Chennai Court June 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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Sulochana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC113; 2001ACJ1788
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Dharapuram is the appellant herein.2. Challenging the award and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore made in MACT. O.P. No. 485 of 1990, the appellant has preferred this appeal.3. In this appeal, the appellant has not challenged the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and also the quantum of the compensation awarded.4. The only contention that has been urged by the appellant insurance company is that it is not liable to pay the compensation, as on the relevant date and time of the accident, the vehicle was not covered by the policy issued by the appellant insurance company.5. In the present case, the accident took place on 22.6.90 at about 10.30 a.m. The deceased, Sundaram, met with the accident when Tempo No. TTY 6648, which was insured with the appellant insurance company, dashed against him. Wi...
Kulandaiswamy, Represented by His Power of Attorney Agent, Susaikannu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ236
ORDERA. Subbulakshmy, J.1. Landlord is the revision petitioner.2. The landlord filed petition under Sections 10(2)(ii)(a) and (b) and 10(2)(iii) and 14(i)(b) of the Rent Control Act contending as follows:The petitioner has purchased the petition mentioned property by a registered sale deed dated 21.2.1990. The first respondent had occupied the petition mentioned thatched house as tenant under petitioner's vendor Subbiah Mudaliar for non-residential purpose and he was running a vegetable stall. He is liable to be evicted. The first respondent made a partition of the business by putting up a masonry partition wall and subleased the eastern half to the second respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 300 and is retaining the western half and using it for vending vegetables. After receipt of the petitioner's lawyer's notice, the first respondent removed the partition wall overnight and even after removal of the partition wall, the second respondent is continuing as sub-tenant under the first res...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. M. Baskar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC322
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. These appeals, filed by the Oriental Insurance Company, Madurai and Virudhunagar, have arisen out of the common judgment rendered by the Tribunal in MCOP Nos. 453 and 310 of 1990.2. Dhinagara Raj, the claimant in MCOP No. 310 of 1990, is the owner of Lorry TNR. 1339. Baskar, the claimant in O.P. 453/90, is owner of the Bus TMN 468. On 7.1.1990, at about 7.50 p.m., when-the said lorry was proceeding from West to East, in Tiruchuzi Main Road, the Bus TMN 4608, belonged to M/s. Jaya Roadways, Aruppukkottai, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the lorry, as a result of which, both the lorry and bus got damaged. Therefore, Dhinagara Raj, the lorry owner, filed a claim petition in MCOP No. 310/90 and Baskar, the owner of the bus, filed a petition in MCOP No. 453 of 1990.3. The Tribunal, after enquiry, directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the compensation of Rs. 32,267/- to the owner of the lorry, the claimant in MCOP No. 310/90 and Rs. 72,65...
Managing Director Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation Vs. Mrs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ561
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Being aggrieved by the award of compensation, the Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation has presented this appeal before this Court on the ground of negligence and of quantum.2. The claimants 1 to 11, the respondents herein filed a claim petition for the death of the deceased, the husband of the first claimant seeking for the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. But, the tribunal awarded only Rs. 65,000.3. The deceased in this case was a Railway employee working as a carpenter in the railway workshop. The first claimant is his wife and other 10 claimants are his children.4. On 24.9.1991 at about 3.00 p.m., the deceased Subramani was walking along the road-Kizhukku Kulakkaraj Them at Thiruvallur along with one Devanathan, his nephew, who was pushing the cycle with him in the road, since it was a steep road. At that time, the bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation came in high speed and dashed against the deceased Subramani from behind. The deceased died on th...
Amul Ploycure Industries Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1999
Reported in: [2004]134STC526(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) takes notice for the respondents. Heard with the consent of parties.2. The petitioner herein challenges the order passed by the Special Tribunal whereby the Special Tribunal refused to entertain the challenge made by the assessee to an order under Section 28-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner-assessee herein sought clarification under Section 28-A of the Act regarding the rate of tax that was applicable to the product which he was dealing in. The said clarification was challenged before the Tribunal on various grounds. According to the petitioner, the product was covered under entry 55(i), part D of the First Schedule so as to be taxable at the rate of 11 per cent on the first sale in the State while according to the clarification, the said product would invite higher tax rate at the rate of 16 per cent as it would be covered under entry 8 of Part ...
Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport Corp., Villupuram Vs. Su ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ1128; 1999(2)CTC560; (1999)3MLJ147
ORDER1. Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation is the appellant herein.2. Aggrieved over the Award directing the appellant to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,80,000 to the claimants, the respondents herein as against the total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000, the present appeal has been presented before this Court both on the ground of negligence and of quantum.3. The facts briefly are - One Muthian, who was working as Deputy Tahsildar at Panruti Taluk Office, is the deceased. On 4.5.1992 at about 8.30 P.M. the deceased was driving his scooter from Panruti to Varakalpattu in the Panruti to Cuddalore main road. The deceased was nearing Boologanathar Kovil at Nellikuppam in the extreme left side of the road. While so, the bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation came in the same direction from Panruti to Cuddalore at a high speed. The bus in a rash and negligent manner hit behind the scooter. Due to the impact, the deceased Muthian was thrown out from the scooter and fell into a pit. He sus...
T.M. Syed Ali and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC490
ORDERJudgement pronounced by A.C. Agarwal, C J.1. An order of detention issued under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act is impugned in the present petitions. The order of detention has been issued by the Deputy Inspector Genera! of Police, Tirunelveli, the 2nd Respondent herein. The 2nd respondent has issued identical orders of detention directing the detention of the petitioner in H.C.P. No. 1784 of 98 as well as the petitioner in H.C.P.No.1785 of 1998. Since the points involved in both the petition are common, the same have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The impugned order of detention was issued in both the cases on 22.8.1998. The same is based on an incident which has taken place on the 2nd August, 1998 wherein both the petitioners have been charge sheeted vide Crime No. 210 of 1998 of Perumalpuram police station for the alleged offence under Section 7(l)(a) of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. ...
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. Sree Srinivasa Industries and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad460
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, challenging the order dated 28-3-1995, passed in W.P. No. 6912 of 1992, filed by the first respondent herein, viz. Sree Srinivasa Industries.2. By the instant order, the learned single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition and has held that the industry was entitled to the concessional tariff rate for a period of five years from the date of commencement of the industry viz. 7-8-1989 and that they would also be entitled to the backward area concession at the rate of15% of consumption bills as available to the other industries. The learned single Judge has directed the respondent/appellant herein to give the petitioner the concessional rate of electricity for a period of five years and the backward area concession referred to above.3. Some facts would be necessary to appreciate the controversy. The respondent industry set up its factory and started getting the electric energy with effec...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. (1) Indian Overseas Bank (2) Bharat Ove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1999
Reported in: [2000]244ITR120(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The principal question referred to us at the instance of the revenue in all these tax cases concerns the taxability under the Income Tax Act, 1961, of interest on sticky loans in cases where the assessee is a bank.2. As long back as on 25-8-1924, the Central Board under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, had directed, as a result of the conclusions arrived at in the conference of the Income Tax Commissioners, that the interest accruing to money lenders who entered the same into a suspense account because of the extreme unlikelihood of recovery of the loan, need not be included in the assessee's taxable income. That circular was extended to banks by the circular dated 6-10-1952, which reads as under :'In its Circular No. 37 of 1924, dated 25-8-1924, the Board held, as a result of the conclusion reached at the conference of the Income Tax Commissioners, that interest accruing to a money lender on loans entered in a suspense account because of the extreme unlikelihood o...
Medical Equipment Supply Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1999
Reported in: 2000(68)ECC247; 2000(115)ELT299(Mad)
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. It is alleged that petitioner is doing business of importing and dealing in scientific and surgical laboratory equipments. It imported a consignment of Rs. 38,000, pieces in 76 cartons invoiced as 'Infusion Sets' under Bill of Entry Rotation No. 727/88, dated 5-9-1988 and claimed concessional assessment under Customs Notification No. 208/81, dated 22-9-1981. But the customs authority refused to allow the clearance of the goods. A show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, the 3rd respondent herein on 13-4-1989, stating that the company misdeclared the value of the goods with the intention of evading the duty and as such the goods are liable to be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Though no reply was filed, the petitioner company requested for personal hearing. After giving an opportunity the Addl. Collector of Customs, Madras by Order dated 5-5-1989 confiscated the goods revalued at Rs. 1,39,646.64 but however relea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »