Chennai Court July 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.
M.P. Palani and Twenty Three Others Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC133; (1999)3MLJ265
ORDER1. The petitioners numbering 24 have approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus for a direction to the third respondent to refer the dispute over the price in respect of the Award No. 4 of 1987, dated 26.4.1989 in Na.Ka.No. 9/90 A/37 to the competent Civil Court in respect of the lands of the petitioner as mentioned in the Annexure. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition that in the Award enquiry, they jointly and also individually submitted that the land value has been increased considerably and the adjoining lands were sold at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per cent. Since the lands have got all facilities, they wanted to fix the price for their land at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per cent. It is further stated that their objection for fixation of the lesser price has been recorded and they have also stated the same in writing which was received by the third respondent on the date of the enquiry for fixing the price. They were orally told that their ma...
State Bank Employees' Union Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1421Mad
S. Sathasivam, J.1. The amended prayer in the writ petition is as follows:To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to release the list of sub-staff who have been interviewed pursuant to the advertisement in 'The Hindu', dated August 1, 1988, prepared in 1989 together with list of those in the said list who have been absorbed in the vacancies upto March 31, 1977, i.e., the date on which the said list was prepared in 1989 is stated to have lapsed and to absorb the remaining 13 persons in the annexure, viz., serial Nos. 15, 24, 32, 48, 66, 67, 71, 78, 85, 87, 95 and 97 by placing them in the appropriate position based on the date of initial entry into service.2. The case of the petitioner-union is briefly stated hereunder. The persons whose names are given in the annexure were employed by the first respondent-bank during the period July 1, 1974 to December 31, 1987 deliberately as temporary sub-staff against permanent vacancies giving periodical breaks and ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vedathal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: II(2000)ACC34; 2001ACJ2022
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Salem is the appellant herein.2. The claimants, the widow and two daughters of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, stating that Periyathambi, deceased, died in the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the respondent No. 4 herein, insured with the appellant and claimed the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000.3. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 52,000, holding that the insurance company is liable to pay the said amount on behalf of the owner of the lorry.4. Questioning the finding with reference to liability fastened on the insurance company, this appeal has been presented before this court. Aggrieved over the inadequacy of quantum, the claimants, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, have filed Cross-objection No. 97 of 1995.5. Few facts, which are required for the disposal of this appeal and cross-objection could be stated as follows:On 20.5.1991, at about 2.00 p.m., the deceased Pe...
R. Nanthiappan Vs. Nagappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ761
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 237 of 1991 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Krishnagiri is the revision petitioner herein.2. Petitioner herein filed a suit for declaration of title to plaint 'A' schedule properties and to restrain defendants from in any manner trespass in, causing damages to the ridges of the suit 'A' schedule properties or interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff in the suit properties, and to grant permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants and their men from in any manner preventing plaintiff or his family members from taking drinking water in the well described in suit 'B' schedule property and to award costs.3. Pending suit, petitioner filed I.A. No. 664 of 1996 to appoint a Commissioner directing him to visit the suit property, measure the same and note down the existence of pathways and other physical features pointed out by petitioner and his counsel at the time of visit and file his report with plan...
Selvaraj, S/O Gnanadesihan Vs. P. Viswanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD(Cri)438; 1999CriLJ4766; 1999(2)CTC652
ORDERJudgement pronounced by V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The issue which falls for consideration before the learned single Judge of this Court (K.P. Sivasubramanian, J.) and which has now been referred to us for decision is as under:- 'Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate of First. Class will have the power to impose a higher punishment of fine than the limit spelt out from the relevant provision regarding the powers of such Magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in respect of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.'2. The following factual matrix would be necessary to understand the controversy:- The accused Selvaraj, who was a petitioner before the learned single Judge of this Court in Crl.R.C. No.247 of 1997, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Tiruchirappalli for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that the cheque issued by him in favour of the complainant was disho...
G. Balaraman Vs. State: Rep by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vyasa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC703; II(2000)DMC751
ORDER1. The appellant was the accused in S.C.No. 287 of 1991 on the file of the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Madras. He is found guilty for an offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C. and he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. The said conviction and sentence have been challenged in this Criminal Appeal. 2. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of this Criminal Appeal are as follows: The appellant Balaraman had married one Sivagami on 26.8.1990. At the time of the marriage since the appellant was unemployed, he was not witling to marry and because of the pressure on the part of the parents of Sivagami, P.Ws. 2 and 3, the appellant married Sivagami. The parents had assured the appellant that even though he was unemployed, he will get employment after his marriage and he can look after, his family. On that assurance the appellant married Sivagami and they were residing together. Even after marriage, he could not get any employment. Hence there was no happiness in the hous...
Vembu Ammal and 7 Others Vs. Pattuammal and 3 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC717
ORDER1. The defendants who suffered a decree for partition is O.S. No.16 of 1984 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ariyalur, have filed the above Appeal.2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit properties. Even according to the plaintiffs 'C' schedule mentioned properties in the plaint are the suit properties. The plaintiffs claim that the 'C' schedule properties are the properties of late Veeramuthu and he acquired the same from out of his earnings and from the income of ancestral properties. The 1st plaintiff claims that she is the legally wedded wife of the said Veeramuthu and the other plaintiffs are their children. Accordingly to the plaintiffs, after the death of the said Veeramuthu, a dispute arose between the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant regarding the properties mentioned in the plaint. There was a panchayat in which it was decided that the properties described in 'A' schedule should be allotted to the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.K.K. Textile Processing Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: [2001]249ITR487(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Basu J.1. The assessee is engaged in the processing of unbleached grey cloth by bleaching, calendering, dyeing and printing so as to produce printed cloth. For the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 32A which claim was rejected by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who under Section 144B directed the Income-tax Officer to disallow the claim. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) granted that deduction. He did so, following the decision of the Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. The Revenue have appealed to the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India : [1986]162ITR846(SC) and the case of Ujagar Prints v. Union of India : [1989]179ITR317(SC) .2. Before us, learned senior counsel for the Revenue submitted that in the light of the recent decisi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. TuticorIn Spinning Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: [2001]249ITR694(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J.1. The Revenue seeks a reference from the order of the Tribunal which, inter alia, holds that the amounts spent on replacing worn out ring frames which are admittedly, part of a larger machinery used in the manufacture of yarn was deductible under the head 'Current repairs'.2. We do not find any error in that view of the Tribunal. It has been held by this court in the case- of CIT v. Shree Narasimhu Textiles (P.) Ltd. : [1999]238ITR351(Mad) , that the expenditure of replacement of parts of machinery is not to be regarded as capital in nature. The Revenue's contention that the cost of replacement of ring frames should be treated as capital expenditure had been rightly rejected by the Tribunal.3. We do not find any merit in this petition. Hence, this petition is dismissed....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Needle Industries (India) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: [2000]245ITR556(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of needles of various types. After the completion of the assessee's assessment under the Income-tax Act for the year 1968-69 on February 24, 1971, the Income-tax Officer having come to know that the sum of Rs. 1,09,274 which had been credited in the profit and loss account of the assessee during the relevant previous year, in the account termed 'insurance reserve account', was actually income arising from the business of the assessee but had been omitted to be included in the original assessment, the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147(b). In the course of those reassessment proceedings, it was found that in April, 1967, a fire had broken out in the building where the raw materials, stores, and spare parts and loose tools were kept and those goods had been totally destroyed by the fire. The value of the goods so lost as shown in the assessee's book, was Rs. 10,07,996. As un...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »