Chennai Court December 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.
C. Natesan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1382
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. These two petitions are at the instance of the accused in Crime No. 1431 of 1998 on the file of the first respondent police station. In the first petition, there are three respondents namely the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch (R-l); State of Gujarat by Sub-Inspector of Police, Detective Crime Branch, Ahmedabad (R-2) and lastly the Superintendent of Central Prison, Chennai (R-3)' In the second petition, there are six respondents. Besides the respondents in the first case, who are arrayed as Respondents 1,2 and 6 respectively in this case, there are three other respondents namely State of Karnataka by Inspector of Police, Bangalore (R-3); State of Andhra Pradesh by Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Hyderabad (R-4) and State of Maharashtra by Inspector of Police, Crime Branch (R-5). The relief asked for in both the petitions is, identical and it is as follows :This Court may be pleased to direct the (third respondent in the first case and the sixth respondent ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Sridharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1998
Reported in: [2001]249ITR606(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family of which one P. R. Sriramulu Naidu was the karta of the family and the family is comprised of P. R. Sriramulu Naidu and his son, P. R. Sridharan, as coparceners. The assessee owned 170 grounds of land in Chennai which was acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the karta of the joint family received the compensation for the lands acquired during the year ended March 31, 1962, and deposited the same in the bank as under :Rs.24-3-1962 1,47,507.5630-3-1962 2,89,240.00____________4,36,547.56____________2. After deducting a sum of Rs. 6,000, the balance was equally divided between the two coparceners of the family. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 2,15,273 was transferred to P. S. Sridharan as his share from the bank account of the family to Sridharan's bank account. Subsequently, an additional compensation was received in the year 1966 and a sum of Rs. 2,24,017.64 was deposited in the bank account of P. R. Sriramulu Naidu o...
K. Purushothaman Vs. Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-3 a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC453
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore and put back the petitioners bunk shop in the place, from where it was removed on 9.11.1998, viz., on the pavement abutting corporation compound wall, near Nirmala Tea Stall, People Park Road near Old Moore Market, Part Town, Chennai-3 and permit the bunk shop to continue to be in the said place till the respondents remove the other four bunk shops situate nearby.2. The case of he petitioner is that the respondents gave notice directing the petitioner to remove the bunk shop, as the same caused inconvenience to the general public in the use of the platform by them. The petitioner filed O.S.NO. 7264 of 1998 on the file of the 13th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, praying for a declaration that the impugned notice issued by the respondents, was not in accordance with the provisions of law and so in conformity with the rulings of this court. Pending suit, ...
Krishnan and Two Others Vs. Ravindranath
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC657; (1999)3MLJ43
ORDER1. The respondent/landlord filed eviction petition against the petitioners under sections 10(2)(i) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 on the grounds that the tenants had committed wilful default in payment of rent and that requires the premises in 1question for demolition and reconstruction. The learned Rent controller ordered eviction on the ground that the landlord requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction. Aggrieved, the petitioners/tenants filed appeals before the learned Appellate Authority/sub-Judge, Nagerkoil, in R.C.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 1997. Pending the appeals, the landlord filed applications in I.A.Nos.117 and 118 of 1998 to accept the undertaking which has to be given under section 14(2)(b) of the said Act, and they had been ordered by the appellate authority. Aggrieved, the tenants have filed the above revisions. 2. To appreciate the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondent, wi...
Medchl Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Minerals a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1998
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas24(Mad)
A. Raman, J.1. Criminal Original Petition No. 17210 of 1997--The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainants' case is as follows :The first complainant is a Government of India undertaking company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and the second complainant is the regional office of the first complainant. The first accused is also a company, which is represented by the managing director Thiru Chandramouli, who is also the second accused and Thiru Srinivasan, the director is the third accused. Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding dated June 1, 1994, and September 19, 1994, a cheque was issued by the accused for a sum of Rs. 22,10,156 in connection with export of certain items of chemicals through the complainants. The cheque was dated November 10, 1994, and it was drawn on Punjab National Bank, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. The first complainant instructed the ...
innasimuthu and Three Others Vs. Kandasami and Six Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC494
ORDER1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in A.S.No. 41 of 1982 confirming the judgment of the teamed Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in O.S.No. 136 of 1979. Defendants 7 to 10 in the suit are the appellants in the present Second Appeal.2. The suit was filed for partition by metes and bounds of the entire A Schedule property and to put the plaintiff in possession of his l/3rd share and B schedule in equity. According to the plaintiff, B schedule property is part of the whole which is described as A schedule and the entire A schedule property is joint family property belonging to one Chandran Chettiar and his two sons Sundararajan and Sakkatti alias Rajagopalan namely, the third defendant in the suit. There was a suit for partition filed by Chandran Chettiar against his two sons in O.S.No. 34 of 1969 on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai and the present item was item 5 in the sai...
Pandy V. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1998
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ58Mad
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the order, dated February 2, 1990, passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation in W.C.No 112 of 1988.2. The appellant was employed under the respondent. That on December 15, 1984, the appellant sustained injuries in the course of and during the employment under the respondent. The second respondent, establishment was covered under the E.S.I. Act. But, the appellant was not covered as he was drawing Rs. 1,000 at that time and, therefore, the benefits under E.S.I. Act were not available to him. The appellant wrote a letter to the respondent, E.S.I. Corporation on March 20, 1985 apprising of this said fact and requested them to make necessary arrangements to get sickness benefit and disablement benefit and he did not receive any reply. As the accident occurred on December 15, 1984 and on that day, the appellant was not eligible to any of the benefits under the E.S.I. Act, he, preferred his claim before the Commissioner, Work...
Union Bank of India Vs. Muthiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ679
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The tenant, who is the respondent in R.C.O.P.No. 73 of 1977 on the file of Rent Controller/District Munsif, Tirunelveli, is the revision petitioner. The revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.2. The facts are very simple. The landlord filed the rent control petitioner fixation of fair rent. In that proceedings, he wanted the Chairman of the Union Bank of India to be examined. The Union Bank of India is the tenant, who is the revision petitioner herein.3. In his application, landlord only said that it is just and necessary to reopen the case for the purpose of examining one more witness, i. e., The Chairman of Union Bank of India, Bombay on his side to decide the issue rightly.4. The same was seriously opposed by the tenant by filing a counter. It was stated in the counter that the request to examine the Chairman of Union Bank of India as witness on behalf of landlord i.e., opposite party is nothing but abuse of process of court and theref...
Kaliammal Vs. S. Kannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ117
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. An interesting question of law on the scope of Section 14 of the Hind Succession Act, 1956 arises on the facts of the case. The relevant facts are as under: One Kuppuswami Chettiar had two wives and through his first wife he had 3 sons and through his second wife he had three daughters, and his second daughter Kaliammal is the defendant in the suit. She is the appellant in the appeal. His first two daughters had no issues and his third daughter, by name, Sornammal had a daughter by name, Rajalakshmi. The plaintiff, the respondent herein, is the son of the said Rajalakshmi. On 23.8.1926, there was a family partition between Kuppuswami Chettiar and his sons through his first wife and in the partition deed, a limited interest in some of the family properties, was given to his three daughters. The said document is marked as Ex.A-5. At the time of the partition made in the year 1926, his first daughter Palaniammal was aged 10 years, his second daughter Kaliammal, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nehru College of Aeronautics and Applie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1998
Reported in: [2001]250ITR223(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal has held that the non-disclosure of profit made by one partner to the other in sharing the same in the ratio provided for in the partnership deed would not have the effect of changing the constitution of the firm and the firm is entitled to the continuation of registration under Section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We do not find any error in that view of the Tribunal.2. So long as the partnership deed discloses the names of the partners and the shares of the partners are known and the profits of the business are apportioned in accordance with the shares, the firm is entitled to have its registration continued. If the apportionment of the income among the partners is according to the income noted in the books of account, and one of the partners defrauded on the other in misappropriating amounts and not entering the same in the books of account, the firm cannot be deprived of its right to be treated as a registered firm.3. In this case, the gr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »