Chennai Court September 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.
Mamsapuram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, Mamsapuram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC413
ORDERJudgement pronounced by N.K. Jain, J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 12.7.1999 made in Writ Petition No: 19736 of 1998. It is alleged that the petitioner is the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank and comes within item No: 3 of Rules 14 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Rules and operates within the area of Mamsapuram, Srivilliputhur Taluk whereas the third respondent also comes within the same class as item 6 and has confined its operation within Srivilliputhur. The third respondent has sought for permission from the respondents 1 and 2 for extension of its operation area. The Reserve Bank of India has permitted the third respondent to extend their area of operation covering 10 kilometres. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the third respondent fall in one category and without following Section 9(1)(d) and Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, which prohibit overlapping with the acti...
B. Poisellan Vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Hindu Religi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC484
Acts/Rules/Orders:Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endownments Act 1959 -- Sections 21 and 26(1)Judgment Pronounced by K. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner filed the above writ petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 11.6.1999 disqualifying the petitioner to act as non-heriditory trustee and Chairman of Board of Trustees to the Arulmigu Utchimi Makkali Ammal Temple. Tuticorin. 2. According to the petitioner, he was elected as Managing Trustee on 21.7.1998. The second respondent seems to have filed a revision before the first respondent praying to cancel the order of the Assistant Commissioner. H.R. & C.E., Tuticorin, dated 17.12.1997 appointing the petitioner herein as a Trustee of the said temple. The first respondent by his order dated 11.6.1999 allowed the said revision, setting aside the appointment of the petitioner as a Trustee to the said temple. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring the order in W.P.No. 2196 of 1969, dated 15....
Balasubramaniam S. and ors. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ1358Mad
S. Thangaraj, J.1. The petitioners, who are accused in C.C. No. 10403 of 1995 on the file of the Second Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the said case.2. The petitioners herein arc the Directors of Addisoris Paints and Chemicals, Ltd., Chcnnai. Addison Paints and Chemicals Ltd., Assistants' Association represented by its Secretary have filed I.D. No. 83 of 1984 on the file of Industrial Tribunal and the parties have entered into a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and on the basis of the settlement, the Industrial Tribunal passed an award on December 31, 1992 to pay dcarness allowance, house rent allowance and other reliefs for its employees. The award was published in Government Gazette of Tamil Nadu. The award was not carried out. The management has failed to carry out the award and therefore the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by Inspector of Labour, III Circle. Chcnnai 35. has file...
Tirupathi Spinning Mills Vs. Superintendent of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ182Mad
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, seeking directions to the first respondent to provide necessary protection at the premises of the petitioner-mill, for the purposes mentioned in the writ petition.2. According to the petitioner, as stated in the affidavit and as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the workmen belonging to the second respondent-union numbering about 60 struck work from 7.00 a.m. on August 13, 1999 and started indulging in acts of indiscipline preventing the willing workers from working, accommodating and threatening them and abusing the management staff using filthy language. It is also stated that the striking workers are preventing the petitioner from removing the finished products. According to the petitioner, the strike is illegal as it is against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court need n...
Newdeal Finance and Investment Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: [2001]74ITD469(Mad)
ORDERN. Bharathvaja Sankar, A.M.This is an appeal preferred by the assessee, M/s. Newdeal Finance and Investment Ltd., Chennai for the assessment year 1995-96 against the appellate order dated 2-1-1999 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-X, Chennai-34.2. The assessee-company had raised 4 grounds of appeal relating to -(i) disallowance of claim of bad debts in a sum of Rs. 5,31,097,(ii) disallowance of claim of depreciation at 100 per cent in a sum of Rs. 75,00,100,(iii) disallowance of T.D.S. credit of Rs. 5,45,031 and(iv) levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C in sums of Rs. 20,60,496 and Rs. 1,84,656 respectively.3. Out of the above four grounds, at the time of hearing, the assessee's learned counsel informed the court that the assessee-company was not pressing the ground relating to disallowance of T.D.S. credit of Rs. 5,45,031, as rectification order was passed by the lower authorities in this regard. Hence this ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed for.4. Let us take up th...
R. Kumar Vs. S.P. Muthukumaraswamy and Two Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC19; (2000)1MLJ417
ORDER1. The revision petitioner field a suit in O.S.No. 6792 of 1999, in the City Civil Court at Madras (III Assistant Judge), for declaration that the seizure and custody of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. TN-01 E.3211, 1992 Model Ashok Leyland lorry, by the defendant on 16.9.1998 is illegal and untenable, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, using, mortgaging of creating any encumbrances on the said vehicle and for an order of mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to release the vehicle to the plaintiff and for damages.2. The plaint in that suit was presented into Court on 21.9.1998. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff. One Padamchand Choudhry and Anoop Chand Choudhry are the defendants. The defendants in the suit are described as doing finance in the name and style of Timco Finance and Choudhry Syndicate, and the 1st defendant is said to be the proprietor of both the finance companies.3. The plaintiff's case in short is that the lorry be...
Indian Bank Rep. by Its Manager, Royapettah, Chennai-14 Vs. M.S. Habib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: [2001]106CompCas654(Mad); 2000(1)CTC88
ORDER1. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,543 with interest on the ground that the said sum of Rs.10,543 was debited to the plaintiff's account by the defendant without his knowledge, consent and notice and that the defendant is liable to pay the same to the plaintiff.2. The suit was dismissed by the XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court and on appeal, the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, setaside the findings of the trial court and decreed the suit. Hence, this second appeal.3. The only point for determination is: Whether the reversal of the credit entry and debiting of Rs.10,176-50 to the plaintiff by defendant bank is valid if so whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the amount?4. The Points: The plaintiff had opened an account with the defendant bank on 22.3.1974 in Account No. 11734. The defendant has been paying interest due on the said account and for the period ending with 5.4.1983, the defendant has credited a sum of Rs. 10,17...
Rajeswari and Another Vs. Sri Buvaneswari Cycle Mart
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC156
ORDER1. The landlords filed an application for eviction of the tenant, in RCOP. No.44 of 1992, before the Rent Controller, Erode Section 10(2)(i) and 14 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 2. The tenant is described as M/s. Sri Bhuvaneswari Cycle Mart, represented by its Managing Partner Durairaj. While the R.C.O.P was pending, the Managing partner Durairaj died on 4.7.1984. Therefore, an application was filed by the landlords/petitioners in 1.A. No.1538 if 1994, praying that the name of the said Durai may be deleted and the present Managing Partner viz., S.Ramasasmy be substituted in the short and long cause title. The application was opposes by the tenant. After hearing both the parties, the Rent Controller dismissed the application. The order of dismissal was challenged by the landlords by preferring appeal against the same in RCA. No.lof 1996, which also met with the same fate rence, the present civil revision petition. 3. In my opinion, the courts below have ...
Rajakannu Vs. Sarojammal and Seven Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC763
ORDER1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction. The property measuring 1.13 acres comprised in S.No. 229/3 and situate in the village of Senthurai, is the suit property. The 1st defendant is the wife of the 4th defendant. Defendants 2,3,8 and 9 are the children of the defendants 1 and 4 the 7th defendant is the 1st wife of the 4th defendant. Defendants 5 and 6 are the children of the 7th defendant born of the 4th defendant. The suit property belonged to the 4th defendant, who on 12.6.1975, after receiving a consideration of Rs. 3,600 executed a sale in favour of the plaintiff. The sale was executed by the 4th defendant himself and as guardian of his minor children, defendants 8 and 9. As per the recitals in the sale deed, the promissory note executed by the 4th defendant on 1.6.1974 was discharged. The plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser of the property for value. The defendants 1 to 3 filed a suit in O.S.No...
Balu Vs. Dhanam and Three Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC374; (1999)IIMLJ521
ORDER1. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass.2. The subject matter of the hypotheca belonged to Dhanam. She executed a mortgage in favour of Balu Chettiar, and borrowed certain amounts. Balu Chettiar assigned the mortgage in favour of one Kadappa Chettiar. The property was at that time, in the occupation of Sambandamurthi. In the meanwhile, the owner of the property Dhanam viz., the mortgagor filed as suit in O.S.No.- 533 of 1975 for redemption of the mortgage, wherein a preliminary decree was passed on 16.11.1976. She deposited a sum of Rs. 212.75 into Court pursuant to the preliminary decree. After passing of the preliminary decree, she sold the property in favour of one Ramaswamy, who is the 2nd respondent herein. But inspite of her having sold the property in favour of Ramaswamy, she pursued the matter by filing application in I.A.No. 99 of 1979 for passing of final decree pursuant to the preliminary decree obtained by her and a final decree was passed. At that time, Rama...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »