Chennai Court July 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.
Baby Finance and Investments P. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Jayashree Srinivasam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ323
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 16.12.1997 made in O.S.SR.No. 11911 of 1996 by the Court of VI Additional Judge, incharge of VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras thereby directing the petitioners to pay the additional court fee on the suit filed by the petitioners herein.2. The petitioners presented their suit before the High Court, Madras, affixing the court-fee as required under the Rules of the High Court, Madras, Original Side, 1956 and the same had been returned for certain compliance. But prior to re-presenting the same, the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act (Act 28 of 1995) got introduced thereby enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court as a result of which the High Court not only transferred all such suits on account of conferment of jurisdiction on the City Civil Court by operation of law but also directed the petitioners to present their suit before the City Civil Court, when th...
Tamil Nadu Anglo Indian Schools Teachers and Staff Assciation Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ424
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Tamil Nadu Anglo Indian Schools Teachers and Staff Association represented by its Secretary. According to the dependent, there are more than 30 Anglo Indian Schools in the State of Tamil Nadu out of which 20 schools are situate in Chennai. St.Patrick's Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School at Adyar, Chennai, is one such Anglo Indian School, having the 7th respondent herein as its Headmaster. It is said that with regard to the administration of Anglo Indian Schools, Government has formed separate Code of Rules and Regulations, and 4th respondent herein is the authority supervising the administration of the Anglo Indian Schools. Any administrative decision will be subject to the final orders of the Director of School Education, 2nd respondent herein. It is said that St.Patrick Anglo Indian School is managed by 6th respondent herein and he is the appointing authority with regard to all categories of posts in the said school. 6t...
Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Represented by Its Manag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ364
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the interim order of the lower court granting interim injunction restraining the petitioner herein from continuing in the service of the respondent.2. The facts necessary for proper disposal of the revision could be summarised thus:Respondent herein joined the petitioner-company limited on 24.1.1981 which is a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking, as Deputy Personnel Manager stating his date of birth as 3.2.1940 and he was promoted thereafter. As per rules governing the company, he has to retire on 28.2.1998, i.e., at the month end of the year when he attains the age of 58 years. A fare-well party was conducted and the respondent also participated and received gifts and mementos. Even before his retirement, he filed a suit on 29.4.1997 as O.S.no. 289 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam, seeking a declaration that his date of birth is 1.9.1940. In that suit, h...
income Tax Officer Vs. Roshni Cold Storage (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1998
Reported in: [1998]106TAXMAN318(Mad)
1. The above criminal appeals have been directed against the judgment dated 9-5-1987 made respectively in E.O.C.C. No. 1374 to 1380 of 1985 and E.O.C.C. No. 1381 and 1382 of 1985 by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, finding the accused therein not guilty of the offences under sections 276-13, and 276-13, read with section 278-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and under sections 120-13, 420, and 511 of the IPC in the case concerned with the C.A. No. 524 of 1987 and under sections 276-B and 276-13, read with section 278-B regarding the case concerned with the C.A. No. 525 of 1987. Since the parties and the nature of the offences are one and the same, both the above appeals have been jointly heard and common judgment is delivered herein.2. The charge, as framed by the Trial Court against the respondents/ accused is that A- 1 company failed to deduct the full amount of income tax at source or having deducted failed to remit TDS from the interest...
Chinna Pillai Ammal and 3 Others Vs. Mannangatti Padayachi and 6 Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC231
ORDER1. The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the trial Court2. The deceased plaintiff is one Pavadai Padayachi. He laid the suit for declaration of his title to the B Schedule property and for recovery of possession of the plaint B Schedule property. The plaint B Schedule property in this suit is an extent of 134 feet into 25 feet in R.S.Nos.17/1 and 17/10 of Ulunthandar Kovil village. It is further stated in the description of the plaint B schedule property that this vacant site measuring 134 feet into 25 feet was shown in the plaint plan in the earlier suit filed between the parties in O.S.No. 164 of 1967 as 'B Schedule Property. The respondents/defendants resisted the suit for declaration of absolute title of the deceased plaintiff to the suit properties and for recovery of possession by stating that the deceased plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the suit properties, and the deceased plaintiff has g...
K. Kishtama Naidu and Four Others Vs. M. Govindan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC139
ORDER1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, declining to permit the proposed Advocate Commissioner to take and deliver a suit document to the Finger Print Bureau for examining and reporting on the disputed thumb impression on the document.2. The trial Court has held that the document cannot be taken out of court. The request by the petitioners was to send the document to the Finger Print Bureau, which is a department of the Government. The petitioners may be directed to file a photostat copy of the disputed document, which may be retained in the record and thereafter the original document can be sent to the Finger Print Bureau under their safe custody either through an official of that department or through an official of the Court. If there is any difficulty in following that mode, the delivery of the document can be effected through an Advocate Commissioner.3. Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed. The trial Court is directed to carry out the terms of th...
Oriental Hotels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR648(Mad)
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India,the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writof certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondentin C. No. 1121(75)III of 1988, and consequently to direct the first respon-dent to grant the order waiving interest for the assessment year 1984-85 to the petitioner.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately requested this court to dismiss the writ petition for want of the merits.3. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the con...
B. Muniappan Vs. District Magistrate and District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ723
N.K. Jain, J. 1. The petitioner/detenu, who has been detained by the order of the first respondent dt. 19-12-1997, labelling him as 'forest offender', under Section 3(2) of the Act 14/82, with a view to preventing him from indulging in an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health.2. The petitioner has raised several grounds in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, but has restricted the ground that only on 27-1-1998 at 5-30 p.m. at Vellore Central Prison, he received a notice stating that the Advisory Board meeting will be held on 28-1 -98 at 12.00 noon at Chennai and due to shortage of time, the petitioner was not able to make proper representation. Learned counsel submits that it is nothing but a mere formality and the matter was decided on 4-2-98, without affording an effective opportunity and it has caused irreparable prejudice. He submits that the detention order is liable to be quashed on this ground, relying the decision in Rajendra Kuma...
V. T. Somasundaram Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1998
Reported in: [1999]70ITD398(Mad)
ORDERAbdul Razack, J.M.The assessee preferred appeals before this Tribunal challenging the reopening action as well as addition of interest income for both the assessment years. The appeals were disposed of by order dated 13-8-1997 confirming the reopening action as well as the addition of Rs. 1,08,600. The addition of Rs. 1,08,000 for each of the assessment years was confirmed by this Tribunal by observing as under in para 4 of the appeal order dated 13-8-1997 :.- ''We have examined the facts of this case as well as the arguments put forth by the rival parties. The question of jurisdiction and on other relevant objections have been properly dealt with and disposed of the Dy. Commissioner. (Appeals) in his orders appealed against. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Lakshmi Narayana Bhadhani v. CIT : [1951]20ITR594(SC) had occasion to deal with a similar case and held that the assessing officer under- such circumstances has validly initiated proceedings for reassessment and it wa...
Navarasam Matriculation Higher Secondary-parents-teachers Association, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC129; (1998)IIIMLJ504
ORDERJudgement pronounced by K.Govindarajan , J.1. The petitioner have filed the above writ petitions as Public Interest Litigation for the benefit of the students who have studied in higher secondary schools located in town panchayats. 2. In WP No.3229 of 1998 the petitioner has challenged the order in G.O.Ms.No.600 Health & Family Welfare (MCA) Department dated 5.12.1997. The same writ petitioner has filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.3230 of 1998 challenging another order issued in G.O.Ms.No.261 Department of Higher Education, dated 12.5.1997 under which the Government directed that 15% of total seats be reserved rural students who have studied both plus one and plus two in higher secondary schools located in village panchayats for a total period of two years and subject to the usual reservation laid down in the Government Order dated 9.5.1995. 3. The petitioners in WP No.4330 of 1998 have challenged the abovesaid two Government Orders and they are seeking a direction to the resp...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »