Chennai Court November 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Vishanji D. Futnani Vs. Mohanlal Futnani Alias Mohanlal D. Futnani and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ228
C. Shivappa, J.1. This appeal is against the order, dated 29.10.1998 passed on Application No. 3338 of 1998 in T.O.S.No. 19 of 1984.2. The appellant herein filed an application for appointment of a Commissioner to examine the defendant in T.O.S.No. 19 of 1984, on the ground that he is aged about 70 years, suffering from Cardiac ailment including diabetes, since November, 1995. According to the appellant, he is under treatment and care of physicians, including Dr. Bhaskar Das, who advised not to undergo long journey or be engaged in strenuous activities. In support of his contention, the appellant produced the copies of the report for the test conducted by Dr. Baradhan, Head of the Department, Cardiology at the woodlands Hospital and Medical Research Centre Ltd., Calcutta. In order to establish the seriousness of the illness, he wanted to examine Dr. Baskar Dass, who had issued the certificate dated 31.7.1998. Though he was brought to court when the matter was taken up for argument, the...
G. Ravi Vs. G. Vijayashree
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC144
ORDER1. Petitioner herein filed O.P.No. 1367 of 1995, on the file of Family Court at Chennai, for getting divorce.2. An order was passed granting divorce as per Order dated 26.3.1996. Long thereafter, i.e., on 4.9.1996, the wife filed I.A. 744 of 1996 for condonation of delay in filing an application to set aside the decree of divorce. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.744 of 1996, she alleged that no notice or summons by any means was served on her in respect of the case, nor on any of her family members. According to her, she came to know about the case only on 29.6.1996 only through her husband's relative (see para 7 of the affidavit).3. The same was seriously opposed by the petitioner who also filed his counter. Finally, when the matter came for enquiry on 10.6.1998, petitionerherein was not present, and the Family Court passed an order condoning the delay. The same is challenged in this Revision under Art.227 of theConstitution of India.4. At the time when the matter came f...
Employees State Insurance Corporation by Its Regional Director Vs. Mou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC105; (2000)ILLJ1415Mad
ORDER1. The Employees State Insurance Corporation has filed this appeal as against the order dated 6.3.1990 passed by the E.S.I. Court, Madras in E.S.I.O.P. No. 18 of 1985. 2. The appellant-Corporation demanded contribution from the respondent in respect of the following heads: 1. Contribution on incentive bonus:1.7.1976 to 30.6.1977 4,589.111.7.1977 to 31.3.1979 6,437.492. Contribution on sales representatives:Upto 30.11.1977 9,415.09Upto 31.3.1979 27,463.723. Contribution on security staff:1.7.1976 to 31.3.1977 1,338.13 803.704. Interest on above items:Upto 31.12.1981 9,614.283. The respondent denied its liability and filed an application under section 75(1) of the E.S.I. Act, before the E.S.I. Court in E.S.I.O.P. No. 18 of 1985. The appellant's Corporation resisted the same. The E.S.I. Court, after having taken into consideration of all the aspects of the case and the materials placed before it, came to the conclusion that the respondent is not liable to pay contribution in respect ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (P.) Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR870(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The short question is as to whether the provision made for gratuity in accordance with Section 40A(7)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is allowable only in the first year relevant to the assessment year in which the liability for gratuity was incurred after the amendment to the Gratuity Act came into force on September 16, 1972.2. The assessee carries on business in tiles and potteries. Its first accounting year, after the amendment of the Gratuity Act came into force, was the year ended on June 30, 1973, being the previous year relating to the assessment year 1974-75. In that year no provision was made in its accounts for gratuity payable to its employees on their retirement or termination. In the accounting year ended June 30, 1974, relating' to the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee made a provision in its accounts for Rs. 1,06,889 towards gratuity. That figure was arrived at by actuarial valuation as on June 30, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax (investigation) Vs. Jeevandas Laljee and So ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR719(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee had claimed by way of deduction a sum of Rs. 11,838 as the cost of gifts made on the occasion of the marriage of the daughter of the chairman of the company with which he was having business relationship, and cost of personal gifts on festive occasions to others. The claim was sought to be justified on the ground of commercial exigency having been incurred for the purpose of the business. The asses-see was, at the relevant time carrying on business as distributors of the products of Imperial Chemicals Industries, later known as Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited as also of other companies. The value of the presents given was claimed as a deduction for the assessment year 1980-81.2. The claim so made was rejected by the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner, but has been allowed by the Tribunal.3. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the gift made on the occasion of the marriage in the family of the chairman of the company, is a gift of...
Suresh Vs. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ968
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Aggrieved over the inadequacy of sentence imposed upon the respondent/accused sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo S. I. for 3 months, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner/complainant has filed this Revision invoking Sections 397 and 401 Cr. PC.2. Suresh, the petitioner herein/complainant, on non-payment of a cheque amount of Rs. 25,000/- by the accused, despite the issue of statutory notice, filed a private complaint in C.C. No. 57/96 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur. The trial Court on consideration of the materials produced by P.Ws. 1 and 2 through whom Exs. P1 to P6 were filed on the side of the prosecution and the evidence of D.W. 1 on the side of the defence, convicted the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, in default to undergo S. I. f...
Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ799Mad
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated March 1, 1990, passed by the Employees' Insurance Court in E. S. I. O. P. No. 101 of 1987.2. The respondent herein by its order dated September 10, 1987 passed under Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, called upon the appellant to pay: contribution in respect of the amounts spent on several heads namely, wages paid for garden maintenance, building expenditure (repair and maintenance) from July, 1984 to December, 1984, addition and alteration of building works, building construction, conveyance allowance etc. As against the said order the appellant herein filed an application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act before Employees' Insurance Court in E.S.I.O.P. No. 101 of 1987. That in the said petition, the appellant questioned the amount of contribution demanded on the heads of repair, maintenance, addition or alteration of building during the period from Ju...
Workmen, Rep. by Genl. Secretary Addisons Paints and Chemicals Ltd., A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1583Mad
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the parties.2. Petitioner is the Trade Union. They pray for a writ, directing the respondent-State of Tamil Nadu to appoint Mr. S. Vaidyanathan, Advocate of M/s. Row and Reddy at No. 156, Thambu Chetty Street, Madras-1 as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct C.C. No 10403 of 1995.3 Following are the facts which would be essential to understand the controversy :--Government of Tamil Nadu by its order dated November 7, 1995 sanctioned the prosecution of the Directors and four other officers of Addisons Paints and Chemicals Limited for an offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act for not implementing the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras in I.D. No. 83 of 1984 dated December 29, 1992 relating to Dearness Allowance, House Rent allowance and benefits under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act. Accordingly, the complaint came to be filed before II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Madras and is pending in...
South India Surgical Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(107)ELT13(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of declaration declaring that the denial of the benefit to the petitioner of total exemption from customs duty and additional duty on 'Infusion sets' conferred by Item No. 44 of Headings in the Schedule to Notification No. 208-Cus., dated 22-9-1981 as amended, is unconstitutional, contrary to law and opposed to the interest of the general public and consequently direct the respondent to forthwith allow clearance of the goods namely 'infusion sets' free of customs duty and additional duty in accordance with law.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder :The liberalised policy for April, 1988 - March, 1991 not only placed life-saving drugs and equipments under the Open General Licence category obviating the need for obtaining any import licence with respect thereon, but also the said life-saving drugs and equipments were given by the benefit of total exemption from import duty by statutory Exemption Notificatio...
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Represented by Its Chief Divisional ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ655
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The first respondent in both the second appeals filed the suits in O.S.Nos. 390 of 391 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruthuraipoondi against the appellant and the second respondent for recovery of possession and for damages for use and occupation of the suit properties. Under the registered lease deed dated 24.4.1947 the site was leased out to the then Burmah Shell Company to run their retail outlet. Similarly, with respect to another portion of the land a separate lease arrangement was entered into by the said company on 9.3.1951 by a registered document. According to the plaintiff/first respondent, the period of lease was fixed till 14.3.1977. The appellant/ first defendant had become the successor-in-interest of the said Burmah Shell Company and had duly attorned to the plaintiff the said leases and they have been paying the rent. The plaintiff in the year 1991 requested the appellant to give vacant possession of the property. The appellan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »