Chennai Court August 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.
The Superintending Engineer, South Arcot Electricity System, Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC495
ORDER1. The defendant is the appellant herein. 2. The plaintiff's case is that he is running an industry, known as Raj Industries. The service connection is No.21. The defendant without following any procedure, disconnected the service connection. For restoration of the same, the plaintiff filed a suit in the vacation court in O.S.No.44 of 1983 and the suit was transferred to the file of the District Munsif, Villupuram. For restoration of service connection, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.40 and reconnection was effected on 19.6.1983. The plaintiff is not liable to pay the charges. After the disconnection of service, the factory was closed down for a month. Considering the plight of the workers, the reconnection charge was deposited, and reconnection was obtained. The disconnection was on 20.5.1983. The reconnection was on 19.6.1983. Till reconnection waseffected, the factory did not work, whileso, the defendant has called upon the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.1,050 towards the consump...
Kothali Rajendran Vs. District Collector and District Magistrate and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1944
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. The petitioner is the father of the detenu. The detenu namely Murugan has been detained by the first respondent under Act 14 of 1982 after identifying him as a Goonda. The petitioner has come into adverse notice of the authorities in four cases registered under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the grounds of detention that on 1-10-1998 at 8.30 a.m. the detenue indulged in the acts of violence and that the bottles were broken and that nearby shop-keepers closed their shops in order to save their lives. The case in ground case is registered in crime number 150 of 1998. On the basis of the above materials the detaining authority has come to the conclusion that the detenu is a Goonda and accordingly the detention order was clamped on the detenu.2. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the detention on several grounds. One of the main grounds urged by the petitioner is that the detention order, in Tamil, furnished to him, is d...
Managing Director, Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation Vs. Visalatc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC239; 2001ACJ1611
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation is the appellant herein. Aggrieved by the award of Rs. 3,35,800 payable to the claimants/respondents herein, for the death of the deceased, this appeal has been filed before this court, mainly on the ground of quantum.2. The claimant No. 1 is the widow, claimant Nos. 2 to 4 are minor daughters and claimant Nos. 5 and 6 are parents of the deceased.3. The deceased Raman alias Rama chandran was working as a generator operator and electrician in Snahavalli Mills. On 11.4.1993, he was proceeding to the mill on his TVS Champ Moped. While so, the bus bearing the registration No. TML 2479 belonging to the appellant Corporation, which was coming from the opposite direction, attempted to overtake a private bus going ahead. In that process, the bus came to the wrong side and hit against the moped. The right front wheel of the bus ran over the deceased Raman. Because of the impact, he sustained severe injuries and later succumbed to ...
Pavithran M.N. Vs. Central Bank of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ162Mad; (1999)3MLJ301
Ms. T. Meenakumari, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiororified mandamus to call for the records bearing proceeding No. TRO/PRS/90-91/ 4121, dated January 21, 1991 of the second respondent and the order dated April 23, 1991 of the appellate authority, the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with effect from October 21, 1989 and pay all the monetary benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was appointed as clerk on July 20, 1965 in the respondent Bank and subsequently promoted as officer on February 28, 1978. On transfer he was posted at Kaipatoor Branch and then transferred to Regional Office, Trivandrum on September 23, 1978 and transferred to Kalanjoor Branch on April 14, 1987. He was, suspended from service pending disciplinary action with effect from October 21, 1989. A charge memo was issued in TRO/PRS/90/150, dated January 8, 1990 on various charges includi...
Management of Rajasekaran Transport Vs. P.O., Principal Labour Court a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ977Mad
Jain, J.1. This writ appeal is filed by the management against the order of the learned single Judge, dated January 9, 1998, and made in W.P. No. 6594 of 1991, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, and set aside the order of dismissal by the management and the award of the first respondent and directed the reinstatement of the second respondent with back-wages and continuity of service.2. It is alleged that the second respondent was employed as Checking Inspector by the appellant/management. It is alleged that on September 21, 1979, the second respondent, without any cause, attempted to which is not a part of his job drive the parked bus, resulting in the bus hitting against a cycle and a lamp post and causing damage. A charge memo was issued and after due enquiry, he was dismissed from service. It is further alleged that the Labour Court upheld the order of dismissal. Challenging that, the second respondent filed the writ petition and the learned single Judge all...
A.S. Ramadass Vs. N. Malathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1999
Reported in: II(1999)DMC748; (1999)3MLJ685
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner in HMOP No. 26 of 1998 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Namakkal is the revision petitioner herein.2. Petition filed by petitioner was one for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act. In that proceeding, respondent herein filed I.A. 31 of 1998 claiming interim maintenance and expenses of litigation under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is averred in that petition that respondent is unable to maintain herself and she has no source of income. According to her, she is a dependent on her parents. She further averred that her husband is getting very good income, not less than Rs. 1,50,000/ - per annum and he got agricultural and non-agricultural properties, apart from possessing rig vehicles. It is also said that taking into consideration the inflatory circumstances, she is entitled to separate maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month.3. In the counter statement filed by petitioner, the same is seriously opposed. According to him, he has availed loan from...
B. Ananthakrishnan Vs. Kovai B. Jayaraman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ640
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S.No. 218 of 1983 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge's Court Coimbatore is the appellant.2. The following substantial questions of law have been raised in the memorandum of appeal:(i) Whether the lower appellate court is right in holding the question of benami transaction does not survive in for consideration after the recent enactment of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988, in view of the decision reported in : (1995)2MLJ84 . Which has taken a contrary view? (ii) Whether the courts below are right in holding that the suit is maintainable?(iii) Whether the lower appellate court is right in holding the Ex.B-2 the family arrangement is true and valid?(iv) Whether the lower appellate court is right in holding that the possession of the defendant of item 1 of the 'B' schedule property is true?3. The material facts could be summarised thus:Suit was laid by respondents for recovery of possession of items 1 and 2 of 'B' schedule and for p...
P. Raman Kutty and anr. Vs. P. Jamuna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1999
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC103
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The owner of the vehicle and the Oriental Insurance Company Limited are the appellants herein.2. Aggrieved by the award of Rs. 1,41,000/-, as against the claim of total compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-, this appeal has been presented before This Court.3. Challenging the quantum on the ground of inadequacy, Jamuna, the claimant, has also filed a Cross-Objection No. 72 of 1995. The claimant, aged about 27 years, was a fish vendor. On 9.11.1991, at about 5.00 a.m., at S.N. Chetry Street, opposite to Uchikaliamman Temple, Madras, she was collecting water from the tap alongwith other women. At that time, the car bearing Registration No. TN047531, involved in the accident in question, came from South to North on the eastern side, in a rash and negligent manner, and ran over the platform and dashed against the claimant, Jamuna and other women. Due to the impact, all the three women sustained grievous injuries. All the three, filed separate claim petitions before the Tr...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. A. Jawahar Palaniappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR581(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. After having heard counsel at some length and also after having perused the records placed before us by learned counsel for the Revenue. We are satisfied that there are no questions of law which require our consideration and which can be said to have arisen out of the order of the Tribunal.2. Admittedly, the proceeding against the assessee was initiated long after the completion of the year in which the alleged gift was made, the shares which are said to have been sold for inadequate consideration having been transferred on March 24, 1983. The assessee had not filed any return under the Gift-tax Act for that year and there was no proceeding in respect of the assessee which had culminated in an order under Section 15(3) or 15(1) of the Gift-tax Act. The notice that was issued under Section 16 was only issued on December 10, 1990. That notice could only have been issued under Section 16(1B)(b) of the Act. That provision reads as under :'(b) In a case, other than a...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. L. K. S. Jewellers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1999
Reported in: [2000]109TAXMAN114(Mad)
ORDER1. We do not find any merit in this petition.2. The audit report has been the basis for the reopening of the assessmen t and it has rightly been so held by the Tribunal. The audit report did not merely draw the attention of the officer to the legal provision, but dealt with the facts of the case at great length, and incidentally mentioned the provision of law.3. We do not find any necessity to call for a reference. The tax case petition is dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »