export Policy 1992-1997 such licences are transferable on the licencee fulfilling the export obligation and getting necessary endorsement as to transferability from the Licen...
V. Ravindran Vs. the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Ref ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ109
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') -- Trichy agglomeration --held that the petitioner has 2385 sq.mts. of excess vacant land, under Section 9(5) of the Act by its order dated 30.9.1988. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Madras, under Section 33 of the Act. The said appeal also was dismissed by the order dated 18.7.1989, however pointing out that the competent authority, the respondent No. 2 in this writ petition, had wrongly noted the extent as 2450 sq.mts. instead of 2950 sq.metres in respect of S. No. 2456/2, rectified the same. The petitioner has questioned the validity and correctness of the order dated 18.7.1989 passed by the first respondent-appellate authority and has sought for quashing the same by issue of a certiorarified mandamus.3. The facts leading...
A. Stephen (Deceased) and anr. Vs. the Management of Bharat Heavy Elec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ197
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:To issue orders, directions or writs in particular a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in I.D. No. 355 of 1985, dated 27.6.1989 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with backwages, continuity of service and all other consequent benefits and award costs.2. Initially the writ petition was filed by one. A. Stephan. since he died pending disposal, second petitioner herein is substituted as the legal representative of the deceased first petitioner as per the order of this Court dated 17.9.98 in W.M.P. No. 4191 of 1994.3. The case of the first petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:He joined the service of the first respondent management, namely, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited on 19.9.1977. On 14.5.1984, he set out for the morning parade in the early hours from Trichy town. The Parade was scheduled to take pl...
Muthukrishnammal Vs. Anandhalakshmi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ206
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Tenant in R.CO.P. No. 6 of 1993 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Dindigul is the revision petitioner. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.2. Respondent herein filed an eviction petition on the ground that the petitioner/tenant defaulted in payment of rent. In the counter statement, this allegation is denied. But when the matter came up for trial, parties settled the matter and on compromise, orders has been passed. Tenant was given 21 months time to vacate the premises and in case he fails to surrender vacant possession, landlord is allowed to take possession through court. When the tenant did not surrender vacant possession by the end of the term, landlord filed an execution petition in E.P. No. 197 of 1998 for getting possession of the building. An objection was filed in the lower court and the tenant wanted further six months time to surrender possession. Lower court did not allow it and ordered delivery of th...
John and Mani Agencies Vs. the Third Additional Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ217
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner-Management has approached this Court to issue a writ of prohibition forbearing the first respondent to proceed with the petition filed by the second respondent-workman under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D. No. 34 of 1991 on the file of first respondent on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated here-under: The second respondent herein seeks to claim reinstatement with the petitioner company on the allegation that he was denied employment about 5 years back when he reported for duty during September, 1985, by an application under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in his petition dated 5.9.1990 before the conciliation officer, by way of an Industrial Dispute, after a lapse of 5 years from alleged date of non-employment. By order dated 10.12.1990, the Conciliation officer has sent a failure report and consequently, the second respondent has filed I...
Sanchetileasing Company Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Mad)190
ORDERR. Jayasimna Babu, JThe petitioners are purchasers of two different items of properties from a common vendor. They are aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Officer who has declared their purchases as void by his order dated 7-4-1994, which concludes as under :'Considering all the above facts, section 281(1) of the Act, is clearly attracted in respect of the sales effected by the assessee on 6-3-1985, and 15-7-1987. I, therefore, treat the following sales of immovable properties effected by the assessee as 'null and void' under section 281(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961.(I) Property (Residential House) at Old No. 27(New No. 68) Bunder Street, Madras, sold on 6th March, 1985 to M/s Sanchetty Leasing Co. Ltd., as per document No. 222/1985 of the Registrar, North Madras.(II) Property at No. 8 (Old No. 85) Varadha Muthiappan Street, Madras, sold on 16th July, 1987 to Sri. C. Balan as per document No. 827/1987 of the Sub-Registrar Sowcarpet, Madras.'2. The petitioners are the purchasers...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mill Stores (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1998
Reported in: [2002]254ITR789(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is set out in page 2 of the typed set and it reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the entire subject of the assessment is open before the appellate authority and, therefore, the assessment order has not merged with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) even in respect of the matters not agitated in appeal and consequently, the assessment order is no longer amenable to review under Section 263 and accordingly cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 ?'2. The assessment year is 1981-82. The assessment order had been made on February 9, 1984, and the order in appeal on March 23, 1985. That part of the assessment order which was not the subject matter of appeal was revised by the Commissioner by an order dated March 17, 1986. His order was set aside by the Tribunal on...
The Tamil Nadu Electricity, Thanjavur Electricity System, Rep. by Supe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC443; (1999)IIMLJ151
ORDER1. The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff is the owner of Sangam Theatreat Thiruvarur. The electricity service connection No. 220 was given to the Theatre and the permitted work load was only 12.8.Kilo Watt. She has been paying the electricity charges regularly. On 10.12.1983, some of the officials of the Electricity Department came to the Theatre for inspection and obtained some Statement from some person in the Theatre as if the electricity was used to the extent of 22.9. Kilo Watt and the work load was more than the permitted load. The inspector as well as the subsequent accounting is not proper and correct. The plaintiff sent a communication to inspect the Theatre again. But it was not carried out. Further a communication was sent to the plaintiff calling upon her deposit a sum of Rs. 2,985 representing half of the provisional assessment within a period of 15 days failing which the service connecti...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. D. Krishna Murthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR509(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. In these three references the questions involved being interconnected, we have considered it more convenient to dispose of the three references together.2. Tax Cases Nos. 891 of 1994 and 89 of 1994 relate to the assessment made on the Hindu undivided family of which Mr. D. Krishnamurthy is the karta. The assessment years are 1983-84 and 1986-87. Tax Case No. 89 of 1994 relates to the assessment of the same D. Krishnamurthy as individual and the assessment year is 1983-84.3. The Hindu undivided family of the assessee comprises of the said Krishnamurthy, his wife and three minor children and the land belonging to the Hindu undivided family assessee has been leased by Krishnamurthy to put up a residential building thereon, and that building has been assessed as an asset belonging to him as an individual, while the land on which it is constructed has been assessed as an asset of the Hindu undivided family for the purpose of wealth-tax. The Income-tax Officer had sou...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »