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.
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. General Engineering Works a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1998
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ665Mad
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation had filed an appeal aggrieved against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Tiruchirapalli, in C.C. No. 1214 of 1991, dated March 30, 1992.The case in brief is as follows:2. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation filed a complaint against the respondents/accused that they have committed an offence under Section 85(a) punishable under Section 85(i) of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the ESI Act'). The first accused is the company, the second accused is the managing partner of the company and the third accused is the manager. They have collected the contribution amount from the employees working in the company for the period October, 1989 to December, 1989 amounting to Rs. 895.90 and they have not remitted the same in accordance with the rules. P.W. 1, Varadharajan, was then working as ESI Inspector and he inspected the first accused-company on August 30,...
Ramu Ammal and ors. Vs. Nathamuni Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ130
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. The plaintiff are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance.2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows: The suit property belonged to Lakshmi Ammal, wife of Maila Maistry father-in-law of first plain-tiff. She purchased the same from one Chengamma Raja for a sum of Rs. 500 under sale deed dated 12.9.1943. This property was exchanged with Buchi Ammal, another wife of Maila Maistry under registered exchange deed dated 18.11.1948. Since then Buchi Ammal was in possession and enjoyment of the same. She settled the property in favour of her son Sriramulu Maistry, husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 6 and second defendant under settlement deed dated 10.12.1952. Under settlement deed dated 13.8.1958, the husband of first plaintiff and father of defendants 2 to 6 and second defendant gifted the suit property to his parents Buchi Ammal and Maila Maistry who got it in equal moieties. Malia Maistry died in 1969 on which...
Shanmugham and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Represented by Its Spec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ294
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful legal representatives of the 4th defendant viz., defendants 6 to 13 have preferred the second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree in A.S.No. 117 of 1972 on the file of Sub Court, Chidambaram.2. The case in brief is as follows:The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession from the 4th defendant. One Haji Yaqoob Sahib son of Mohamed Ghouse Sahib dedicated the plaint schedule property as Wakf-alal-aulad by a registered wakf deed dated 2.8.1944. Under the document, a family wakf was created and the son Mohamed Musa Sahib and the descendants are entitled to enjoy the income from the suit property as beneficiaries without any power of alienation. The 1st plaintiff is the Mutavalli of the said wakf and the 2nd plaintiff is the State Wakf Board represented by its Secretary. The 2nd plaintiff has filed the suit as co-plaintiff under Section 15(i) of the Wakf Act, 1954. Defendants 1 to 3 got possession of the property under the partition...
General Merchant Association Rep. by Secretary and Treasurer and Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1998
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC565
ORDERJudgement pronounced by E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The above batch of writ Appeals are directed against the common order passed by the Hon'ble single Judge in W.P.Nos. 2475, 3673, 4073, 4074, 6809 of 1997 etc. on 4.8.97. Pending the Writ Appeals, the above writ petitions have been filed and being identical, hence on the orders of the Court, the writ appeals as well as the writ petitions were consolidated and taken up together for final disposal. The appellants/writ petitioners, allottees of shop in the Corporation Fruit Market, Chennai, challenge the impugned action taken by the Corporation of Chennai terminating their licence and calling upon the licencees to vacate and surrender possession of the respective shops in their occupation. As common questions have been raised in all the above matters, it will be sufficient to refer to the facts in one of the writ petitions. It is also to be pointed out that either the petitioner is an individual or an association representing the individual...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Al. Ramanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR494(Mad)
A. Subulakshmy, J.1. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The karta of this joint family is Shri A. L. Ramanathan, son of Shri L. Ala-gusundaram Chettiar. On April 12, 1952, there was a partition between Shri Alagusundaram Chettiar and his brother, Shri L. Narayanan Chettiar. On September 12, 1955, there was a partition in the joint family of which Alagusundaram Chettiar was the karta and his three sons, viz., Al. Laksh-manan, A1. Periannan and Al. Ramanathan, were the other co-parceners. Disputes arose in the family and an interim agreement was entered into on August 19, 1980, under which the assessee's side was to receive Rs. 8lakhs and certain lands in Kothagai Village and in return they were required to transfer half of their shareholding in Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd., Lakshmi Lines Ltd. and Charlie Engineering Co. Ltd., to the other side subject to full settlement later. On August 20, 1981, the final agreement was drawn up recording the oral agreement dated May 6, 1981, u...
R. Varadarajan Vs. Tax Recovery Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1998
Reported in: [2000]109TAXMAN165(Mad)
ORDER1. The writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in TR. Nos. 24 to 30 of 1995-96 and quash the order dated 22-6-1995 and, consequently, direct the Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Madras (the third respondent), to return the documents of the petitioner mentioned in the writ petition.2. The impugned order passed is a certificate issued under section 222 or 223 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, i.e., notice of demand issued under rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Act by the Tax Officer to the petitioner. There is no dispute that there was an assessment made on the petitioner for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1991-92 and after the assessments have been made the demands have been raised. Re-notice under rule 22 of the Second Schedule was issued by the Tax Officer on the ground that the petitioner has not cleared the amounts covered in the notice of demand. As far as the other part of the prayer in the writ petition for a...
H.M. Noordeen Vs. J.M. Sultan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ625
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The very same petitioner came to this Court on an earlier occasion in C.R.P.No. 2765 of 1997, seeking to set aside the order of Scheme Court on 23.9.1997. At that time, 1 did not admit the revision petition on the ground that the, remedy of the petitioner lies only before the civil court by filing a review application. Petitioner is a successful bidder of the auction held on 22.7.1997 which entitles: him to have the entire hundial collection of the Nagore Dargha for the months of September and October, 1997. He bid in the auction for Rs. 29,80,000. He was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 14,77,500 being 50% of the bid amount after deduction a sum of Rs. 25,000 which was already deposited at the time of participating in the bid. For the remaining 50% of the amount, he was asked to furnish necessary security, which was also made. The period of collection is from 1.9.1997 to 31.10.1997. While petitioner was making the collections, third respondent filed I.A.No. 58 o...
Shriram Chits and Investments (P)ltd., T. Nagar Vs. M. Krishnan and Ot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1998
Reported in: AIR2000Mad78; 1999(1)CTC238
ORDERJudgement pronounced by E. Padmanabhan, J.1. In this writ appeal notice of motion was ordered on 24.6.1998. The respondents have entered appearance. With the consent of the counsel appearing for either side the writ appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.2. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 9.7.1997 made in W.P.No.17029 of 1994, filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein. For convenience the parties will be referred as arrayed in the writ petition.3. The writ petitioners in all three in numbers have joined together and filed W.P.No. 17029 of 1994 praying for the issue of certiorarified mandamuscalling for the proceedings of the first respondent in ARC. No.825 of 1991 dated 5.7.1993 and Lr. No. 36627/CL/94-1 dated 7.9.1994 of the third respondent quash the same and forbear the respondents from proceeding further.4. Admittedly, the second respondent in the writ petition is the Foreman and a registered Chit Company. One Sivasubramaniam...
Schwartz Dasan Vs. K.S. Devadoss and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC560
ORDER1. C.R.P.No. 490 of 1998 has been filed against the order of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Madurai in R.C.A.No.4 of 1997 dated 15.10.1997,reversing the order of the Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town in R.C.O.P.No. 411 of 1994 dated 13.9.1996.2. C.R.P.No.491 of 1998 has been filed against the order of the District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, dated 15.10.1997 in R.C.A.No.5 of 1997 reversing the order of the Additional District Munsif of Madurai Town in I.A.No.93 of 1995 in R.C.O.P. No.411 of 1994, dated 13.9.1996.3. An eviction petition R.C.O.P.No.411 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner herein against the first respondent on the ground of wilful default. After the filing of the said petition, as the rents were not paid, the petitioner filed I.A.No. 93 of 1995 Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. An order was passed by the Rent Controller to deposit the arrears of rent in I.A.No.93 of 1995. As the first respondent failed to ...
M/S. Vira Builders Rep. by R.J. Veeraragavan, Sole Proprietor Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Mad173; 1999(1)CTC676
ORDER1. This judgment shall govern Writ Petition Nos. 15787 and 15789 of 1998, since a common controversy is involved in these petitions.2. The following factual scenario will highlight the controversy:- The petitioner is the Proprietor of a building construction firm Sealed tenders were invited by the 4th respondent from contractors for taking several items of works in relation to construction of 112 tenements at Valluvar Kudiyiruppu as also for the development works in Corporation Division No. 107. Amongst the tender conditions, the following tender conditions are relevant:- By the first tender condition, only contractors registered under Class-I with the 1st respondent or any other Government Department Undertakings with monetary limits of Rs. 25 lakhs and above were eligible to participate. Secondly, it was insisted that the tenderer should be an assessee of Income-tax and should also attach the Income-tax Clearance Certificate along with the tender. It was also provided that a Con...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »