Chennai Court October 1999 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.
Akbar Ali and 4 Others Vs. Donian Rodrigo and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC287
ORDER1. These two civil revision petitions are filed by the landlords. The landlords filed two petitions, one in RCOP No.47 of 1982 and another in RCOP. No. 48 of 1982 against the tenants for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The property which is the subject matter of the petition for eviction in RCOP No.47 of 1982 is comprised in Door No.69, Pattamangalam Street, Mayuram Town, measuring 7000 sq. ft. The petition in RCOP. No.48 of 1982 related to 240 sq. ft. comprised in Door No.69-B, Pattamangalam Street, Mayuram Town. In other words, the two properties are part of the same building. 2. The petitioners in RCOP No.47 of 1982 putforward the case for eviction on these following allegations:- The property belongs to the petitioners who are brothers. It had been rented out to the respondent on monthly rental of Rs.525. The building is more than 100 years old. The rear portion has fallen down. The petitioners require the said bu...
S. Kannagi Vs. Director, Teacher Education, Research and Training, Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC421
ORDER1. Petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are candidates for admission to the Diploma in Teachers Training Institutions. Petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of their applications on the ground of non-production of either the nativity certificate or attested copies of the certificates, and hence they seek for quashing of the selection of candidates with less marks and consequently, a direction to select them for the said course. 2. The Government of Tamil Nadu passed an order in G.O.Ms. 243, Education Department dated 28.6.1999 laying down rules for admission to the 28 District Teachers Training Institutes, 8 Government T.T.I.s. and for the separate classes for the Adi Dravidar and Tribal students in the 17 District T.T.I.s. A notification setting out the procedure was published in the leading Tamil dailies on 9.7.99 inviting applications for admission to the schools referred to above. As per this order and the notification, the students are directed to apply to the res...
Vanamamalai V. Vs. Sundaram Textiles Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ702Mad
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner was employed as a doffer in the first respondent/management company. According to him, he has put in a service of nearly 17 years without any blemish and he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1350/-at the time of his dismissal from service. The first respondent company is a Spinning Mill, and in the mill, doffers used to attend the work of doffing and they are expected to work as a group, each group consisting of nearly 5 or 6 doffers. By nature of things, it is necessary that all of them should contribute to the production to achieve the desired result, and in effect, the doffing work is a collective work. The petitioner has stated that one Thirumalainambi, who was also a doffer had not done the work properly and in spite of the petitioner informing him that he should extend his full cooperation, the said Thirumalainambi never bothered to do the work. On April 28, 1987 at about 5. 30 a.m. there was a break for the third shift work. The p...
Management of Shadlow India Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ208Mad
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai holding that the retrenchment of the second respondent herein not to be justifiable on account of the short retrenchment compensation offered, the petitioner-Management has come up before this Court, challenging the award. 2. Admittedly, the second respondent was working under the petitioner-management right since August 31, 1962 in various capacities and ultimately on January 1, 1977 he was working in the post of charge-hand in which post he continued till his retrenchment on May 31, 1984. The second respondent, therefore, raised an industrial dispute in consequence of which a reference was made to the Principal Labour Court at Chennai. The only issue to be decided in the said reference was as to whether the non-employment of the second respondent was justified? In his claim petition, besides the above-mentioned facts, the petitioner had pleaded that he was retrenched along with 50 ...
East India Ceramics and ors. Vs. Labour Officer (Conciliation) and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1392Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. In W.P. No. 18602 of 1998, the petitioner East India Ceramics, prays for the issue of writ of prohibition prohibiting the first respondent from proceeding further with the conciliation proceedings in regard to the charter of demands, dated October 30, 1998, submitted by the second respondent-union.2. In W.P. No. 1603 of 1998, the petitioner Ramakrishna Clay Products prays for the issue of writ of prohibition prohibiting the first respondent from proceeding further with the conciliation proceedings in regard to the charter of demands, dated October 30, 1998, submitted by the second respondent-union.3. In W.P. No. 18604 of 1998, the petitioner Otteri Grogs prays for the issue of writ of prohibition prohibiting the first respondent from proceeding further with the conciliation proceedings in regard to the charter of demands, dated October 30, 1998, submitted by the second respondent-union.4. In W.P. No. 18612 of 1998, the petitioner Pamini Ceramics prays for the issue...
Mahamani Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1201
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges the detention order dated 26-2-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli against Panchu alias Panchanathan under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') The Detaining Authority has given detailed reasons in support of the order. However, we need not go into the said reasons in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted himself to a singular attack of technical nature.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the mandatory provision of Section 3(5) of the Act has been breached in this case inasmuch as the report of the detention order or the approval thereof by the State Government has not reached the Central Government within seven days from the date of detention order or the approval. It is contended in the Counter filed on behalf of the Union of India in paragraph 3 that the report...
M. Bernardsingh Vs. Syndicate Bank, Nagercoil Branch by It's Manager a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC314
ORDER1. The first defendant in O.S.No. 58 of 1992 on the file of the Sub-Court at Nagercoil is the appellant in this appeal. The plaintiff in that suit and defendants 2 to 4 therein are respondent No. 1 and respondents No. 2 to 4 respectively in this appeal. In this judgment the parties to the appeal would hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendants praying for a composite decree for a sum of Rs, 1,51,424.45 together with interest thereon; a preliminary decree for the sale of the hypotheca described in the schedule to the plaint and a personal decree against defendants 1 to 3 in case the entire decree amount is not realised on the sale of the hypotheca. On contest, the learned trail Judge decreed the suit against the 4th defendant. The first defendant is therefore before this court in this appeal. Heard Mr.G. Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant; Mr.N. Srivatsamani, learned counsel ...
N. Govindan Vs. the Chief Personnel Officer, I.C.F. Madras-38 and Anot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC588; (2000)1MLJ389
ORDER1. The above civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.3.1996 made in CMA No. 55 of 1995 by the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, thereby confirming the order dated 3.4.1995made in No. W/W/25 by the Estate Officer, Integral Coach Factory, Madras-600 038.2. The starting point of the dispute is the show cause notice issued by the Office of the Chief Engineer dated 24.11.1994 as per his proceeding in No.W/W/25 under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') contending thereby that the petitioner herein is in unauthorised occupation of the railway quarters bearing No. 248/4 I.C.F. North Colony, Madras- 38, from 1.11.1994 beyond the permitted period of four months from the date of his retirement on 30.6.1994 and thereby calling upon him to show cause on or before 3.12.1994 as to why such an order of eviction should not be made?3. For the said show cause notic...
Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1999
Reported in: 2000(68)ECC251; 1999(115)ELT302(Mad)
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 12.5 lakhs deposited with the second respondent under Section 129E of the Customs Act, and also to release the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 12.5 lakhs.2. This Court ordered notice of motion on 29-4-1998. The respondents have been served and they have also entered appearance through Mr. M.T. Arunan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. On 11-10-1999, when the above writ petition was listed, on behalf of Mr. M.T. Arunan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, a request was made that the matter may be posted for orders on 13-10-1999. Accordingly, the matter is listed today. On behalf of respondents, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit.3. Heard Mr. Habibullah Badsha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. K. Ilias All for the petitioner and Mr. M.T. Arunan, learned Additional Central Govern...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Comp-help Services (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1999
Reported in: (2000)159CTR(Mad)220
ORDERR. JAYASIMHA BABU, J:At the instance of the Revenue the following question of law has been referred to us for consideration :''Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in granting that benefit of section 32A on the ground that the assessee is an industrial company engaged in production or article or things, in spite of specific prohibition under section 32A(1)(a) against deduction in respect of plant and machinery installed in office premises2. The assessment year is 1985-86.3. The assessee is engaged in the business of processing data with computers and the preparation of balance sheets and financial accounts, etc. for its customers. Investment allowance was claimed by the assessee for the computers installed for the purpose of its business. That claim was disallowed by the Income Tax Officer on the ground that a computer is only a processor and no manufacture or production of article or thing is involved when that process is, perf...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »