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.
Chrompet Educational Society Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR788(Mad)
Y. Venkatachalam, J. 1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent, viz., the proceedings dated February 12, 1996, issued in Rules 38 and 52(2) of the Second Schedule of the Income-tax Act and to quash the same and the forbear the respondents from bringing the property belonging to the petitioner-society shown as a school layout No. 44/58 issued by the Joint Director of Town Planning, Government of Madras, in Hasthinapuram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengai-M. G. R. District, to sale. 2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this court to allow the writ petition prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent...
Krishna Ramanujam V. and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ630Mad
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard.W.P. Nos. 2972 and 18687 of 1992 and 963 of 1993 were filed by the workmen who are employed by the fourth respondent-cooperative spinning mill, as workmen in the category of N.M.Rs.2. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 1383, 14403, 14404, 14405 and 20532 of 1994 are filed by the co-operative spinning mill agent.3. For the purpose of convenience, the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 2972 and 18687 of 1992 and 963 of 1993 are referred to as workmen and the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 1383, 14403, 14404, 14405 and 20532 of 1994 are referred to as management-industrial establishment.3. In W.P. Nos. 2972 and 18687 of 1992 and 963 of 1993, the workmen seek a writ of mandamus directing the Inspector of Factories, First Circle, Tallakulam, Madurai, the third respondent herein, to carry out the purposes of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, by passing appropriate orders for conferring permanent status in respect of their em...
Mrs. Krishnamma Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1915
N.K. Jain, J.1. The petitioner, mother of two detenus herein, has filed this petition alleging that her sons viz. Raja Reddy and Narayanan alias Narayana Reddy have been detained in Sub Jail, Tiruvellore illegally and prays to produce them before this Court and set them at liberty.2. It is alleged that the petitioner's son Raja Reddy got married one Malliswari alias Sujata, who left the house on 12-4-1998 on her own, and subsequently, a complaint was lodged with Edurukuppam Police Station, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh state, in Cr. No. 33 of 1998 for an offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and 'women missing'. It is alleged that on 29-4-1998, the Village Administrative Officer of Tiruttani taluk approached the Sub Inspector of Police, Pallipet Police Station and informed about the finding of the half burnt body of a woman in the forest area and the Sub Inspector of Police, after verification registered a case in Cr. No. 216 of 1998 under Section 302, I.P.C. and informed the same to...
N.M. Kadamban Nambudripad and anr. Vs. Director of Survey and Settleme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ614
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. On 21.4.1998, I gave certain directions to respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,00,000 on or before 15.6.1998 for payment to petitioners. Subsequently, on 28.8.1998, I passed further order after deposit was made. Though deposit was made belatedly, I excused the delay.2. In my first order, dated 21.4.1998, I only tentatively fixed the rate of interest. On 28.8.1998, 1 held that petitioners herein are entitled to 15% interest. In paragraph 13 of my order dated 28.8.1998, I said,.in spite of the conduct of the respondent, I feel that interest of justice will be met if 15% interest is paid on the principal amount due to the petitioners. Interest has to be calculated on the basis of instalments as and when it becomes payable. After arriving at the total figure, the amount already deposited by the respondent will have to be adjusted, and the balance will have to be arrived at on that basis. Respondent is directed to pay the balance amount to the petitioner within on...
Sayammal and ors. Vs. Rajammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ195
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1987 made in O.S.No. 271 of 1983 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, thereby partly allowing the suit instituted by the first respondent herein against the appellants and 40 others, for partition of all the suit properties falling under three items and allotting her 1/7th share in the suit properties and putting her in separate possession of such divided share and for costs.2. The plaint averments of the suit as framed by the first respondent herein in the trial court are that the plaintiff's father was one Krishnaswamy Naidu and her mother is the first defendant and defendants 2 to 4 are her brothers and defendants 5 and 6 are her sisters; that the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of her father, who died intestate on 18.9.1966 leaving behind him herself and defendants 1 to 6 as his legal heirs; that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 are in common enjoyment of t...
Balanagammal Vs. Rangaswamy Gounder and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC654
ORDER1. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. 2. The case is brief is as following: The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of mortgage amount. On 29.7.90 the 1st defendant usufructurily mortgaged the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and her husband, the 2nd defendant for Rs. 5000. Till 5.12.81 the 2nd defendant was cultivating the land, thereafter, her father was looking after the mortgaged property. Since there was divorce between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant effected by the Panchayatdars, the 2nd defendant was also assigned his part of creditorship to the property in question in favour of the plaintiff. On 1.8.83 the plaintiff called upon the 1st defendant to pay the mortgageamount. However, he refused to make payment and took possession of the property forcibly. 3. The 1st defendant resisted the suit, stating that he was not a ware of the divorce between the plaintiff and her husband. On 7.2.83 with bona fide impression he made the payment to the husband, whic...
S.Ravirajan Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour,(Appeal), D.M.S. Compoun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC561
ORDER1. The petitioner joined the services of the second respondent on 7.2.1985 as Service Engineer and his initial posting was at Hyderabad. He was transferred to Chennai on 1.9.1985 and according to him, he was working asService Engineer at Chennai. He was also promoted as Deputy Manager with effect from 1.1.1990. According to the petitioner, he was not keeping good health and he applied for leave from 15.12.1989 to 2.1.1990 which was sanctioned and the leave was further extended till 2.3.1990. The petitioner has stated that he was not informed that he was transferred to Chandigarh by an order dated 5.1.1990 and the letter of transfer was not received by him. There was not another letter dated 16.1.1990 and in that letter a reference has been made to the letter dated 5.1.1990 and it was stated that it was cancelled and the petitioner was transferred to Chandigarh with effect from 10.2.1990. In the said letter, he was told that he was eligible for transfer allowance, etc. The petition...
G. Venkateswaran Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: [2001]248ITR735(Mad)
T. Meenakumari, J. 1. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in No. C. No. 1543-(2-A) 1 of 1989-90 CENT-1, dated May 15, 1990, and quash the same and direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner under Section 273A(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an assessee under the Income-tax Act in File No. 47-068-PV-3811 of Central Circle X(1), Madras. The petitioner has filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 70,829 for the assessment year 1985-86. When the assessment proceedings were taken by the Income-tax Officer, the officer held that the gifts received by the petitioner totalling to Rs. 1,27,48,325 cannot be accepted by the Department as there were a number of contradictory statements by the donors. Further, the petitioner has filed a revised return offering the entire gift totalling to Rs. 1,27,48,325 as taxable income. The petitioner had also paid the...
Management of Sri Akilandeswari Mills Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commr. of Labour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ1411Mad
Balasubramanian, J.1. The question that arises in this writ petition is whether for determining the continuous service under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Gratuity Act), weekly holidays and national holidays are to be taken into account to determine whether an employee had actually worked or not under an employer for 240 days in a year.2. The petitioner is a company. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under the Gratuity Act. The third respondent was an employee in the petitioner- company and he retired on superannuation on June 1, 1987. He claimed gratuity under the provisions of the Gratuity Act before the first respondent, the controlling authority on the ground that he had put in 38 years and 10 months as the total period of service. The controlling authority found that the third respondent had put in only 30 years of service and on that basis, he was paid grat...
Ranjitham Ammal Vs. Maragathammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ753
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. Both the above appeal suits, which are connected matters are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 30.10.1984 made in respectively O.S.Nos.69 of 1979 and 412 of 1983 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, thereby dismissing the suit in O.S.No. 69 of 1979 for specific performance, but ordering the defendants therein to return the advance amount of Rs. 16,000 to the plaintiff without interest and decreeing the other suit in O.S.No. 412 of 1983 directing the defendant therein to surrender possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs, which is a suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties.2. So far as the subject matter and the rival parties in both the suits are concerned, they are one and the same. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 69 of 1979 is the defendant in O.S.No. 412 of 1983 and the defendants in O.S.No. 69 of 1979 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 412 of 1983. In fact, the suit in O.S.No. 412 of 1983 had been originally filed in the Court...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »