Chennai Court June 1998 Judgments
Kothari (Madras) Ltd. (Kothari Industrial Corpn. Ltd.) Vs. Appellate A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR707]; (1999)ILLJ1299Mad; (1998)IIIMLJ135
Manmohan Singh Liberhan, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an order of the Hon'ble single Judge dated September 14, 1993, whereby it was held that the second respondent is an employee of the appellant under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the order by which the services of the second respondent were terminated as being not required any more as a 'Trainee' is not sustainable.2. The second respondent preferred an appeal against the order of termination of his services. In the appeal, it was found as a fact, on appreciation of the evidence on record, that in fact he was not a Trainee, but an employee as defined under the Act. The termination order was set aside. He was reinstated in service. The appellant impugned the order of the appellate authority through writ petition, which was dismissed; the order of the appellate authority was affirmed, which is under challenge in this appeal.3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently...
Tag this Judgment!Nepc India Ltd., Formerly Nepc Micon Ltd. Vs. Sundaram Finance Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ116
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. All these revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the lower Court in O.P.No. 137 of 1998 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City civil court, Chennai and four miscellaneous petitions are filed along with these revisions.2. The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of these revisions could be summarised thus: The petitioner and the respondent entered into a hire purchase agreement regarding supply of two Wind Turbine Generators on 25.9.1995 after agreeing to the schedule of repayment and also consequence in case of default. Clause 24-A of the hire purchase agreement provided for an arbitration clause which reads thus:All disputes, differences and/or claims, arising out of this hire purchase agreement whether during its subsistence or thereafter shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provision of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be refe...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (Admn.) Department Vs. Sri Andarvillai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ3
Mrs. T. Meena Kumari, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the learning single Judge of this Court, in A.S. No. 280 of 1983, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, whereby the learned single Judge confirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.4.1981 passed in Original Suit No. 59 of 1980 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, who held that the suit temple is a private temple belonging to Chekkala Samudayam and decree the suit, setting aside the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras.2. The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as follows: The first respondent-first plaintiff is a temple in Eraniel Village of Kanyakumari District and the second respondent is the Secretary of the Eraniel Chekkala Samudayam, to whom the first respondent-temple belongs. The residents of the locality around the temple are chekkalas by caste and originally their avocation in life was oil crushing. Oil c...
Tag this Judgment!Caesar Park Hotels and Resorts Inc. Vs. Westinn Hospitality Services L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Mad396; (1998)IIIMLJ172
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. These appeals have been filed by the plaintiff in C.S. No. 141 of 1996, aggrieved by the order dated 29-4-1997 passed by the learned single Judge in O. A. Nos. 163 and 164 of 1996 in the said suit. In this judgment, we will refer to the parties as they are described in the suit for convenience. 2. The plaintiff, Caesar Park Hotels and Resorts Inc., Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., hereinafter referred to as CPHR, filed the said suit seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Westinn Hospitality Services Limited, Madras, hereinafter referred to as 'WHSL', from passing-off its business as that of 'CPHR'by using the name 'Westinn' as part of its corporate name, besides claiming damages and costs. 3. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed O. A. No.163 of 1996 seeking for the grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from passing-off its business by using the expression 'Westinn' or any other expression aurally, phonetically, or otherwise...
Tag this Judgment!Regupathy and ors. Vs. Nakkiran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ318
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The defendants are the appellants herein. The respondents are the plaintiffs. The parties are hereinafter referred to as shown in the cause title of the plaint. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration to declare their title to the suit properties. There are four items of suit properties situate in the village of Velliakkudi, Chidambaram Taluk. The suit properties originally belonged to one Murugesan Pillai. His wife is one Sivakami Ammal. Murugesan Pillai executed a deed of settlement on 21.6.1949 in favour of his wife Sivakami Ammal in respect of the suit items. There is no dispute that the suit properties were subject-matter of settlement and they are shown as A and B schedule in the settlement deed. The settlement deed was executed by Murugesan Pillai for the reason that he had to go outside his village often and he was not able to look after them. It is also stated in the deed of settlement that the parents of the settlee viz., Sivakami Ammal in...
Tag this Judgment!K. Radrtakrishnan Vs. C.V. Manikandan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3583
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. The petitioner herein is the complainant and the respondents herein are the accused in S.T.C. No. 1319 of 1995 on the file of the VII Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.2. The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents under Section 628 of the Indian Companies Act alleging that the respondents/ accused fabricated the documents and made a false statement in Form No. 32 under the Indian Companies Act alleging that the petitioner and his father did not attend the meetings of the Board of Directors held on 12-4-1993, 18-6-1993 and 19-7-1993 after receipt of notices of the meetings. Thereby they ceased to be Directors of the Company.3. This complaint was filed on 24-4-1995. After taking sworn statement from the complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint under Section 628 of the Indian Companies Act in S.T.C. No. 1319 of 1995 and issued processes to the respondents.4. On receipt of process the respondents filed a petition under...
Tag this Judgment!indo-pharma Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ214
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Is the word 'ENERJASE' would deceptively similar to the word 'ENERGEX'? This is the question posed before us.2. The appellant, Indo-Pharma Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., having its office at Ahmedabad, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical medicinal preparations, is the plaintiff. The respondent, Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Ltd., having its office at Chennai, who is also engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical medicinal preparations, is the defendant.3. The appellant filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from infringing plaintiff's registered trademark in respect of infants and invalid foods by use of the offending trade mark 'ENERJASE' or any other trade mark which is deceptively or phonetically similar to the plaintiff's trade mark 'ENERJEX'. In the said suit, it is also requested for grant of a permanent injunction re-straining the respondent from selling or dealing i...
Tag this Judgment!S. Harinivas Chowdry Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR256(Mad)
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Since the subject-matter involved herein and also the parties to the litigation are common, both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties concerned.2. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed these writ petitions seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records in the proceedings in 44-005-PY-0311 dated March 29, 1989, and 44-005-PY-0311 dated April 7, 1989, and to quash the same.3. In support of the writ petitions, the petitioner herein has filed separate affidavits wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file these writ petitions and prayed that his writ petitions may be allowed as prayed for. Though no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, they argued the matter.4. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also that of learned senior counsel appearing for the Department. I hav...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Devi Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR625(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, JJ. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the rigs and compressors mounted on a lorry used for drilling borewells is entitled for special depreciation at 30 per cent.' 2. The assessee is a registered firm. During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee claimed depreciation on rigs, compressors and wagon drills at the rate of 30 per cent. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee and allowed depreciation at the rate of 10 per cent, on the cost of the rigs, etc. Aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Before the Commissioner (Appeals), a specific ground has been raised by...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. (Miss) Sripriya Mahesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR764(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. As to whether tax liability which had been assessed under an order of assessment, but which has been set aside in appeal was not to be regarded as a liability which could be deducted for the purpose of determining the break-up value of the shares of the company in terms of Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, is the question that has been referred to us, at the instance of the Revenue.2. The assessee is a shareholder in Southern Roadways Limited and that company had been assessed to tax in a sum of Rs. 48,15,668. The company's claim that it was not liable under sections 41(2) and 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was rejected by the assessing authority. The claim had been rejected under those provisions by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the compensation received by the company for loss of route permits was assessable to tax. These route permits were lost to the company by reason of the take over by the Government of Tamil Nadu with effect from Januar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »