Chennai Court February 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.
S. Govindarasu Udayar Vs. Pattu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ218
S. S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S.No. 353 of 1994 on the file of First Additional District Munsif, Court, Pondicherry is the appellant herein.2. Suit filed by predecessor of respondents was one for decree for mandatory injunction against appellant, directing removal of waste materials accumulated in the suit property and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining appellant from using suit property for storing cow dung and for accumulation of night soil in the suit property.3. Parties herein will be referred to according to their rank in the suit.4. Plaintiff and his family members are residing in the suit property from the year 1959 as lessees under Puduvai Saram Sri Muthuvinayaar Nagamuthu Mariamman Devasthanam, after executing lease agreement dated 17.9.1959. In 1959, rent for suit property was fixed as Rs. 3 subsequently, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 9 and at present plaintiff is paying rent at the rate of Rs. 20 per month. As per lease agreement, plaintiff is enjoying su...
Far East Tanning Co., by Its Partner N.M. Sadhathulla Vs. the Superint ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ447
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by a consumer enjoying the electricity connection challenging the order passed dated 23.11.1989. By the impugned order, a financial liability was fixed against the petitioner and the petitioner was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 14,03,060.2. The petitioner-Company deals in leather business since 1971 and claims that it is exporting good quality finished leather. It is the claim of the petitioner that it consumed 3000 to 3500 units of electricity and that there used to be periodical check ups of the meters. The affidavit further suggests that there was a certificate issued in respect of the correctness of the meter on 1.2.1980 by the Divisional Engineer i.e., the second respondent herein. The petitioner then refers to a surprise check made by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Madras, dated 6.9.1980 and claims that the so-called inspection was against all the procedural norms. It is then claimed that the meter was disconnected on ...
T. Mutheeswaran Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC626
ORDER1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of writ calling for the records relating to the proceedings of Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (Housing) Chennai, the first respondent made in Na.Ka.No. 11534/98/E4, dated 23.9.1998 and quash the same and pass such further orders. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed common counter affidavit and respondents 3 and 4 have also filed separate affidavits. But the contentions are same. It is said that the writ petition is filed without any bona fide. Writ petitioner is one among the group who have already had some unlawful intervention with the smooth conduct of election of society and one of the contestants filed W.P.No. 6987 of 1997 alleging irregularities in the elections and the said writ petition is pending. It is said that writ petition itself is filed only with some bad motive and hostility towards 4th respondent. There is no suitable alternative to the post of Sec...
R. Arul Selvan Vs. Secretary to Govt. Transport Dept. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad367
ORDER1. Petitioner is a minor represented by his father and guardian. The affidavit is sworn to by the father.2. Petitioner is the son of an ex-employee of 3rd respondent-Corporation. He was working as a Conductor at Kumbakonam Depot, and he retired from service on 30-6-1998. The Government have established Medical and Engineering College at Erode with an intention to provide professional courses to the children of employees of Transport Corporation and for this purpose contributions were received from each employee. First respondent is the final Authority who controls this aspect. Second respondent is the authority who selects and admits students to the Technical Courses in the Engineering College at Erode, and third respondeht is the authority who has to forward application received from employees' sons/daughters for admission to such Courses. Second respondent notified by his Circular No. 2681/A6/IRT/98 dated 12-11-1998 calling for applications for admission to Engineering College, ...
Gangabai Ammal Vs. S. Kalyanasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ725
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Decree-holder in O.S. No. 14 of 1972 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram is the revision petitioner herein. This revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.2. O.S. No. 14 of 1972 was filed by petitioner for recovery of property scheduled in the plaint. The subject matter of the suit read thus: Kancheepuram town, in Vallal Pachaiyappan Street to the east of the street to the south of the house of Rathina Mudali and others, to the west of Municipal Narasam, to the north of Varadadappa Mudali's house, premises bearing Door No. 34-AB, S. No. 2554 measuring 29' x 125' with all the structures well, tap, electric fittings.3. After obtaining decree, petitioner filed E.P. No. 5 of 1978 for getting delivery of possession. When delivery was ordered, one Munusamy Mudaliar obstructed delivery of possession claiming some right over the property. Obstructor was none other than the father of decree-holder. It was he, who conducted suit on beha...
A. Henry and anr. Vs. St. George Church Through Its Secretary G. Victo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ468
ORDERS. S. Subramani, J.1. Defendants 2 and 3 in Order S.No. 727 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Madurai town are revision petitioners herein. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. These petitioners along with others came to this Court on earlier occasion in C.R.P.No. 2752 of 1998. At that time, these petitioners challenged the ad interim order passed by lower court. I disposed of that revision with certain directions. I directed lower court to decide the question of jurisdiction and thereafter to consider whether plaintiffs are entitled for injunction, if it ultimately found that court has jurisdiction. The ad interim order passed by lower court was also suspended.3. Consequent to my direction, lower court has passed the impugned order. Lower court has held that the court has jurisdiction to decide the case and it is seen from the progress diary that the issue regarding jurisdiction is decided in the main suit itself. Challenging th...
J. Despa Vs. Director, Teachers Education and Research Institute and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad346
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing second respondent to admit petitioner in the Teachers Training Course for the year 1998-99 in the second respondents' Institute and render justice.2. Petitioner is a minor and the writ petition is filed by her natural guardian father.3. Petitioner after completing her plus two examination, applied for teacher training course in the second respondent institute. She has obtained 792 marks out of 1200. It is her case that her father who is the deponent has participated in the agitation to safeguard the interest of Tamil as 'Mozhipor Thiyagi'. But petitioner was not given admission under the category meant for persons who have participated in the agitation to safeguard the interest of Tamil.4. It is the case of petitioner that along with application, an affidavit attested by Judicial Magistrate No. II, Thiruttani was also attached, wherein it was stated tha...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Premier Cotton Mills Ltd. (Now Known as ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR434(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue. The first relates to the assessment year 1979-80 while the second question relates to the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The two questions are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the provisions of Section 40(c)(ii) and not Section 40A(5) should be applied in allowing the deduction in respect of salary, perquisites, etc., made to the managing director ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by holding that the assessee would be entitled to a deduction under Section 80J for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1980-81 ?' 2. So far as the first question is concerned we may straightaway refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Engineering and Commercial Corporati...
Harts Cocoa Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(65)ECC27; 1999(111)ELT22(Mad)
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. By consent of both the counsel, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Madras, dated 4-12-1998. The said order is as follows :'By Stay Order No. 216/95, dated 23-11-1995 the appellant had been directed to pre-deposit Rs. 50,000/- on or before 30th January, 1996 and report compliance on 31-1-1996. The appellants had not complied instead they had been filing Miscellaneous Application time and again, these have been disposed of on number of occasions. The last miscellaneous application disposed of by Miscellaneous Order No. 685/98, dated 2-11-1998. By this order they were given last and final chance to pre-deposit the entire amount as directed by earlier orders under Section 35F of the Act and report compliance today.' 3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal is ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Premier Cotton Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)538
ORDERR. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.:Two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue. The first relates to the asst. yr. 1979-80 while the second question relates to the asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1981-82. The two questions are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the provisions of s. 40(c)(ii) and not s. 40A(5) should be applied in allowing the deduction in respect of salary, perquisites, etc., made to the managing director ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the orders of the CIT(A) by holding that the assessee would be entitled to a deduction under s. 80J for the asst. yrs. 1981-82 and 1980-81 ?2. So far as the first question is concerned we may straightway refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs . Indian Engineering & Commercial Corporation (P) Ltd. : [1993]201ITR723(SC) . It was held by the Supreme Court in tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »