Chennai Court December 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tiruchirapalli Co-operative Wholesale S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR277(Mad)
N.K. Jain, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-V, Madras, has stated a case under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), in relation to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82 and 1984-85 and referred the following question of law for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee's claim for bonus is admissible on accrual basis and not on payment basis ?'2. The assessee is a co-operative society. It made up its accounts taking the year ending June 30, as its accounting year and made a provision for bonus payable under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act. The assessee claimed deduction of the provision made towards the bonus, however, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the provision made for the years in question and...
Samy Company Vs. Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ119Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J,1. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent, the Presiding Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, pertaining to the proceedings in Appeal No. ATA 13(61) of 1998, dated March 12, 1999, relating to the petitioner herein and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to reconsider the matter on merits.2. This Court directed counsel for the writ petitioner to serve a copy of the writ petition, supporting affidavit and typed set of papers on Mr. V. Vibhishanan, learned standing counsel, appearing for the respondents. Accordingly, the matter was listed and arguments were advanced by the counsel for either side. With the consent of counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the respondent, the writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal.3. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a registered partnership firm, that the ...
Subramanian M.A. Vs. Deputy General Manager, Staff Section, Canara Ban ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ897Mad; (2000)1MLJ637
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. M.A. Subramanian, the petitioner herein is seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Deputy General Manager, Staff Section, Canara Bank, the first respondent herein in his proceedings No. MDUC-SSO-12574-E37, dated November 30, 1991 confirmed by the General Manager, Personnel Wing, Head Office, Bangalore, the second respondent herein in his order dated April 21, 1992 by calling for the records of the respondents.2. The facts that are required for the disposal of the above writ petition are as follows:'(a) The petitioner is working as an Officer in the Canara Bank, Madurai Circle. From 1981 to 1984 he was working as an Accountant in Madikerai Main Branch of the Canara Bank. During that period he was deputed to Mayamudi and Bekkasodlur Branches. Since the place of working had no boarding and lodging facilities, he was staying at Hotel Nandanavana, Gonikopal which is the nearest town to the place of working.b) After completion of...
Arunagiri, L. Vs. Management of Tirunelveli Central Co-operative Bank ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ321Mad; (2000)1MLJ596
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second respondent pertaining to his order passed in I.D. No. 176 of 1988 dated October 21, 1991 and to quash the same insofar as it denies the award of back wages to the petitioner for the period of his non-employment.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents as well.3. In the affidavit filed in support of thewrit petition, the petitioner would bring out hiscase stating that he was employed as asupervisor of the first respondent Bank fromSeptember 22, 1961; that on October 22, 1975,he got suspended pending enquiry into certaincharges levelled against him; that the charge memo was issued on January 23, 1976 and hesubmitted his explanation on April 3, 1976; thatonly based on these and without any enquiry,he was dismissed from service on July 11,1977. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that as per Clause 13 of ...
A. Karuppanna Pillai Vs. Nallathambi and 4 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC341
ORDER1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant against the order of the learned District Munsif, Turaiyur, rejecting the memo filed by him taking exception to the lower court receiving the powers of Attorney in evidence.2. The suit itself has been filed by the respondents against the petitioner for declaration of title, recovery of possession for accounts from 1981 and for the future mesne profits. Respondents 1 to 3 who are plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the suit and permanent residents of Sri Lanka, purported to appoint the fourth respondent as their Power of Attorney Holder in India. Along with the suit I.A.No.612 of 1988 was filed to permit the fourth respondent to file the suit as power of Attorney Holder. This application was ordered on 19.8.1988. After the trial got over, the respondents filed an application in I.A. No.247 of 1997 to receive the original power of Attorney executed by the second respondent in favour of the fourth respondent contending that the original...
BashruddIn Vs. P. Somasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC723
ORDER1. The landlord is the revision petitioner. He sought the eviction of the respondent/tenant on the grounds of wilful default and own occupation. The ground of wilful default has been found against the landlord by both the authorities and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the landlord is not pressing the same. We are therefore to note the facts necessary for own occupation only. The respondent became a tenant under the petitioner in respect of his house and ground bearing door No.4/25-A, Church Road, Pallavaram, Cantonment, Madras-43 on a monthly rent of Rs.500. The petitioner is having a automobile repair shop at Pallavaram. He has also got a transport service there. He owns some buses plying from Madras to various places in south. The office of this bus service is also at Pallavaram. At the time of filing the petition he was residing in Madras City about 25 kilometres away from the workshop and in a rented house and his landlord also called upon him t...
Arumuga Velar Vs. Arulmigu Kuzhavar Street Mariamman Koil, Through Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC48
ORDER1. First defendant in O.S.No.265 of 1977 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court. Ambasamudram is the revision petitioner.2. Plaintiff herein filed a suit for declaration that the scheduled property belongs to first plaintiff temple and for consequential injunction restraining defendant, and his agents from in any way interfering with his possession and for mandatory injunction.3. Even though suit was filed in 1977, it came for trial only in the year 1984. On 23.1.1984, the suit was dismissed for default on the ground that Plaintiffs' counsel represented that he has no instructions. Within 30 days plaintiff filed I.A.No.771 of 1984 to have the same restored. The application was filed on 20.2.1984. For years together application was not taken up by court below even though an objection was filed by petitioner as early as on 25.7.1985. Eleven years thereafter, since no action was taken on the restoration application, another restoration application was filed as I.A. No.482 of ...
Anugraha Jewellers Ltd. and anr. Vs. K.R.S. Mani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1999
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas501(Mad)
A. Raman, J.1. These appeals are preferred against the order passed by the Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench, Chennai, on September 23, 1998, in Company Petition No. 16 of 1997 (since reported in K.R.S. Mani v. Anugraha Jewellers Ltd. [2000] 100 Comp Cas 665 .2. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 hold 15.5 per cent, shares in Anugraha Jewellers Ltd. They filed the petition under Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging certain acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the company.3. The gist of the case :There has been irregularity in the allotment of shares to the petitioners. Funds from the company have been siphoned off in the form of loans and advances to certain companies. The appointment of the managing director is neither legal nor proper. The petitioners were removed from the board in an irregular manner. There is defalcation of stock. Mainly on the basis of the above allegations, which have been stated above broadly, the application was file...
Velappan S. Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1139Mad
V. Kanagaraj. J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as cashier with effects from the date on which the other sub-staff were promoted on the basis of the interview held on October 26, 1987 and pay the arrears to the petitioner and award costs.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the writ-petitioner would narrate his case stating that he joined the respondent/bank as messenger in June 1970 and he was confirmed in service in January 1978 ; and presently he is working as Daftry in the Nagercoil Branch of the respondent/bank; that in February 1987 the respondent/bank conducted promotional tests for the sub-staff employees for being promoted as record keeer, godown keeper, bill collector and cashier; that he participated in the test and came out successful; that in October 1987, he was called for the interview and in July 1988, the list of candidates selected in the interv...
Alexander Leonard G. Vs. Anglo French Textiles and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1999
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ392Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the enquiry proceedings denying the assistance of an advocate pursuant to charge-sheet No. PTC/A-O/04/ charge/03/99/296, dated October 25, 1999, on the file of the second respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to engage an advocate to appeal for him in the departmental proceedings initiated against him with respect to the said charge-sheet issued by the first respondent.2. This Court directed learned counsel for the petitioner to serve a copy of the writ petition, supporting affidavit and typed set of papers on the standing counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, Mr. K.S. Ahamed, learned counsel appeared for the respondent and also filed his counter. With the consent of counsel for either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal as the only contention that arises for consideration bei...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »