Chennai Court October 2000 Judgments
Coromendal Indag Products India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR353(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the petitioner on the file of the first respondent in C. No. 1742/1/89/90/Central-II, dated September 20, 1989, and to quash the impugned order passed therein and consequently direct the first respondent to grant relief of waiver of interest to the petitioner for the assessment year 1985-86.2. The petitioner is a deemed public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of agro chemicals. For the assessment year 1985-86 relevant to the accounting year ended on June 30, 1984, the petitioner, who is an assessee on the file of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Circle II(2), filed a return of income on June 28, 1985, returning a sum of Rs. 1,37,12,872. The petitioner, for the year ended June 30, 1984, filed an advance tax estimate in Form No. 29 on June 15, September 15, and December 15, 1984, and also paid advance tax accordingly. Accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Kumaresan N. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ369Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. By these two writ petitions, the management and the workman seek to quash the award of the first respondent-Labour Court, dated April 23, 1993, passed in I.D. No. 433 of 1990.2. The management is aggrieved against the said award of the Labour Court inasmuch as the first respondent having held that the termination order, exhibit M-39, issued by the management was justified it was not open for the first respondent to grant any relief in the form of payment of ex gratia amount of Rs. 25,000 to the workman. The workman is aggrieved against the said award inasmuch as the first respondent has held that the termination order issued under exhibit M-39, was justified and that the workman was only entitled for ex-gratia of Rs. 25,000. The workman is also aggrieved against the other finding of the first-respondent holding that the employee does not fall within the definition of 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. W.P. No. 1237...
Tag this Judgment!Coromendal Indag Products India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Mad)40
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.This writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the petitioner on the file of the first respondent in C. No. 1742/1/89/90/Central II, dated 20-9-1989, and to quash the impugned order passed therein and consequently direct the first respondent to grant relief of waiver of interest to the petitioner for the assessment year 1985-86.2. The petitioner is a deemed public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of agro-chemicals. For the assessment year 1985-86 relevant to the accounting year ended on 30-6-1984, the petitioner, who is an assessee on the file of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Circle II (2), filed return of income on 28-6-1985, returning a sum of Rs. 1,37,12,872. The petitioner, for the year ended 30-6-1984, filed an advance tax estimate in Form 29 on 15-6-, 15-9 and 15-12-1984 and also paid advance tax accordingly. According to the averments contained in the affidavit f...
Tag this Judgment!Sahruvan Nachair and Another Vs. V.S. Mohammed HussaIn Maracair and 3 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Mad36; 2001(75)ECC20; (2001)1MLJ188
ORDER1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam in O.S.Nos.36 of 1986 and 112 of 1986 dated 11.11.1987. 2. The suit in O.S.No.36 of 1986 was filed for declaration that the suit property is a Muslim Charitable Property and the plaintiff is the sole trustee of the same and for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendants. The suit in O.S.No. 112 of 1986 was filed for removing the first defendant as trustee of the suit property, declaring the second and third defendants as unfit to hold the post of trustee, declaring the plaintiff as the proper trustee of the suit property and for recovery of possession of A schedule property from the first defendant. 3. The trial Court, by a common judgment, decreed the suit in O.S.No.36 of 1986 as prayed for with costs and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.112 of 1986 with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants in O.S.No.36 of 1986 preferred an appeal in A.S.No.45 of 1988 and the...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Janagarajan Vs. Kammavar Sangam Through Its Secretary R. Krishnas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC425
ORDER1. The above Review Application has been filed to review the judgment dated 19.7.1999 made in Second Appeal No.739 of 1999.2. The grounds taken on behalf of the review applicant are that the patta issued under settlement proceedings is one entirely different from mutation proceedings and as such, it is haying a better title since after coming into force of the Estate Abolition Act the lands are vested with the Government and the patta granted by the settlement authorities could be deemed as a title deed. For the said proposition, the learned counsel appearing for the review applicant has relied on a decision in Vatticherukuru village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshitulu and others, 1991 Suppl. (2) SCC 228. The second contention is that there is no correlation between pymash number 350 and survey number 310 and the third contention is that no substantial questions of law have been raised in the Second Appeal and as such the Order passed by this Court is without Jurisdiction in...
Tag this Judgment!Buhari Hotels and Motels Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Directo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC678
ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the landlord of a premises in Madras. He sought for eviction of the first respondent in R.C.O.No.3334/89 on the file of the Rent Controller on three grounds namely, sub-letting, wilful default in the payment of rent and putting the building to a different user than the one for which it was leased out. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction only on the ground of sub-letting and different user and dismissed that petition on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. However on appeal in R.C.A.No.307/94 the Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent and set aside the finding of the Rent Controller on the other two grounds. It is the correctness of the said order of the Appellate Authority that is being challenged in this revision before this Court by the landlord.2. The second respondent in this revision is stated to be the unauthorised sub-tenant under the first...
Tag this Judgment!Rajalakshmi and anr. Vs. R. Loganathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ2012
P. Shanmugam and K. Gnanaprakasam, JJ.1. The claimants have filed the civil miscellaneous appeal against the decree and judgment dated 12.3.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 3899 of 1995.2. Pandian, son of the appellants, while travelling on his cycle on 18.7.1994, at about 6.45 p.m. in New Mahabalipuram Road, a lorry owned by the respondent No. 1 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against him on the back side of the cycle and caused his death. The claimants made a claim of Rs. 7,00,000 (rupees seven lakh) but whereas the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal passed an award only for Rs. 60,000 (rupees sixty thousand only).Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred this appeal.3. The case of the claimants-appellants that their son Pandian was employed as a carpenter is not in dispute. The appellants have stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 80 per day. ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Mehdi Ispahani Vs. Shakeel Ur-rehman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC585
ORDER1. The landlord of a building in the city of Madras is the revision petitioner. The respondent in this revision is the tenant. The landlord's petition for evicting the tenant on the ground of demolition and reconstruction was dismissed on merits. An appeal filed by the landlord in R.C.A. No. 167 of 1994 was also dismissed on merits by the Appellants Authority. Hence the present revision before this Court.2. Heard Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the landlord and Mr.P.H. Pandian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the tenant.3. The argument of the learned Additional Advocate General is that though the authorities below, concurrently held that the landlord had not madeout a case for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, yet the judgment of the authorities below is erroneous and vitiated on account of the fact that each one of the authorities under the Act have been solely and completely influenced by the judgment of the Hon...
Tag this Judgment!N. Baby Nair and anr. Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ41
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. In both these writ petitions, the prayer is identical, seeking for the issue of a mandamus, forebearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' business of running the bunk situated near the Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai.2. Admittedly these petitioners have located their bunks in Poonamallee High Road which belongs to Highways Department, without obtaining the licence, as required under Section 279 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act. Hence the Corporation of Madras, Health Department, issued the notice under Section 379(A) of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act (Act IV of 1919), calling upon the petitioners to remove their bunks, since they have installed the same without getting any licence from the Commissioner, as required under Section 279 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act.3. Mr. K.S. Natarajan, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 279 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Ac...
Tag this Judgment!D. Hari Krishnan Vs. M.G.R. Memorial Chritable Trust, M.G.R. Memorial ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC479
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned single judge of this court passed in Application No.4119 of 1999 in C.S.No.528 of 1999, dated 17.12.1999.2. The appellant filed a suit in C.S.No.528 of 1999 praying for a decree against the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the suit property. The defendant took out an application in A.No.4119 of 1999 praying for a direction to return the plaint in the above suit for presentation before the proper court on the ground that the suit property is not situated within the jurisdiction of the Original Side of this Court. The respondent/plaintiff resisted the same the contented that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.3. The learned Single, judge, after hearing both side allowed the application and ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The present appeal is filed against that order.4. Admittedly, the suit is for recovery of possession and the proper...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »