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.
Managing Director, Annai Sathya Transport Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Chinnammal a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC27
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Annai Sathya Transport Corporation is the appellant herein.2. Challenging the award dated 2.2.1993 in MCOP No. 390 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sankari, this appeal has been filed before this Court on the ground of negligence.3. According to the first claimant, the wife of the deceased, the deceased on 18.2.1990 at about 3.45 p.m. was coming along the left side of the road in a bicycle and at that time, the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased, as a result of which he died on the spot. The claimants claimed a total compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs.4. The contention of the appellant was that the deceased alone was negligent by riding the bicycle from north to south and suddenly darted across the road and consequently, there was an accident and as such, the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation.5. On perusal of the evidence, the Tribunal concl...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amudha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ474; (1999)3MLJ622
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is the appellant herein. This appeal is directed against the award and the decree dated 28.2.1991 made in M.G.O.P. No. 500 of 1988 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 2,42,000 to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, as against the total compensation of Rs. 2,70,000 claimed.2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal could be summarised as follows:On 16.12.1987 at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased Senthilkumar was riding on his motor cycle bearing registration No. TMS 3433 along with his friend in Erukkan-chery High Road from south to north near Ramalingaswamy Temple. At that point of time, a van bearing registration No. TMJ 3645 belonging to the Aringar Anna Drivers' Co-operative Society Ltd., the respondent No. 5 herein, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, was coming from the opposite direction on wrong side and ...
The Tamilnadu Electricity Board by Its Chairman, Rep. by Its Superinte ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ566
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. The defendants are the appellants.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The plaintiff college of Engineering was started in the year 1984. The Shanmugha Polytechnic was started on 6.9.1984. Shanmugha College of Engineering is affiliated to the Bharathidasan University, Trichy. At present there are about 1200 students studying in both the college and polytechnic. The Polytechnic and the college has three service connections Nos.93, 98 and 102 while the students' hostel has a separate service connection No. 138. The Electricity Board has classified the service connections 93 and 98 under Tariff VII applicable to Educational Institutions. The service connections 102 and 138 are wrongly classified under tariff IV and IX. All the above four service connections should be rightly classified under tariff No. VII. Service connection 102 caters to the various labor...
Meiyappan Vs. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4615; 1999(2)CTC496
ORDERJudgement pronounced by V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner challenges a detention order passed against him dated 4.9.1998 by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Pudukottai District, detaining him under the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 with a view to preventing him from acting prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The order has been executed on the next day i.e., on 5.9.1998. Amongst the grounds relied on, it is suggested that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kottaipattinam, came to know from a complaint filed by the Village Administrative Officer on 5.8.1998 that four persons were found in a suspicious manner near the thorny shrubs in front of Pillaiyar temple in south Pudukudi Village, Pudukottai District. These four persons were Kannan, Murugan, Meiyappan (the petitioner herein) and Balasundaram alias Sundaram. According to this report, the concerned Police Officer came to know that these persons were engaged in supplying ...
Kilburn Electricals Ltd. and ors. Vs. Regional Director, Company Law B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: [2000]99CompCas243(Mad)
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the first respondent dated July 7, 1989, in Ref. No. 4/22/TN of 1988 and to quash the said proceedings dated July 7, 1989, and consequently forbear the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' right to use the name 'Kilburn' in connection with their businesses.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this court to dismiss the writ petit...
Bhuvaneswari P. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ836Mad
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to continue the employment of the petitioners and to regularise their services in the second respondent establishment with all attendant consequential monetary and other benefits. 2. According to Mr. R.Viduthalai, learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners 1 to 10 were employed by the fifth respondent, who is a licensee in respect of telephone booths with I.S.D./S.TD, facility, situated at International Airport, Chennai, which is controlled by the second respondent from December 1993, June 1994, April 1993, December 1995, March 1996, May 1996, February 1996, August 1993, May 1996 and August 1995 respectively. Petitioners were employed in continuous service for a period of 480 days in 24 calendar months, and therefore, they are entitled for regularisation of their services with conferment of permanent status under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of ...
Ans Hameed Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1893
ORDERY. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to grant lodging licence under Section 35 of Madras City Police Act 1988 on the basis of the requisite documents and the City Civil Court's judgment and decree in O.S. No. 5285 of 1988 submitted along with the application dated 20-1-1984 to the first respondent.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, though no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, the learned Govt., Advocate appearing for the respondents argued the matter and submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed, for want of merits.3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appe...
Madhavan Vs. Managing Director, Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ873; (2000)1MLJ95
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Madhavan is the claimant-appellant herein. For the injuries sustained by him due to the negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent Corporation, the petitioner filed a claim petition seeking for the compensation of Rs. 75,000.2. The Tribunal, though found that the claimant sustained serious injuries due to the negligent driving, concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation, as he had already received Rs. 2,300 from the respondent Corporation towards medical expenses and he had given the receipt for the same by giving undertaking that he would not go to any forum for claiming compensation. This impugned order is challenged by claimant/appellant herein.3. When the matter came up before this court for final disposal yesterday (i.e., 7.6.1999), the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Samuel Rajapandian, was absent. Mr. G. Munirathinam, the counsel for the respondent, was present. The counsel for the respondent contended...
Krislar Diesel Engines (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-1999
Reported in: [2001]74ITD414(Mad)
ORDERKalsian, A.M.The only ground raised by the assessee in this appeal relating to the assessment year 1986-87 is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the assessee is not entitled to deduction under section 80HHC of the Act in respect of the premium on export licence, export subsidy and duty draw back.2. The assessee claimed deduction of 50 per cent of the export profits (Rs. 36,131 which is 50 per cent of Rs. 72,262) under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The profit of Rs. 72,262 was arrived at after including the premium on export licence at Rs. 1,73,428 export subsidy of Rs. 4,70,426 and draw back Rs. 82,950. The assessing officer considered that the premium on export licence, duty draw back and export subsidy cannot be considered as profit derived from export in view of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Sterling Foods v. CIT : [1984]150ITR292(KAR) . The assessing officer therefore, excluded the income from premium on export licence,...
R. Tamil Selvan Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-1999
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas796(Mad)
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to furnish the report submitted by the technical officer after inspecting the unit and grant appropriate reliefs and concessions as per the directions of the Reserve Bank of India.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately requested this court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merit.3. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the count...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »