Chennai Court March 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.
Ramakrishnan B. Vs. Sarasu (Smt.) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ139; [1999(82)FLR910]; (1999)IILLJ770Mad; (1999)IIMLJ391
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the award dated November 22, 1993 made in Workmen's Compensation Case in W.C. No. 159 of 1992 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour/ Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore-12, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 20152 of 1994. Against the order dated September 30, 1994 in I.A. No.9 of 1994 in W.C. No. 159 of 1992 on the file of the same authority, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 20153 of 1994.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder. The respondents 1 to 4 herein, all of a sudden issued a legal notice dated July 1, 1992 contending that the husband of the first respondent and the father of the respondents 2 to 4 by name P. Alagirisamy died on May 20, 1992 in the course of and arising out of his alleged employment with the petitioner as a quarry worker. The petitioner sent a reply notice dated September 1, 1992 repudiating the claim made by the first respondent. Even after the exchange of legal notices, the respon...
Dr. E.V. Kalyani Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1999
Reported in: (2000)67TTJ(Mad)788
ORDERIgnorance of fair market value as estimated by Departmental Valuation officer while valuing immovable propertyCatch Note:While assessments were pending, assessing officer made reference to Departmental Valuation Officer for determining the fair market value of immovable property--Assessing officer assessed value of property by applying the Schedule III/rule 1BB and ignored the value estimated by Departmental Valuation Officer--Commissioner of Wealth Tax observed that wealth-tax orders passed by Wealth Tax Officer were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue because while making valuation of immovable property report of valuation officer was ignored--Not justified--Rule 1BB and Schedule III are mandatory and section 16 A read with rule 20(2) of schedule III do not provide that report will binding on assessing officer.Held:Rule 8 also empowers the assessing officer to determine the value in the manner laid down in rule 20 where he is of the opinion that it is not practi...
S. Govindarasu Udayar Vs. Pattu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad435; (1999)IIMLJ218
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O. S. 353 of1994 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. Muthuvinayagar 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...
Secretary, I.H.F.D. Colony Flat Owners Welfare Association Vs. Presidi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ78Mad; (1999)IIMLJ223
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of all the parties concerned the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dated August 8, 1996 in T.N.S.A. No. 1 of 1995 the petitioner Welfare Association has filed the above writ petition to quash the said order. 3. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner is a Welfare Association of Flat Owners of I.H.F.D. Colony with objects to look after the welfare and common interests of the flat owners/residents. The second respondent herein was a watchman employed by the Association. Since he had left the services of his own and in his place another watchman was appointed by the Association. Second respondent was never in continuous service of the petitioner at any time and his employment was only on interrupted periods and by no stretch of imagination can confer the status of permanent employee. It is a Welfare Association and it will not come within the definit...
Padiyur Sarvodaya Sangh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ290Mad
Sathasivam, J.1. The only question that arises out of all the above writ petitions is whether the artisans engaged by Sarvodaya Sanghs are governed by the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 or not? In the light of the only common issue, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by the following common order. 2. The petitioners, all Sarvodaya Sanghs, have approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to forbear from implementing the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, against the respective petitioner in each case so far as it is concerned with the artisans engaged by them. 3. For the convenience, I shall refer the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 3292 of 1997. It is stated that Sarvodaya Sangh was founded by Mahatma Gandhi with an object to provide job opportunities to the poor and downtrodden people and to improve Khadi and Village Industries. The Central Government ha...
Swaminathan M. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ1578Mad
Subramani, J.1. Both these writ petitions, though filed by different persons, arose under similar circumstances and the relief sought for also similar. Respondents arc also same in both the writ petitions.2. Both petitioners were appointed as temporary Dalayats and as per the impugned orders, their services are terminated. Order of termination is challenged in both these writ petitions on various grounds that it is violative of Article 311(2) of Constitution of India; it is punitive in nature and termination order violates principles of natural justice order is discriminative in the sense that petitioners have been singled out while others similarly situated arc retained in service; no departmental enquiry was conducted and the order violates some of the decisions of this Court.3. Writ petitioner in W.P No. 1380 of 1991 was appointed as per the order of District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri as a temporary dalayat and was posted to act as dalayat in Sub-Court, Krishnagiri. Thereafte...
Periyaswamy Vs. Inspector, Vigilance and Anti-corruption
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2944
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Periyasamy, the appellant herein was employed as a Revenue Inspector in Revenue Department, Vangal Firka, Karur Taluk, Trichy District. The Special Judge at Richy by his judgment dated 28-4-1987 in S.C. No. 2 of 1986 convicted the appellant under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months, for having received a sum of Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification from the Jagannathan of Varapalayam village, Karur Taluk.2. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant filed an appeal before this Court in C.A. No. 268 of 1987. This Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties, by the order dated 24-9-1992 acquitted the appellant in respect of the charges mentioned above, mainly on the ground that the sanction granted for prosecution was invalid.3. On S.L.P. being filed by the State on behalf of the respondent-police, the Apex Court by the o...
Packiyam Ammal and ors. Vs. Pattu Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad383; (1999)IIMLJ404
S.S. Subramani, J. 1. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 308 of 1981, on the file of Sub Court, Vridnachalam, are the appellants herein. 2. One Muthappa Udayar had two sons and a daughter, by name Chinnadurai, Subramania Udayar and Pattu Ammal. Muthappa Udayar died in 1965 leaving behind his widow Pakkiyam Ammal two sons daughter named above. Chinnadurai died in 1968 issueless and unmarried. The suit for partition was filed by the widow of Muthappa Udayar as first plaintiff and the wife of Subbmania Udayar and his children born in that marriage, as plaintiffs 2 to 4. Subramania Udayar is the first defendant and Pattu Ammal, daughter, is the second defendant. First plaintiff claimed half share and second plaintiff claimed 5/24 share in the property, and they wanted all the plaint schedule items to be divided by metes and bounds. In the B Schedule, there are 11 items of immovable properties. It is alleged in the plaint that all the items belong to the joint family of Muthappa Udayar, and after the d...
V.C. Chinnamuniya Gounder Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR473(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee seeks reference of six questions to this court, after the assessee was unsuccessful in obtaining the reference of three of these questions, which he had proposed before the Tribunal. To the extent, the questions raised in these petitions go beyond what had been raised before the Tribunal, it is not open to the assessee to seek reference of such questions.2. The questions, which he had raised before the Tribunal are :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and having due regard to the language of Section 14 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976 (No. 8 of 1976), and the communication of the Commissioner of Income-tax thereon the redone assessments as they stand modified are legally justified and supportable in law 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the seized documents being inchoate documents and pronotes whether they constituted the income of the assessee ? 3. Whether, on the facts a...
M. Kathiresan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3938
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The petitioner/accused in Calendar case No. 220 of 1998 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Madurai has preferred the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the 'proceedings pending against him.2. The case in brief is as follows: on 20-9-1994 a case was registered against the petitioner and 16 others by the respondent for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 427, 354, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(X)(XI) of Scheduled Castes and S.T. Act, 1989 in crime number 241 of 1994. The complaint is false and frivolous. The respondent, viz., the Inspector of Police has no power to investigate the matter as per Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Rules (sic). The rule clearly says that only Deputy Superintendent of Police can inves tigate and file a final report for the offences arising out of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevent...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »