Chennai Court December 1998 Judgments
A. Raja Vs. Ingnasi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC339; (1999)IIMLJ21
ORDER1. The unsuccessful tenant has preferred the revision aggrieved against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority Madurai in R.C.A.No.127 of 1992.2. The respondent/landlord filed a petition for eviction against the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and also for own useand occupation. The tenant was in arrears from September, 1982. When the landlord intended to sell the building in question, the tenant never allowed him to do so and the demised property is required for his own use and occupation as he has no other building. The tenant, however, resisted the application for eviction and contended that he has paid the rent regularly upto May, 1984 and he had also entered into an agreement of sale with the landlord on June, 1984. Ever since June,1984. there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant and, as such, the present application is not maintainable under law. The request of own use and occupation is also not true. There i...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Gordon Woodroffe and Company Limited, Uk, Rutland House, 44, Maso ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1998
Reported in: [1999]97CompCas582(Mad); 1998(3)CTC589
ORDER1. All these eight appeals arise out of the orders passed by the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi in two company petitions, namely, C.P.No. 45 of 1993 and C.P.No. 16 of 1994, dated 12.5.1998.2. C.M.A.Nos. 1071, 1207, 1208 and 1210 of 1998 are preferred against the order in C.P.No.16 of 1994, while C.M.A.Nos.1072, 1073, 1149 and 1209 are preferred against the order in C.P.No.45 of 1993. The main dispute relates to the affairs of M/s. Gordon Woodroffe & Company Limited (GWL), a sick company now before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) In C.M.A.No.1071 of 1998, M/s. Gordon Woodroffe & Company Limited, U.K. the petitioner in C.P.No.16 of 1994 is the appellant. In C.M.A.No.1207 of 1998, Kishore Rajaram Chhabria, Madan Dwarakdas Chhabria and Rajaram Dwarakdas Chhabria, the respondents 4 to 6 in C.P.No.16 of 1994 are the appellants. In C.M.A.No.1208 of 1998, Tracstar Investments (P) Ltd., the second respondent in C.P.No.16 of 1994 is the appellant....
Tag this Judgment!G.R. Radhakrishnan and Vs. Appropriate Authority
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1998
Reported in: [2001]249ITR690(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the appropriate authority directing the pre-emptive purchase of an immovable property located at Door No. 50, North Usman Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. The property admeasures two grounds and 613 sq. ft. (5,413 sq. ft.). It has a 70 year old building. The ground floor admeasures 1,941 sq. ft. and the first floor admeasures 717 sq. ft. The property was agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs. 1,20,00,000 as per the agreement dated March 7, 1997.2. After the petitioners filed Form No. 37-I, the appropriate authority issued a show-cause notice to them asking them to show cause as to why the property should not be pre-emptively purchased, as according to the authority, though the property is a residential building, it falls in a mixed residential zone as per the proposed master plan of the MMDA and the entire stretch of the front row are classified as commercial and the property would continue to have the same zone of classification...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Shamsudeen Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR266(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This writ petition is for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-II, passed in his proceedings C. No. 1241-11(9) of 1995-96, dated March 15, 1996.2. The writ petitioner is a partnership firm assessed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Division, Madras. The assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1992-93 under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, was completed on March 17, 1995, on a total income of Rs. 29,89,760, and the Assessing Officer noticed during the course of his assessment that the petitioner had repaid two loans in cash, on April 8, 1991, a sum of Rs. 46,690 and on April 15, 1991, another sum of Rs. 50,000. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax was of the view that there was a violation of the provisions of Section 269T of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and levied penalty of Rs. 96,690 under Section 271E of the Income-tax Act, after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be hear...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A. L. Ramanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1998
Reported in: (2000)159CTR(Mad)255
Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, J.:The assessee is an HUF. The Karta of this joint family is Shri A. L. Ramanathan son of Shri L. Alagusundaram Chettiar. On 12-4-1952, there was a partition between Shri Alagusundaram Chettiar and his brother Shri L. Narayanan Chettiar. On 12-9-1955, there was a partition in the joint family of which L. Alagusundaram Chettiar was the Karta and his three sons viz. A. L. Lakshmanan, A. L. Periannan and A. L. Ramanathan were the other coparceners. Dispute arose in the family and an interim agreement was entered into on 19-8-1980, under which the assessee's side was to receive Rs. 8 lakhs and certain lands in Kothagai Village and in return they were required to transfer half of their share holdings in Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. Lakshmi Lines Ltd., and Charlie Engineering Co. Ltd. to the other side subject to full settlement later. On 20-8-1981, the final agreement was drawn up according the oral agreement dated 6-5-1981 under which the assessee's side was to rece...
Tag this Judgment!S. Paramasivam Vs. the Chief Security Officer Railway Protection Force ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ645
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 14.2.1985 the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for quashing the same and also for direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to promote him as Inspector, Railway Protection Force with regard to his due seniority with all attendant benefits.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:According to him he was appointed in the Department as Rakshak. After completion of his initial course training at Training Centre, Kimber, Garden, Tiruchirapalli he was posted to Royapuram, crime prone area of Southern Railway on 1.12.1974. In the year 1976 he was selected through Railway Service commission of the post of Sub-Inspector of Protection Force and the same were communicated to him on 6.3.1976. Among 37 Sub-Inspector of protection Force cadets from Southern Railway, petitioner stood first and his seniority was fixed in the first among 37 S.I.P.F. cadets based on the marks secured i...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sankaralingam Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ87
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 30,9.1988 and of the first respondent dated 16.2,1990, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for quashing the same and for direction directing the respondents to reinstate him into service with back wages and other attendant benefits.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: He joined as cashier in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in the year 1971. After joining, service, he has finished his B.Com., graduation in 1974. On 24.12.1984 he was promoted as Inspector of Assessment. While so, he received an order or suspension from the office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Pulianthope, Madras, dated 18.1.1988 stating that the petitioner has misappropriated the Board's money to tune of Rs. 41,217,50 and an enquiry into grave charges for misconduct was contemplated and he was placed under suspension with effect from 18.1.1988. Five charges have been framed against him and he w...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Amarchand Sowcar (Died) and Others Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Boa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC289
ORDER1. This second appeal is directed as against the Judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kancheepuram on 27.2.1986 in A.S.No.1 of 1984, confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the learned District Munsif at Kancheepuram on 5.5.1983 in O.S.No.807 of 1981. 2. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the present second appeal. 3. The suit is filed for declaration that the demand made by the defendants for Rs.2,500.95 in their letters dated 23.7.81 and 15.8.81 are illegal and ultravires and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting the plaintiff's service connection, No.249. According to the plaintiff he is the owner of the premises No.254-A, Raja Street, Wallajabad and he purchased it from one Deivasigamani Achari by a registered sale deed dated 24.6.1967 and ever since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the property as the owner. The vendor was having an electric service connection in S.C.696, in the said house for ...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Prakash Vs. Smt. Saraswathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC725; (1999)IIMLJ138
ORDER1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by the tenant in RCOP 141 of 1993 on the file of Rent Controller/District Munsif, Poonamalee. An order of eviction was passed and against the same petitioner filed RCA 38 of 1995 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Poonamalee.2. The appeal was posted for hearing on 18.6.1997 and the same was adjourned at the request of petitioner. The advocate Clerk mistook the posting as 14.7.1997 even though it was posted on 30.6.1997. So when the matter was enquired on 14.7.1997, petitioner came to know that on 30.6.1997 itself appeal was dismissed for default since there was no representation. Petitioner moved an application to restore the same under Rule 16(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, though the same is wrongly slated as Rule 12(3) and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. The application was filed in time i.e., on 27.7.1997. 3. The case was thereafter posted to 17.6.1998 on which date ca...
Tag this Judgment!Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1998
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1508Mad
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The writ petition W.P.No. 148 of 1991 is filed by the management and the writ petition W.P.No. 9966 of 1992 is filed by the workman/conductor. Both the writ petitions arise out of the same order passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.D. No. 310 of 1986, dated August 28, 1990, and hence, both the writ petitions are dealt with together and the petitioner in W.P No. 148 of 1991 is hereinafter referred to as the management and the petitioner in W.P. No. 9966 of 1992 is hereinafter referred to as the conductor.2. The workman was a conductor in the management Corporation and on April 12, 1985 he was assigned the duty of conductor of bus on the 22 Kilometre long Coonoor-Kotagiri route, departing at Coonoor bus stand at 6.45. A.M. and arriving at Kotagiri at 7.45 A.M. The bus was checked at about 7.10 A.M. at Sims Park, Coonoor, when the bus was on its way to Kotagiri from Coonoor. It seems that seven persons got down from the bus at that spot and the tickets ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »