Chennai Court March 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.
K.R. Chinnathambi Gounder Vs. Bhanumathy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ49
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The petitioner is the second defendant.2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No. 846 of 1990 against the Commissioner, Mugaiyur Panchayat Union as first defendant and the President, Kottamarudhur Panchayat Board as second defendant, the petitioner herein, praying for declaration and permanent injunction. When the matter was posted for filing of written statement on 26.2.1992, the petitioner was not present in the court when called and hence, he was set ex parte. Then, the suit was proceeded in respect of the first defendant alone. On 14.8.1997 the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No. 618 of 1997 for setting aside the ex parte order.3. The trial court heard both the parties. By the order dated 18.9.1997, the lower court on consideration of the petition and the counter and submissions made by the respective counsel, dismissed the said petition, as there is no merit. Aggrieved over this impugned order, the petitioner has filed this revision before thi...
Union of India, Rep. by the Director of Supplies Disposals, Government ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC137
ORDER1. The revision petitioner herein was the first defendant in OS No.2494 of 1985 on the file of the IX Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras. The first respondent herein was the plaintiff and the second respondent herein was the second defendant in that suit. In this order the parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to in the same rank in which they are described in the plaint. It appears that the plaintiff and the first defendant were parties to a contract. It also appears that there had been a breach of the terms of the said contract. Therefore the dispute was referred to an arbitrator, who was the second defendant in that suit. The arbitrator went into the matter and passed an award on 22.2.1985. Thereafter the plaintiff filed the present suit before the lower court and the reliefs which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this case and contained therein are extracted hereunder:'(a) direct the sole Arbitrator, the 2nd respondent herein, to file the Award publishe...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Amirthammal (Legal Heir of Late S.A. Su ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR261(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The common question involved for consideration under reference in all these actions for the opinion of this court is reflected as below :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the asset transferred by the assessee to his wife was includible in the net wealth of the assessee under Section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'2. The assessments in question are relatable to the five assessment years, namely, 1970-71 to 1974-75.3. The assessee is an individual. He executed a settlement deed dated November 12, 1959, in and by which, he created a life interest in respect of certain agricultural lands in favour of his wife, Sivakami Animal, and the vested remainder in the said lands in favour of his brother-in-law's son, by name Velayutham. The settlement was acted upon, in the sense of the life estate-holder, namely, his wife, enjoying the income from the said agricultural lands.4. It appears that there was a difference of opinion betw...
Sivaji M.V. Vs. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ185Mad
Manmohan Singh Liberhan, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, allowing the writ petition and upholding the dismissal of the employee as valid.2. The appellant M.S. Siyaji was employed as typewriter mechanic to discharge the duties of visiting the customers and servicing the typewriters, which were purchased by them from the first respondent-company and were under contract of service. The employee was charge sheeted on May 4, 1984 for claiming travelling allowance and lunch allowance without visiting the customers and servicing their typewriters, i.e., Madras Race Club on April 2, 1984, Central Bank of India on March 14, 1984 and Dominic Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School on March 29, 1984. The employee furthe customers' signatures on the service cards to authenticate his visits to the customers, which he never did. Finding the explanation of the employee unsatisfactory, an enquiry was ordered for the above referred misconduct on May 14, 1984. ...
C.B.E. and C. Vs. Prasad Film Laboratories
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(114)ELT21(Mad)
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above writ appeal has been filed against the Order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 27-8-1993 in W.P. No. 12490 of 1987 : 1995ECR26(Madras) , whereunder the learned Single Judge was pleased to quash the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Special Bench-D, in Appeal No. E-1442/81-D - Order No. 168/1987-D and restored the order of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi.2. The short and relevant facts are that the first respondent/writ petitioner has produced a feature film under the title 'Adavi Manushulu' in Telegu and that thereafter 'Purana Purush' in Hindi, 'Kattu Manidhan' in Tamil and 'Silayugathil Sundarigal' in Malayalam were made based on the original Telegu film 'Adavi Manushulu'. From the order of the Tribunal below, it could be seen, while extracting paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Order of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, as to what transpired in the preparation and making of the film...
Ponnuswamy Vs. V. Santhammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ332
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S.No. 1203 of 1979, on the file of III Additional Subordinate Judge's court, Coimbatore, is the appellant.2. The respondents, who are plaintiffs in the suit sought for the following reliefs against the defendant :(a) for recovery of Rs. 21,050 with subsequent interest till date of payment to be deposited by the defendant within a date to be fixed by court;(b) Ordering the sale of the properties mentioned in the schedule and adjust the sale proceeds towards the amount due to the plaintiffs;(c) in case the sale proceeds are not sufficient to discharge the decree amount, granting a personal decree against the defendant,(d) directing the defendant to pay the costs of the suit; and(e) for such further and other reliefs as this Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.In the body of the plaint it is stated that on 29.5.1975, the defendant executed a promissory note for Rs. 15,000 in favour of one Kandaswami, the husband of 1st plai...
P. Soundarajan and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ485
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. All these writ petitions are on the same facts, i.e., they want to declare that P.K. Kanagarajan, is disqualified to stand for election for the reasons stated in the various writ petitions and consequently they want to hold fresh election to the Board of Directors of Section 44, Panamarathupatti Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Limited, Panamarathupatti, Salem. I need only extract the averments in W.P.No. 7195 of 1997, wherein the relief sought for is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.(1D) No. 78, dated 6.2.1997, and quash the same and direct the respondents to hold fresh election to Board of Directors in the 5th respondent society.2. In the affidavit filed in support of that writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is a member of Panamarathupatti Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd. It is his case that under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (in short...
Madras Fertilizers Ambedkar Employees' Union, rep. by Its General Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ650
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J,1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings No.3/98 P & A Bulletin, dated 12.1.1998, and quash the same as ultra vires, arbitrary, unreasonable, against the constitutional rights and guarantees and the rules and regulations and norms laid down in regulating the Trade Unions in maintaining the peaceful Industrial atmosphere and thereby direct the respondent/Management to recognise the petitioner-Union in accordance with rules and procedure with all permissible privileges, immunities and rights of Trade Union.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner is the General Secretary of the petitioner-Union, which is a registered trade union under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926. It is said that Madras Fertilizers Limited (in short 'MFL') is functioning at Manali for about 30 years, and its commercial production started in 1971. There was only o...
Periyammal Vs. Valarmathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ634
S.S. Subramani, J.1. I will first deal with the Second Appeal.2. Plaintiff in O.S.No.677 of 1989 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Perambalur, is the appellant in the Second Appeal. She filed the suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent (defendant) from starting any rice mill or flour mill. According to her, installation of such a mill will cause grave nuisance and also affect her health. It is said that she is residing in Ward No. 1, House No. 103-C, in Vadakkalur Village, Perambalur Taluk, and the defendant is making arrangements to install a flour mill with 25 H.P. within a distance of 25 feet. According to her, if it is allowed, she will be put to serious hardship.3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, the above allegations were denied. She only said that due to personal animosity, plaintiff has filed the suit. She has also said that the plaintiff is not residing in the address mentioned in the plaint, and the rice mill is proposed t...
Sooriyamurthy and Three ors. Vs. Chinnaswamy (Died) and Seven ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ638
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendants in O.S.No.361 of 1980, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Thiruthuraipundi, are the appellants.2. Parties herein will be referred to according to their rank in the suit.3. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their possessory right and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment. The subject matter of the suit is acre 16 cents of land in R.S.No.52/4, which is a poromboke land. It is originally a tank area used as seed bed for raising seedlings and the fishery income was realised by Kottur Srinivasa Mudaliar family and subsequently by Vasudeva Iyer and others, and thirdly by one M. Sheik Mohammed and Syed Mohammed. Plaintiffs purchased the right on 4.10.1979 orally from the said M. Sheik Mohammed and Syed Mohammed. They are in possession. They are paying kist in the name of their vendor and separate receipts are being issued. Even though the oral sale was in favour of four plain...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »