Chennai Court August 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.
Workman, represented by the General Secretary, India Cements Employees ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR858]; (1999)IILLJ1Mad
C. Shivappa, J.1. The appellant Union, represented by its General Secretary, raised a dispute in I.D. No. 16 of 1982, before the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Madras questioning the action of the Management of M/s. India Cements Limited, touching the non-absorption of the services of Shri S. Subramani, T.No. 135, Earth Loader of their Karumparathanur Lime Stone Quarry with effect from August 11, 1978, contending that non-absorption is wholly unjust and illegal. The terms of reference contain the word 'termination' though it relates to non-absorption. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal set aside the order of the management and ordered reinstatement with full back wages from the date of reference, viz., February 27, 1982. The Management/ Respondent No. 1 herein, assailed the order in W.P. No. 8275 of 1985, dated November 6, 1995 before this Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal dated November 6, 1995. That order of th...
The Workman, represented by the General Secretary, India Cements Emplo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ299
C. Shivappa, J.1. The appellant Union, represented by its General Secretary, raised a dispute in I.D. No. 16 of 1982, before the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Madras questioning the action of the Management of M/s. India Cements Limited, touching the non-absorption of the services of Shri. S. Subramani, T. No. 135, Earth Loader of their Karumparathanur Lime Stone Quarry with effect from 11.8.1978, contending that non-absorption is wholly unjust and illegal. The terms of reference contain the word 'termination' though it relates to non-absorption. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal set aside the order of the management and ordered reinstatement with full back wages from the date of reference, viz., 27.2.1982. The Management/ Respondent No. 1 herein, assailed the order in W.P. No. 8275 of 1985, dated 6.11.1995 before this Court. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 6.11.1995. That order of the learned single Judge is ...
Vorion Chemicals and Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Mad)447
ORDERJAGADEESAM, 1:The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order of the first respondent in his proceedings F. No. I/Dec. 1985 dt. 1Ith March, 1988.2. The petitioner purchased the property situated in R.S. No. 12615 (Part) under a registered sale deed dt. 9th Aug., 1985 for a total consideration of Rs. 32,20,000 from one R.V. Sarojini Devi. The vendor obtained the certificate under s. 230A of the IT Act. The property consists of 12 grounds and 494 sq. ft. with a building of 2,200 sq. ft. in the ground floor and 800 sq. ft. in the first floor. The land attracts the purview of the Land Ceiling Act and the petitioner has to meet the proposed land acquisition proceedings arising out of the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act. The vendor is anyway not responsible to clear the proceedings that would arise under the Land Ceiling Act. Keeping all these in mind, the value of the property has been fixed at Rs. 32,20,000 which represents the fair market value.3. The first responden...
Arulmigu Alavandar Charities, Mahabalipuram, Rep. by Its Executive Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC308; (1998)IIIMLJ408
ORDER1. These six transfer petitions have been filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.107 of 1994, the 1st defendant in O.S. No.76 of 1992, the 1st defendant inO.S. No.109 of 1994, the 2nd defendant in O.S. No.159 of 1994, the 4th defendant in O.S. No.161 of 1994, and the 4th defendant in O.S. No.209 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Chengalpet for transfer of the aforesaid suits from the Principal Sub-Court, Chengalpet, to City Civil Court, Madras.2. The affidavit in support of the petitioner for transfer discloses the following facts: In respect of the lands belonging to one Arulmigu Alavandar Charity, Mahabalipuram, eight suits are pending on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Chengalpet. Two suits O.S. No.107 of 1994 and 111 of 1994 were filed by the petitioners herein for declaration of the petitioner's title in respect of the lands belonging to the charity and O.S. Nos.76 of 1992, 109 of 1994, 159 of 1994, 161 of 1994 and 209 of 1994 were filed by the joint patta hold...
Supreme Paper Mills Ltd., Calcutta Vs. Owners and other persons Intere ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC85
ORDER1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of sum of Rs.9,35,267 with 18% interest per annum on the said sum.2. The main averments founds in the plaint are as follows:The plaintiff Supreme Paper Mills Ltd., Calcutta, placed orders for the supply of bleached soft wood sulphite pulp from one M/s. Georgia Pacific International Corporation, U.S.A. for 4,480 bales weighing about 1016 M.T. under four different bills. The consignment was loaded on board the 1st defendant vessel at Bellin Gha, Washington, U.S.A. on 3.8.85 covered by the respective Bills of Lading of the same date. The C.I.F. value of the entire consignment amounted to Rs.42,86,999.44. The Bills of lading on liner terms were issued in the name of the 2nd defendant Charterers of the 1st defendant vessel. After the consignment was loaded on board the 1st defendant vessel and the Bills of Lading issued, the documents were transferred to the plaintiff and the plaintiff became the owner of the Cargo, entitling them to tak...
A. Vaidyanathan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: [2000]101CompCas224(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of declaration declaring Rule 8(2) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957, as unconstitutional and directing the second respondent to grant membership to the petitioner without imposing any unreasonable and arbitrary terms.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder : According to him, he is well qualified with a Bachelor's degree in Engineering and Master's Diploma in Business Management. Because of his master's degree in business management, particularly in finance and marketing, he is interested in the business of trading and securities. He is fully qualified to take up a career in the business of dealing in securities. However, by virtue of certain provisions of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, and the rules made thereunder and by virtue of the bye-laws--articles of association of the stock exchanges, the entry of proficient men into this field of business was effecti...
D. Natarajan and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR552(Mad)
T. Meenakumari, J. 1. These writ petitions are for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in R. P. Nos. 79, 78, 81, 80, 77 and 75 of 1988 and quash the order dated August 5, 1989, confirming the order of the second respondent in G. I. R. Nos. 65-N/HUF/ 1987-88, 65-N/HUF of 1982-85 to 1986-87, 67-K/HUF of 1987-88, 67-K/HUF of 1982-83 to 1983-87, 62-S of 1987-88 and 62-S of 1982-33 to 1986-87, dated February 26, 1988, respectively, not granting the basic exemption of 20 standard acres in respect of the holdings of the petitioners as individuals.2. Since the points involved in the above writ petitions are one and the same, the following common order is passed.3. The case of the petitioners is that they are the members of a Hindu undivided family holding certain extent of agricultural lands belonging to the Hindu undivided family, and applied for composition as contemplated under Section 65 of the Act to the second respondent. The second respondent ...
Shrine Basilica of Our Lady of Health Vailankanni, Vailankanni, Nagai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC327; (1998)IIIMLJ382
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The present Writ Appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 29.12.1997 passed in W.P. No.12846 of 1997 on the file of this court.2. This court ordered notice of motion on 23.2.1998. The respondents have been served and they have entered appearance through their respective counsel.3. Heard Mr.R. Krishnamurthi, Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Patty B. Jaganathan for the first respondent and Mr.K.P.H. Thulasiraman, Special Government Pleader for the second respondent. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the Writ Petition, for convenience.4. The Writ Petitioner filed W.P. No. 12846 of 1997 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent, Executive Officer, Vailankanni Town Panchayat culminating in his office R.C. No.356/97/A2 dated 10.8.1997, quash the same and forbear the first respondent from conducting the auction propose...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.S. Venkataraman and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR377(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is a construction company which also manufactures articles such as steel windows and doors, etc. It claims that the making of reinforced concrete beams and slabs amounts to manufacture of these articles. For the assessment years in question, that is, 1979-80 to 1983-84, it claimed the status of an industrial company for the purpose of deriving the benefit of the lower rate of taxation accorded to industrial companies under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1977. It also claims investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that it was an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture of articles. That claim though negatived by the assessing authority has been upheld by the Tribunal. The Revenue has therefore, come up before this court with this reference. The question referred to us is as to whether the assessee should be treated as an industrial company for the purpose of assessment at a lower rate of tax and also for g...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Soundarya Nursery
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR530(Mad)
R. Jayasimha babu, J.1. The question brought before us by the Revenue is, as to whether the income from sale of plants grown directly in the pots and the sale of seeds, can be treated as agricultural income within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. The finding of the Tribunal is that the plants were not grown in the pots directly, but they are, after several operations carried out in the land, viz., cutting, gootying and inarching for the plants, transplanted in suitable containers, including pots and kept in the green house or in shade, and the trees were grown on the land directly.3. The assessee, during the relevant assessment years, viz., 1978-79 to 1982-83, was carrying on the business of a nursery under the name and style of 'Soundaraya Nursery'. It had extensive farm land of 10 acres in Vengaivasal village on the outskirts of Madras city as well as 41 grounds in Nandanam, Madras, and various types of fruit plants, flower plants, vegetable plants and seedl...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »