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.
J. Sickander Vs. Joint Secretary, Govt. of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4385
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Petitioner herein challenges the detention order passed against him by first respondent dated 26-3-1996 under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called as 'COFEPOSA Act') whereby the petitioner was ordered to be detained with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future. In fact, this petition has become infructuous in so far as the detention is concerned. However, since the petitioner is likely to face action under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 for confiscation of the currencies, the petitioner is interested in challenging the legality of the order.2. Following facts would help in understanding the controversy :- The Department of Revenue Intelligence had some secret information and in pursuance of that two passengers viz., Nallaian Pargunam alias Joseph and his wife Pakavathi, who were passengers bound f...
K. Shankar Vs. Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ488
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Shankar, the claimant is the appellant herein.2. For the injuries sustained on his right leg which resulted in the complete amputation due to the negligent driving of the bus belonging to the Pallavan Transport Corporation, the respondent herein, the appellant herein filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 4,50,000.3. The Tribunal, after enquiry, though concluded that compensation could be worked out to Rs. 1,47,000, held that the claimant would not be entitled to any compensation, since he alone was negligent. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000 towards no fault liability.4. Questioning this amount on no fault liability, Pallavan Transport Corporation, the respondent herein also filed a cross-objection on the ground that during the relevant time, no fault liability for the injuries would be only up to Rs. 7,500.5. The few facts which are required for the disposal of the appeal and the cross-objection could be stated as follows:(a) Shankar, th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Needle Industries (India) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: [2000]108TAXMAN524(Mad)
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.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, 1961 for the year 1968-69 on 24-2-197 1, 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', is actually the 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) of the Act. In the course of the 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....
Saffia Bee and ors. Vs. B. Sathar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1999
Reported in: 2002ACJ449
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The appellants herein are the claimants. They are the widow and children of the deceased- Mohamed Rasul.2. The deceased was working as Sub-Inspector of Police in District Crime Branch at Cuddalore. On 19-8-1984, at about 3.30 p.m. he was riding on the motor-cycle bearing registration No. MSQ 8509 and proceeding towards Panruti. All of a sudden, when he was nearing the Naththamedu Main Road, another motor-cycle bearing registration No. MSR 6754, driven by one Thandavamurti, third respondent herein, came in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly, took a right turn for crossing towards Naththamedu Road, even without giving any signal. Due to this both the vehicles got collided with each other. The deceased and the motor-cycle were thrown out. He sustained a serious head injury and died after an hour. The said Thandavamurti, driver of the another motor-cycle also sustained injuries. PW4, Hanifa was the pillion rider in the vehicle driven by the deceased-Mohmad R...
M. Babu Vs. the Joint Zonal Manager -cum- Disciplinary Authority South ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC285; (1999)IILLJ1045Mad
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner an employee of the respondent bank prays for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the Order No. ZO:IR:AS:114 dated 17.5.1999 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondent from engaging any outsider as Presenting Officer in the departmental proceedings to be held into the charge memorandum dated 23.4.1996.2. This court ordered notice of motion on 10.6.1999. The respondent has been served. With the consent of either party the writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal. Mr. S. Venkataraman, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted detailed arguments. At the first instance none appeared for the respondent. Thereafter Mr. Sanjay Mohan submitted that he had entered appearance, but his name had not shown in the cause list and therefore the matter be re-posted for further arguments. Accordingly, the writ petition was listed once again and further arguments were heard.3. The peti...
Prudential Capital Markets Ltd. and ors. Vs. Karpaga Vinayagar Estate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas385(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. The petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C. C. No. 9150 of 1998 on the file of the second Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the proceedings pending against them.2. The case in brief is as follows :The respondent preferred a complaint against these petitioners under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the allegation that the amounts made as deposits with the first petitioner were not repaid on maturity and the cheques issued were not honoured on presentation and were returned for 'insufficient funds'. Separate complaints were filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tambaram, and also before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambattur, relating to the dishonour of the cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A bare reading of the complaint will indicate that there is n...
Management of National Carbon Company Vs. Purushothaman C. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1660Mad
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The management of National Carbon Company (hereinafter called 'the employer'), challenges the order of the learned single Judge dated July 21, 1997, in W. P. No. 10566 of 1988 whereby, he set aside the order passed by the Presiding Officer/First Additional Labour Court, Madras, in Claim Petition No. 52 of 1984, dated October 27, 1987, and remanded the matter for fresh trial of the original claim petition. The Labour Court initially had dismissed the said claim petition filed by the respondents-workers herein. The said claim petition was under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming certain wages, which were held back by the employer.It was, inter alia, the case of the workers before the Labour Court that they were entitled to receive from the employer the personal pay in terms of a settlement dated February 9, 1988, under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, between the employer and the workers, that this personal pay was to be treat...
Chitra Devi Vs. Chembagavalli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Mad38; 2000(2)CTC334
ORDER1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.81 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry is the appellant herein. The said suit was filed by her against her father and her sister for declaration declaring that the settlement executed by her father is valid to an extent of l/8th share and the remaining property is to be partitioned by metes and bounds after the death of her father.2. The facts could be summarised as hereunder:First defendant Murugesa Pillai was married to plaintiff's mother one Rajalakshmi. It is averred in the plaint that the parties belong to Pondicherry and are governed by the Pondicherry Customary Hindu Law. The suit property was acquired by the first defendant and as per customary law, his daughter are the apparent heirs to inherit the suit property. Two years after the birth of the plaintiff, the first defendant and his wife namely mother of the plaintiff got separated and a divorce was also granted. When the plaintiff corning to know that her father is ...
Somasundaram Vs. Palani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Mad239; 1999(3)CTC156; (1999)3MLJ710
ORDER1. Plaintiff in S.C.No.9 of 1997, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Polur, is the revision petitioner. 2. Suit filed by revision petitioner was one for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the respondent herein. 3. It is alleged that as per Ex.A.1 dated 10.1.1994, respondent herein borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,200 from plaintiff, agreeing to pay interest which is also stated in the promissory note. Demand was made under Ex.A.2, to settle the transaction, for which the defendant sent a reply denying the execution and the borrowing. The suit was, therefore, necessitated. 4. In the written statement filed by the defendant, respondent herein, he denied the execution and stated that as between himself and plaintiff, there had been earlier transactions in dealing with paddy, and plaintiff has forged his signature from the accounts and has fabricated the promissory note. 5. The trial Court examined P.W.1 (plaintiff) and also one of the att...
B.A. Rajan @ B. Antony Raj Vs. Rajapalayam Bhoopalapatti Vishwabramha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC180; (1999)3MLJ315
ORDER1. Tenant in R.C.O.P.No. 18 of 1995, on the file of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputtur, is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought on various grounds against the revision petitioner. Rent Controller dismissed the petition on the ground that the landlord and tenant relationship has not been proved. But, when the matter was taken in appeal, in R.C.A.No.8 of 1997, on the file of Appellate Authority (Sub Court, Srivilliputtur), it came to a different conclusion. It held that as between the parties, there is landlord and tenant relationship, and grounds of eviction have been proved. The decision of the Appellate Authority is challenged in this revision.2. I do not want to go into the grounds of eviction since the argument centres round a narrow compass, namely, landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. Once it is found that there is landlord and tenant relationship, it is admitted that ground of eviction has been made out.3. It is averred in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »