Chennai Court September 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Coimbatore Premier Corporation Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR626(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The omission to seek the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax for a group gratuity scheme, though the scheme adopted by the assessee would have received such approval if it had been sought for, the scheme being one formulated by the Life Insurance Corporation of India which has been adopted by a large number of the assessees, has led to this reference. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal holding that notwithstanding the absence of such approval, the contribution made to the scheme which remains unapproved till today is allowable as an item of expenditure under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessment year is 1976-77. The assessee had adopted the group gratuity scheme formulated by the Life Insurance Corporation of India and it had paid premium to the said Corporation in a sum of Rs. 62,556 during the relevant previous year. The deduction sought for that payment was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 36(1)(v...
Management of Stanmore Estate Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1401Mad
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved against the order of the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1573, Labour, dated July 27, 1988, and the subsequent Government letter No. 47174/C2/88-2, Labour and Employment, dated November 10, 1988, Management of Stanmore Estate has filed W.P. No. 4992 of 1989. The very same petitioner against the consequential order made in I.D. No. 55 of 1984 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, dated January 30, 1992, filed W.P. No. 3026 of 1993. Since the subsequent order of the Tribunal is based on the order of the Government impugned in the earlier writ petition, both may be disposed of by the following common order. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner Stanmore Estate is a coffee plantation in Nagalur Village, Yercaud Taluk, Salem District. The estate comprises about 300 acres under coffee cultivation employing about 100 workers, apart from a few casual labourers. By G.O. Ms. No. 1307, Labour, dated June 15, 1984, the Sta...
K. Pandian Vs. A. Savithiri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ8; I(2000)DMC514
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The order in M.C. No. 31/97 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Melur awarding maintenance to the respondent/wife of Rs. 300/-per month from the date of the application, namely, 23-5-97, is being challenged in this Revision by the petitioner/husband.2. The respondent/wife got married to the petitioner on 12-6-95. Since the respondent was subjected to torture and she was driven out of the matrimonial home, she filed a petition claiming for maintenance from the petitioner/husband.3. The lower Court, after enquiry, concluded that the respondent is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month.4. Mr. Sekaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, mainly argued on the basis of Ex. R-l that already there was an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent for divorce and thereby she was living separately and that in pursuance of the said agreement, the respondent had received Rs. 25,000/- as future maintenance and as such, under Section 125(...
Mookkan Vs. A. Abdul Rasheeth (Decased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ233
ORDER1. The tenant is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 88 of 1985 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif) Madurai, under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that:(i) the revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent for 27 months from November, 1984 to February, 1985, and(ii) the petition premises is bona fide required by the respondent/landlord for additional accommodation for residential purpose.2. The respondent/landlord did not press the alleged ground of wilful default before the learned Rent Controller, and therefore, the grievance of the respondent/landlord as to the additional accommodation alone was considered by the authorities below.3. According to the respondent/landlord, his family consists of himself, his wife, four children, and as the children are growing, the revision ...
S. Muthuraman (Died) and 2 Others Vs. Dhanaradja and 11 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC250; (1999)IMLJ604
ORDER1. Heard.2. The above revision is preferred against the order dated 22.11.1993 in I.A.No.3880 of 1993 in O.S.No.706 of 1991, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry, dismissing the application, seeking amendment in the plaint schedule property, of course, including certain additional items in the suit property in O.S.No.706 of 1997, specifying more details as to the schedule, survey No. and extent. However, the same was rejected by the learned District Munsif on the ground that it creates a fresh cause of action.3. In my considered opinion, there is no substance in rejecting the amendment application by the learned District munsif on the ground that it creates a fresh cause of action, as it will not prevent or take away the right of revision petitioner/applicant to seek independent proceedings with regard to the additional items of the property, in which event, I am satisfied to permit the revision petitioner to amend the schedule mentioned property in order ...
N. Arunachalam and 7 Others Vs. the Avadi Municipality Rep. by Its Exe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC762
ORDER1. By order dated 28.7.1998, the petitioner in W.P.No.10748 of 1998 was directed to give notice to the standing counsel for the respondent and directed the said Writ Petition to be posted in the list on 13.8.1998. Till then, the respondent has been directed to maintain the status quo. Since the respondent has filed the counter affidavit, the matter was taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioners in W.P.No.10749 of 1998, four in number, filed the said Writ Petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondent from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situate at S.F.No.39/3, Paruthipattu village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District except otherwise in accordance with law.3. Admittedly, the petitioners are in occupation of the Government land and they have put up construction. It is the case of the petitioners that the house property constructed by them had been assessed for property tax and they have obtained ...
Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs. A.M.M. Educational Society and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR691(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. As to whether the assessee can claim the benefit of exemption under Sections 10(22) and 10(22A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is the question reference of which is sought by the Revenue. The assessment years are 1982-85 to 1985-86.2. A similar question, in respect of the same assessee, was directed to be referred to this court in T. C. P, Nos. 292 and 293 of 1996 decided on March 4, 1997. That reference was called for after the court had looked into the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Aditanar Educational Institution v. Addl. CIT : [1997]224ITR310(SC) in Civil Appeal No. 2578-80 of 1979 decided on February 5, 1997. The court observed that in the Tribunal's order, there was no finding as to whether the assessee was running the hospital, and that the question as to whether the assessee was financing the hospital or was running it, had necessarily to be decided before applying the decision of the Supreme Court to the facts of the case.3. In respect of ...
N. Bhageerathan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ632
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Mr. N. Bhageerathan, is the petitioner herein challenging the conviction and sentence imposed for the offences under Section 67 of Tamil Nadu Factories Act and Rule 1 Section 14(1) and 15 of Child Labour Act and thereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo 2 months' simple imprisonment in C.C. No. 49 of 1995, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, confirmed in C.A. No. 45 of 1996 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Nagercoil.2. The prosecution case is that on 22-3-1995 at about 2.00 p.m. the complainant/the Assistant Inspector of Factories along with other officials went and inspected the factory by name 'Raghul Cashews', dealing in the process of removing the cashewnuts from the shells and found three children namely Jayanthi, aged about 11 years, Therasamma, aged about 12 years and Punitha, aged about 11 years were working along with the other workers.3. The complainant/P.W. 1 o...
Selvaraj P. Vs. M.D., Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ1186Mad
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in Appeal Suit No. 44 of 1982 confirming that of the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in Original Suit No. 1551 of 1976. The Plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, being a former employee of the Kattabomman Transport Corporation, Nagercoil praying for declaration that the order of dismissal dated Decembers 1, 1974, as confirmed by the Managing Director on October 24, 1975 is unjust, improper, contrary to the rules, Principles of Natural Justice, violative of Constitution of India, and hence invalid, inoperative and illegal and that the plaintiff was deemed to continue in service with all benefits. According to the plaintiff, he entered into service as a Conductor under the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department in 1963 and he was carrying on with his work faithful...
Bhageerathan N. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ840Mad
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Mr.N. Bhageerathan, is the petitioner herein challenging the conviction and sentence imposed for the offences under Section 67 of Tamil Nadu Factories Act and Rule 1 Section 14(1) and 15 of Child Labour Act and thereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo 2 months' simple imprisonment in C.C.No.49 of 1995, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, confirmed in C.A. No.45 of 1996 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Nagercoil.2. The prosecution case is that on March 22, 1995 at about 2.00 p.m. the complainant/the Assistant Inspector of Factories along with other officials went and inspected the factory by name 'Raghul Cashews', dealing in the process of removing the cashewnuts from the shells and found three children namely Jayanthi, aged about 11 years. Therasamma, aged about 12 years and Punitha, aged about 11 years were working along with the other workers.3. The complainant/P.W. 1 o...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »