Chennai Court November 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.
Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Principal Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1999
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR1]; (2000)ILLJ1147Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner viz., Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Limited has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent dated January 19, 1990 made in I.D. No. 55 of 1986 and to quash the same.2. From the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and from the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner what comes to be known is that the petitioner Corporation has filed this writ petition as against the award passed by the Labour Court, Madurai, in reinstating the second respondent herein in service, but without backwages.3. On the part of the petitioners, it would be contended that the second respondent joined duty in the petitioner-Corporation on March 10, 1976 and was holding the post of Fitter-Ill, that he was in the habit of absenting himself from the duties often and again thus causing great difficulties and inconvenience to the department; that several disciplinary proceedings were initia...
A.R. Rajasakaran Vs. I.C.D. Triplicane Branch, 55 Big St., Madras 5 an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC277
ORDER1. The petitioner is the fourth respondent in T.A.No.600 of 1997 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. The first respondent/Bank filed a suit on 26.4.1996 in O.S.No.406 of 1996 which where numbered as T.A.No.600 of 1997 for recovery of sum of Rs.63,80,032 with further interest at 24.75% perannum with quarterly rest. The principal amount borrowed by the petitioner as per the Statement of Account is Rs.34,59,328. The petitioner moved the Tribunal for production of certain documents to enable him to file his reply statement. The Tribunal, by an order dated 20.2.1998 in I.A. No.116 of 1998 in T.A. No.600 of 1997 allowed the I.A. and directed the respondents therein to produce the records so as to enable the petitioner to file reply statement. Even after getting the papers, the petitioner could not file the reply statement till April 1999 and on subsequent date of hearing. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 6.4.1999, the petitioner/fourth defendant was re...
Southern India Education Trust, Rep. by Its Secretary S.M. KamaluddIn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC711
ORDERJudgment pronounced by K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The following facts would be sufficient for the disposal of the above writappeal. The appellant is an educational trust which is registered under theSocieties Registration Act, owning an extent of 253 grounds and 1162 sq, ft. withland and buildings. The object of the society are interalia, to promote educationof all types and grades, to take steps to disseminate knowledge, scientific,technical, religious and cultural, to secure the welfare of minority muslims, toestablish and maintain schools and colleges and the other educational, charitableand religious institutions etc. In the year 1981, the society was assessed to urbanland tax and a sum of Rs.1,02,396 was levied for each fasli commencing from1971. On appeal filed by the society, the commissioner of Land Reforms, by hisorder dated 26.9.1981, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner anddirected fresh assessment after excluding portions of the land and buildingsoccupied ...
Anna Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ902Mad
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Anna Transport Corporation Limited, Salem, is the petitioner herein.2. Being aggrieved by the award dated July 5, 1991 made in I.D. No. 106 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Coimbatore, the first respondent herein, setting aside the order of dismissal of the second respondent herein, passed by the management and directing the management for reinstatement of the second respondent with continuity of service and backwages. The management, the petitioner herein, has filed this writ petition seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the award stated above and quash the same.3. The short facts which are required for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:'(a) S.P. Manickam, the second respondent herein was employed in the petitioner-Corporation from September 1, 1973 as driver. During his employment as a driver, he was involved in two major accidents in 1975 and 1977 and was imposed substantial...
Ramiah Moopanar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Govt. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC117; (2000)1MLJ385
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for a public purpose, namely, for providing house-sites to house-less Adi-Dravidars, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of S.No. 142/ID to an extent of 0.25.5 Hectares in Peranoor village, Tenkasi Taluk. He came to know that the first respondent sought to acquire the said land for provision of house-sites to Adi-Dravidars and a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 29.9.1992. A notification under section 6 of the Act was published in the gazette dated 18.8.1993. The petitioner was not served with any notice under section 4(1) or under section 6 of the Act. He is a permanent resident of Peranoor. He has got his permanent house at Peranoor and is residing in that house. The petitioner received a communication dated 10.12.1992 stating that notice was not served on th...
V.G. Loganathan Vs. M. Balakrishnan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1999
Reported in: (2000)1MLJ373
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. These revision petitions arise under peculiar circumstances. Petitioner, who is not a co-nominee party in the suit but who is really affected person has filed this revision. He has come to Court with the grievance that he was dispossessed without notice and with the help of Police and with further grievance that lower Court also did not apply its mind in passing various orders in the suit and in various I.As.2. Petitioner herein filed a suit as O.S. 1421 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur against first respondent herein for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining him from interfering with his possession. In the suit he alleged that he is tenant of the premises bearing old Door No. 48, New No. 44, Nethaji Street Ponniammanmedu, Chennai-110 and the same consist of a rice mill and house property. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 5,000/- which was subsequently increased to Rs. 7,000/- per month. According to him, th...
K. Inbasagaran Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1999
Reported in: [2001]247ITR528(Mad)
A. Raman, J.1. The accused is the petitioner herein.2. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, dated April 17, 1998, rendered in C. A. No. 34 of 1997, whereby he confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E. O. II, Egmore, Madras-8, in E.O.C.C. No. 73 of 1995.3. The accused/petitioner is a senior I. A. S. Officer, belonging to the Tamil Nadu cadre. The case was argued by the petitioner himself.4. The facts leading to the case, are as follows :For the assessment year 1991-92, the accused has failed to submit his return of income on or before June 30, 1991. Notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act was issued, requiring him to file the return of income within 30 days from the date of receipt of a notice. The accused, who received the notice, failed to submit the return within the prescribed time. Therefore, the Department issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income...
K. Inba Segaran Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1999
Reported in: [2000]108TAXMAN387(Mad)
ORDER1. The accused is the petitioner herein.2. This revision is directed against the Order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, dated 17-4-1998, rendered in C.A. No. 34 of 1997, whereby he confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.11, Egmore, Madras-8, in EOCC No. 73 of 1995.3. The accused/ petitioner is a senior I.A.S. Officer, belonging to Tamil Nadu Cadre. The case was argued by the petitioner himself.4. The facts leading to the case are as follows:For the assessment year 1991-92, the accused has failed to submit his return of income on or before 30-6-1991. Notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued, requiring him to file return of income within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice. The accused, who received the notice failed to submit the return within the prescribed time. Therefore, the department issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Act. In spite of it, the accused failed ...
Nalluswamy Reddiar Vs. Marammal and 5 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC484; (2000)1MLJ621
ORDER1. Second defendant in O.S.No.73 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Manapparai, who has succeeded before the trial Court and lost before the first appellate Court is the appellant in this second appeal. 2. Heard Mr.M.V.Krishnan, for the appellant and Mr .M.N.Muthukumaran, for Mr.M.N.Padmanabhan, Senior counsel for the respondents 1 to 5. 3. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court: Whether the findings of the lower appellate Court that the appellant-second defendant is not a holder in due course without a specific pleading to that effect could be sustained.4. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial court. 5. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 instituted the suit in O.S.No.73 of 1983 against the defendants 1 and 2 seeking the relief of specific performance of an agreement to sell and for permanent injunction for bearing the defendants from interfering with their possession of the suit propert...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India Owning Sout ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC122
ORDER1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.104 of 1982 on the file of the Sub- Court, Trichy and the defendants therein are the appellants and the respondents respectively in this appeal. In this judgment the parties to the appeal would hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs filed the above suit against the defendants for recovering a sum of Rs.49,688.87 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on account of the damage to the goods entrusted by the second plaintiff to the first defendant at Trichy for an onward journey to New Delhi and delivery by the second defendant. The said suit was dismissed on merits. Hence the present appeal before this Court. Heard Mr.Nageswaran learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants and Mr.Gunaseelan learned counsel appearing for the defendants/respondents. 2. The allegations in the plaint are as follows: 'Pursuant to the order placed by the second plaintiff with M/s.Neyveli Ceramics & Refractories Limited, Vadalur, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »