Chennai Court July 1998 Judgments
Selvaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)165; 1999CriLJ67
T. Jayarama Chouta, J.1. Petitioner, is the friend of Sambar alias Ranganathan, who has been detained as bootlegger under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in pursuance of an order of detention dated 13-11-1997 passed by the second respondent the District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health.2. To meet the few contentions raised by the learned counsel Mr. Sankara Subbu on behalf of the petitioner, we do not deem it necessary to narrate the facts in detail, which led to the passing of the impugned order of detention by the second respondent. It will be sufficient to mention that there were two adverse cases to the credit of the detenu registered in Nellikuppam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(g) and 4(1) (I) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, the period ranging from March, 1997 to August 1997. In both the cases, the detenu was found gu...
Tag this Judgment!Precot Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: [1999]106TAXMAN492(Mad)
ORDER1. Invoking article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein has come forward with the present writ petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Revision Case No. 1411(31) 1986-87/ CBE dated 3-2-1989 on the file of the respondent and to quash the same.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioners herein have filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Whereas on behalf of the respondent, through no counter-affidavit has been filed, they have argued the matter.3. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 1 have perused the contents of the affidavit and all other relevant material documents that are available on record in the form of typed set of papers. 1 have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties d...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. W.S. Insulators of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR348(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee entered into an agreement with a Swiss company for the manufacture of insulators, lightning arresters, coupling capacitors, capacitive voltage transformers and line traps. Under the agreement, know-how was acquired for the manufacture and which has to be provided by the Swiss company, which also granted licence to the assessee to manufacture the products then based on its drawings and market the same in India and in consultation with the Swiss firm also export the products so manufactured. The products were entirely new products. The licensor was to check the equipment which was ordered by the assessee from Switzerland and in other countries in Europe. The licensor also undertook to give advice regarding the suitability of the equipment made in India required for installation in the newly established industry. Advice regarding the lay out and the manufacturing operation was also to be given. The products manufactured by the assessee in the newly est...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. R. Ariff and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR797(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Revenue's contention is that exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, cannot be granted in respect of the share of the partner in a building owned by the firm. The building in this case being a hotel and the assessment years in this case being 1983-84 to 1985-86. The subsidiary contention is that the building in respect of which the exemption can be granted should be a residential building and not a commercial building. The Tribunal has held otherwise.2. The Tribunal has relied on the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jagdish Chandra Grover v. CWT : [1985]156ITR560(MP) and Ravi Mohan v. CWT : [1989]180ITR667(MP) and has held that though the building is a commercial building, the building being a hotel, the exemption sought for can be granted. This court in the case of CWT v. Thavamani : [1999]237ITR152(Mad) after referring' to the earlier decisions of this court and also the decision of the Supreme Court in Tata Engineering ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Krishnan Vs. the Chief Engineer (U and S), Tamil Nadu Water Supply ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ279
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J.1. W.P.No. 9757 of 1989 is filed to call for the records pertaining to the charge memos issued by the second respondent in Roc.No. 69055/88/OP/ 3, Roc.No. 43875/88/OP/3, Roc.No. 49620/88/OP 3 and Roc.No. 123/89/C-2 dated 29.4.1989, 19.5.1989, 19.5.1989 and 21.6.1989 respectively and quash the same by the issue of the writ of certiorari.2. W.P.No. 9758 of 1989 is filed for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in proceedings No. C1/2/28724/ 85 dated 28.6.1985 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to release the petitioner's retirement benefits including his pension.3. The facts arising in both the writ petitions are one and the same. The petitioner was working as the Town Planning and Building Overseer in the Tamil Nadu Municipal Service in the year 1950. On the formation of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (T.W.A.D.) he was absorbed in the services of the said Board. Subsequently, h...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sambandam Vs. the Deputy Registrar (Credit) Co-operative Societies ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ310
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved against the order of the third respondent dated 31.8.1989 the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the said order on various grounds.2. According to the petitioner, he was a President of the second respondent-Society in the year 1980 and continued the same position till April 1988 when the second respondent superseded the Board and appointed a Special Officer. The second respondent Society alleged that during the tenure as a President of the said Society certain irregularities have taken place, consequently an enquiry under Section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Act 53 of 1961 was conducted by the Special Investigation Squard of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies Office. A show-cause notice was issued to him and other members under Section 71 on 11.11.1987. He gave a reply in person in the form of written explanation with 12 documents to substantiate the defence claim. No enquiry report was sent to him either along with the show-cause notice o...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. G.V. Films Limited, 4, Seshadri Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018 V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: [2000]100CompCas257(Mad); 1998(2)CTC518
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by C.Shivappa, J.1. The appellant herein has questioned the order dated 25.3.1997 on Transfer Application No.1140 of 1997 in C.S.No.253 of 1993. The appellant was arrayed as the defendant No.1 in the suit. The respondent No.l has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.51,75,155 together with interest at 24% per annum. The case of respondent No.1 is that the dividend had been paid to the appellant wrongly though the same was due to the respondent No.2 here in. The suit was transferred under Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (herein after referred to as 'The Act' in short) to the Tribunal established under the Act. The section provides for transfer of all the pending cases from the High Courts to the concerned Tribunals. Only those cases are required to be transferred from the Courts where the amount of debt due to be recovered is Rs. 10 lakhs or more. All other cases involving amount of less than Rs.10 lakhs...
Tag this Judgment!Balaraja and Another Vs. Syed Masood Rowther and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC505; (1998)IIIMLJ398
ORDER1. This civil miscellaneous appeal has arisen out of the order dated 19.12.1997 in I.A.No.1199 of 1997 in O.S.No.244 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur, granting an order of injunction against the appellants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property.2. The short facts of the case are as follows: The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the appellants and the second respondent, for specific performance of the sale agreement and to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property and for injunction.3. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, there was an agreement on 4.4.1996 between him and the second respondent herein, for the sale of the schedule mentioned property for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs and an advance of Rs.2,000 was paid on that date. The second respondent attempted to sell the suit property after it was conveyed back to him by the Spices Board. The first respondent c...
Tag this Judgment!Vilvamani Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Pernampet
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC598
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision is directed as against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Vellore in C.A. No. 58 of 1994 dated 30.4.1997 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Vellore in S. G. No. 215 of 1993 dated 30.6.1994, convicting the Revision Petitioner/accused for an offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo RI for 5 years for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C.2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner/accused on 12.12.1991 at about 9.00 P.M. at Netteri village in the house of the petitioner/accused withthe intention of committing the murder of his wife viz., P.W. 1 Lakshmi, pulled his wife Lakshmi into the house and poured kerosene on her and lit fire on her from the chimini light and caused 60% burn injuries to her and thereby the Revision Petitioner/accused committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C.3. On the side of the prosecution 10 witnesses we...
Tag this Judgment!South Arcot District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Empolyees Associat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC143
ORDER1. The petitioner-association has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent-bank to forbear from altering the conditions of service of workmen relating to filling up the post of Manager incharge of taluk administration without following the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner-association entered into several settlements with the second respondent-management. By settlement dated 15.9.1982 signed under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act it was agreed as follows:-It is mutually agreed that a special allowance of Rs.50 per month shall be paid to Field Managers Gr.I who are posted to be incharge of Taluk level administration. Posting of Field Managers Gr.I to be incharge of Taluks will be strictly on seniority basis.Subsequent to the said settlement the petitioner-association raised disputes. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.621 Labour Department dated 7...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »