Chennai Court April 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.K. Subbaraj and ors. Vs. Indirani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC86; (1999)IIMLJ579
A. Subbulakshmy, J. 1. Plaintiffs are the appellants.2. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the heirs of Govindaraj to receive all the benefits that may accure to the legal heirs of Govindaraj. They contend as follows: Second plaintiff is the mother of the deceased Govindaraj and the first plaintiff is his only brother. The said Govindaraj died on 21.7.1982 while he was in Army service. The deceased Govindaraj married the defendant in the year 1964, but he had no issues. There were ill-feelings between Govindaraj and the defendant which resulted in customary divorce before the mediators. As per the directions of the mediators, the deceased Govindaraj paid a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to the defendant and a divorce deed was reduced to writing and signed by Govindaraj and the defendant on 24.7.1978 at the Sub-Registrar's Office, Pandalgudi. The parties to the divorce belong to Kammavar Naicker Community and customary divorce is recognised in their community. After the divorce...
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Vs. Nabeesa and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ1189; (1999)3MLJ70
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation is the appellant.2. The claimants/respondents filed an application seeking for a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 for the death of the husband of the claimant No. 1 due to negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation. Tribunal found that the bus driver was negligent and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,20,000 as against the claim of compensation of Rs. 5,00,000.3. The impugned award is being challenged mainly on the following grounds:(1) For the accident, the deceased alone was responsible, since he consumed alcohol and when he was riding on a cycle, he turned the cycle towards the right side suddenly, with the result the accident occurred for which the driver of the bus belonging to the Corporation was not responsible.(2) The Tribunal, while assessing the annual income of Rs. 21,252 deducted the amount of Rs. 1,252 towards the personal pocket expenses instead of deducting 73rd amount.4. The ab...
V.M. Kanniappa Mudaliar Vs. Pattukottai Alagiri Transport Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC54
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Kanniappa Mudaliar, appellant herein, has filed this appeal, challenging the dismissal of the petition claiming an award of compensation of Rs. 85,000/-.2. On 28.5.1988, the appellant was travelling in Pattukottai Alagiri Transport bus bearing Registration No. TML 3161 from Ammaiyar Kuppam. The bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Due to this, the bus ran without control and dashed against a neem tree on the right side of the road, as a result of which the appellant and other passengers got grievous injuries. Kanniappa Mudaliar, the appellant filed a claim petition on 26.6.1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 85,000/- on various heads.3. The Tribunal, on recording the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the side of the claimant and R.W. 1 on the side of the respondent-Corporation, concluded that the appellant was not entitled to any compensation on the ground that the injuries sustained by the claimant were not established, which were said to have been sustai...
S. Viswanathan and ors. Vs. United Phosphorous Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: [1999]97CompCas922(Mad)
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. This petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 133 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Thiruchirapalli, to quash the above case.2. The respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioners who are the managing director and director of the company called Sovisk Chamline (P.) Limited.3. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused are carrying on business in selling of the complainant products and that on behalf of the company one of the directors issued cheque on December 31, 1994, in favour of the petitioner and that when the cheque was presented in the bank, it was returned with the endorsement 'insufficiency of funds' and thereupon, the complainant issued notice to the accused and as the accused has not arranged for repayment of the loan, the complaint is filed.4. It is seen that PW-1 who presented the complaint on behalf of the complainant-company was examin...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dharmapuri Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: [2000]245ITR221(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. In respect of the cane purchased, the assessee which is a sugar mill had after the end of this year of account paid the purchase tax payable on that part of the price paid subsequent to the end of the accounting year. The assessee claimed that the additional price which it was bound to pay and had paid should also be allowed as a deduction. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the amount so paid cannot be deducted in the year in which the cane was received, but the same should be taken into account only for the year in which the payment was effected. That view of the Income-tax Officer was reversed by the appellate authority, whose decision was confirmed by the Tribunal. The Revenue is before us seeking reference of the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the additional liability for cane purchase and additional purchase tax as per Government's order dated...
Salem District Lorry Owners Association Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR458(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, which had held that a sum of Rs. 66,820 debited to the profit and loss account as sales incentive to customers is not a deductible item of expenditure. At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law has been referred to us for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding and had valid materials to hold that the expenditure of Rs. 66,820 was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business ?'2. The assessee is an association of persons deriving income from two petrol bunks. It had made a profit of Rs. 1,64,000 for the assessment year 1982-83 according to the return filed by it. That amount was arrived at after debiting the sum of Rs. 66,820 as sales promotion expenditure or sales incentive to customers. The claim so made was disallowed by the Income tax Officer. He held that this was only...
Tata Finance Ltd., Having Its Registered Office at Bombay House Vs. H. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ551
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. This revision is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 29.1.1999 made in 1.A.No. 16881 of 1998 in O.S.No. 4761 of 1998 on the file of the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.2. The contesting respondent lodged a caveat on 16.3.1999, when the revision came up for admission. This Court directed the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the caveator to be ready for final hearing of the revision petition itself as the issue raised in the revision will decide the very suit itself.3. Mr. M.S. Palaniswamy, learned Counsel for the respondent expressed willingness for the immediate disposal of the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision was taken up with the consent of either side on 23.3.1999.4. Heard. Mr. T.K. Seshadri for the revision petitioner and Mr. M.S. Palaniswamy and Mr. R. Kamesh for the respondents.5. The factual matrix requires a mention. The respondent in this revision petition instituted O.S.No. 4761 of 199...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Srinivas and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Mad)242
N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.The above tax cases are posted before the Full Bench as a Division Bench of this Court felt that the earlier decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Srinivas & Co. : [1996]219ITR636(Mad) : requires reconsideration by a Full Bench of this Court.2. The facts are not in dispute. In all the tax cases, the assessees are firms and in the three firms, one of the partners in the assessee-firms was a non-resident and apart from the share income from the three firms the said non-resident partner had other income also from other sources. The firms were assessed to tax for the two assessment years in question on the share income of the partner in the three firms under the provisions of s. 182(3) of the IT Act, 1961 thereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act, 1961'' and the said sub-section reads as under :P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, for the 'When any of the partners of a registered firm is a non-resident, the tax on his share in the income of the firm shall be assessed o...
TWAD Board Employees' Union (CiTU) Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ401Mad
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petition is a Union representing the workmen engaged by the second respondent. The second respondent is the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and it has a sub-division at Cheranmadevi to execute the rural water supply work. The sub- division covers over 60,000 people by the Government sanctioned combined water supply scheme on a permanent basis. The scheme provides for employment and according to the petitioner, there is scope for employment both on temporary basis and on permanent basis. We are concerned with the termination of service of six watchmen, viz., Sivalapiriyan Chockalingam, Shanmugasundararh, Shanmughanathan, Isakkinathan and Gopi and they were appointed as Watchmen. They received monthly salary of Rs. 330/- and these workmen were working with a periodical break for every 89 days. The services of the six workmen were terminated by order dated November 15, 1985 and after exchange of letters, the matter was referred to the fi...
Annamalai M. Vs. Registrar, High Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ978Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying thereby to call for the records of the respondents relating to the proceedings respectively in R.Dis. No. 558/1990 dated April 24, 1990 of the first respondent and in Roc. No. 16/88/A1 dated January 9, 1989 of the second respondent, issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order of direction in the nature of writ and quash the order of the first respondent in R. Dis. No. 558/90, dated April 24, 1990 and pass such other or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. The writ petitioner had been originally posted as Office Assistant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mayuram and for certain reasons not revealed any where here, he had beep suspended on August 9, 1987 and thereafter his suspension had been revoked on August 29, 1987 as per the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur a...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »