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.
Chinnasamy Vs. Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC148
ORDER1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned subordinate judge, Tindivanam passed in A.S. No.52 of 1986, dated 4.3.1987, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Gingee, dated 11.12.1985. The plaintiff is the appellant. The parties will hereinafter be referred as per their rank in the trial court for the sake of convenience. The circumstances which has given rise to this second appeal may be stated briefly as follows:- The plaintiff is the correspondent of St. Annammal School, Cuddalore. He instituted the suit in O.S. No.204 of 1984 for recovery of money with interest, on the allegation that on 15.7.1981, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,000 in cash. agreeing to pay interest at 12% per annum and executed a promissory note, Ex.A.1. In spite of several demands, the defendant did not pay any amount. As the defendant is an agriculturist, interest is claimed at 9% per annum. It is also alleged, the defendant is owning mor...
Shanmuga Sundaram Pillai Alias Somasundaram Pillai Vs. National Insura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC346
ORDER1. The judgment-debtor/defendant and the decree holders/plaintiffs in O.S.No.131 of 1982 on the file of the sub- Court, Srivilliputhur are the appellant 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 'defendant'. The plaintiffs filed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs 63,500 with interest representing the loss of goods entrusted to the defendant for carriage. On merits the suit was decreed. Hence the present appeal. Heard Mr.S.Sethuraman, learned counsel appearing for the defendant and Mr. Rosi Naidu learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs.2. The allegation in the plaint are as hereunder:On 27.8.1979 the second plaintiff booked 100 bundles of match boxes with the defendant to be delivered to their consignee at Vijayavada in Andhra Pradesh.The second plaintiff had paid Rs 150 as freight charges and the defendant also issued lorry receipt No.4837, dated 27.8.1979 evid...
Voltas Volkart Employees Union Rep. by Its General Sect. Madras- 18 Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC184; (2000)ILLJ969Mad
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge,in W.P.No.6303 of 1999 dated 30.07.1999.2. The appellant had sought for a writ of declaration declaring that the action of the respondent/management in unilaterally changing the service condition as illegal and contrary to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and consequently, to direct the respondent not to effect any change in service conditions except by means of a settlement or an award or by giving a notice under Section 9A of the Act. According to the petitioner/appellant, the petitioner Union was registered under the Trade union Act, 1926 and the respondent was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, involved in the manufacture of Air-conditioners, Water- Coolers, etc. The company has a service station and a godown at Madras. The company grants 12 days of National and festival holidays apart from one extra day for the year in case of extraordinary situation. This...
Smt. Fancy JaIn Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: [2001]75ITD462(Mad)
ORDERThis appeal by the assessee arises out of the order dated 30-7-1993 of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1988-89. The only dispute, relates to the imposition of penalty under section 273(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is an individual who is regularly assessed to tax from the assessment year 1986-87. There was an assessment for the assessment year 1986-87 for Rs. 22,690 on 14-11-1986 wherein the tax determined was at Rs. 1,173. On 31-8-1987 the assessee filed a return for the assessment year 1987-88 declaring the income at Rs. 66,270.The return of income for assessment year 1987-88 was accepted on 8-3-1988 determining tile income-tax liability at Rs. 15,758 and the assessee had paid advance-tax of Rs. 25,250 and there was a refund of Rs. 9,492 for that year along with interest under section 214 of the Act. In respect of the return filed, there was no self -assessment tax payable in view of the large amount of advance -tax payments. According to ...
Kumaravel A. Vs. Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ783Mad
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The action of the second respondent, viz., Managing Director, TAMIN Limited, Chepauk, Madras dated May 23, 1990 terminating the services of the petitioner herein, the Assistant Manager, I/C, (Cost and Production Control) in Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, with effect from January 1, 1990 which was confirmed by the first respondent, viz., Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited Board of Directors, Chepauk, Madras, by the order dated April 15, 1991 rejecting the appeal filed by him is called in question in this writ petition.2. A. Kumaravel, the petitioner herein, after completion of his M.Sc. in Geology, joined the Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited (TAMIN) as a Project Officer Trainee by the order of the second Respondent dated July 24, 1985. After his training, he became a temporary Project Officer. After he completed his probation period on January 31, 1988, by the proceedings dated November 1, 1988 of the Chairman and Managing Director, it was declared that he had complete...
R.P. Kuppusamy Vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Ad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2431
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. R.P. Kuppusamy, the petitioner herein, is seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, by calling for the records in connection with the order of the first respondent, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Madras, in his proceedings No. D. Dis(Q) 19545/89 (AA.A. No. 28/89), dated 10-10-1991 and the order of the Additional District Magistrate, the second respondent herein, in M.M. 205752/78 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to re-issue the Gun licence to the petitioner, which has been cancelled.2. It is the contention of the petitioner that in order to protect his farms and catties and for self-protection, he applied for a Gun licence and the same was granted by the second respondent on 12-10-1987 for the possession of DBBL Gun, which was valid up to 31-12-1987 and that the said licence was subsequently renewed on 7-4-1988 up to the period 31-12-1988 and that therefore, in order to renew for furt...
Union of India by General Manager Telecom, Trichy and Another Vs. Hema ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC500
ORDER1. This is an application filed by the defendants in O.S. No.73 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court at Tiruchirapalli.2. Suit filed by the plaintiff is for declaration that the Telephone Bills issued by the defendants dated 1.7.1998 and 1.9.1998 are not valid and for consequential injunction.3. Along with the suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No. 104 of 1999 praying for interim relief. After defendants entered appearance through counsel on 29.1.1999 and sought time for filling counter. The matter was adjourned twice and on third occasion, the petitioners were declared ex parte and an order was also passed on 26.2.1999.4. To set aside that order, an application under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 3.3.1999 as I.A.No.440 of 1999. By the impugned order, the lower court dismissed it on the ground that no sufficient cause was made out. The same is challenged in this revision.5. Notice of Motion was ordered and the respondent has entered app...
Natarajan E. Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ800Mad
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. E. Natarajan, the petitioner in this writ petition, is seeking for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, the respondent herein, dismissing the petitioner from service in proceedings No. Admn. A3/31775/91-8 dated February 10, 1992 and the order passed by the Board of Directors confirming the same on May 28, 1992 on appeal by the petitioner and to quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service a Officer giving status and salary on par with the petitioner's immediate junior.2. The relevant facts that are required for the disposal of this writ petition are summarised as follows:'The petitioner was employed as a Typist in the Cuddalore Branch Office of the respondent Corporation. On receipt of a complaint to the effect that the petitioner received bribes, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated....
Chinnathambi and ors. Vs. P.O., Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1999
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR944]; (2000)IIILLJ1105Mad
Cases Referred: State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Pramod Bhartiya and Ors., AIR 1993 SC 286, 1993 (1) SCC 539, 1993-I-LLJ-4; State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. G. Sreenivasa Rao and Ors., 1989 (2) SCC 290, 1989-II-LLJ-14; Harbans Lal and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., 1989 (4) SCC 459, 1989-II-LLJ-466; Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Ors., AIR 1989 SC 1256, 1989(2) SCC 235, 1989-II-LLJ- 578; People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473, 1982 (3) SCC 235, 1982-II-LLJ-454; Mackinon Mackenzie and Company Ltd. v. Audrey D Costa and Anr., AIR 1987 SC 1281, 1987 (2) SCC 469, 1987-I-LLJ-536; Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S. Rajagoplan, AIR 1964 SC 743, 1963-II-LLJ-89; Sahu Minerals Ltd. v. Labour Court, AIR 1975 SC 1745, 1976 (3) SCC 93, 1975-II-LLJ-341; Goverdan Prasad and Ors. v. Indian Oxygen Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 27, 1984 (1) SCC 144, 1984-I-LLJ-26; Municipal Council, Latur v. Shivaji Vaijnath Kamble, 1998-III-LLJ (...
Arulsingamani and Another Vs. S. Vaiguntha Rajan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC12
ORDER1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No.8966 of 1996 on the file of II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai are the revision petitioners herein.2. Suit filed by plaintiffs was one for recovery of damages of Rs.1,00,500 with interest on the allegation that petitioners herein have caused publication defaming them by sending a letter dated 11.5.1992 addressed to Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Madras. Copy of the said letter was sent to Deputy Director of Mines, Tirunelveli who made enquiries with plaintiffs. In para 15 of the plaint plaintiffs have said that 'defendants have published this petition by sending the same to the Secretary, Industries Department, Madras. The same was enquired by the Deputy Director of Mines. Tirunelveli regarding the allegations in the said petition. The plaintiff was shown the copy of the said petition sent by the defendants and the plaintiff had taken a copy of it. The plaintiff had to answer the allegation.'3. Plaintiff has taken a copy of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »