Chennai Court October 2000 Judgments
B.M.A. Najira Begum Vs. A.M.S. Kassim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC474; (2001)1MLJ37
ORDERl. Heard Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Vasudhevan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Thelandlady of a premises situated in Kumbakonam is the revision petitioner in this Court. She filed R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1994 on the file of the Rent Controller, Kumbakonam seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant on two grounds, namely, demolition and reconstruction and change of user. The Rent Controller found against the landlady on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. However, an order of eviction on the ground of change of user was passed. The tenant challenged that order in an appeal in R.C.A.No.5 of 1996 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kumbakonam. The appellate authority also concurred with the finding of the Rent Controller in non suiting the landlady on the ground of the demolition and reconstruction. On the other ground on which eviction was ordered, the appellate authority took a different view and allowed the appea...
Tag this Judgment!Logadurai Alias Logandurai, Etc. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2377
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 29-1-1996 of the trial Court in Sub. Clause. 88 of 1993 and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The appellants were tried for having committed the offence under Section 8(b) read with Section 20(a)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter called the 'Act' and were convicted to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one year simple imprisonment.2. According to the prosecution, on a raid conducted on 1-7-1992 at 11.30 a.m., at the northern stream flowing on the northern side of the North Vattakeni of Western ghats, by the Superintendent of Police along with other police personnel P.Ws. 3 and 4, A1 to A3 and one other person were found cultivating ganja plants, that A1 was arrested on the spot, while the remaining accused absconded, that ganja plants seized were about 1,900 kgs. valued at a sum...
Tag this Judgment!Sulaika Bivi and Six Others Vs. Rameeza Bivi and 10 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC454
ORDERJudgement pronounced by F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The defendants 1 to 7 are the appellants. The first appellant is the mother and appellants 2 to 7 are the children of the first appellant through one Late Mohammed Sultan Maracayar. The first respondent is the plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 5 are the sisters and brothers of the first respondent. Respondents 7 to 11 are the legal heirs of the 9th defendant who was the 4th respondent in the first appeal.2. The first respondent herein filed O.S.No.52 of 1973 for partition of her 7/136th share in the suit schedule properties and for accounting and profits. One Mohammed Sulthan Maracayar who died on 13.6.1967 had four wives. His first wife and third wife had no children. Through his second wife Hazarammal, the late Mohammad Sulthan Maracayar had three daughters and three sons. Of whom, first daughter Rameeza Bivi filed the suit. His fourth wife Zulaika Bivi had six children through him, and the said Zulaika Bivi and her children are the...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Motors Ltd. and anr. Vs. Members, Appropriate Authority and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Mad)153; [2001]249ITR424(Mad)
P. Satiiasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent/the Appropriate Authority (Income-tax Department), Chennai-54, dated August 21, 1997, passed under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Hindustan Motors Limited, Calcutta-1, has filed Writ Petition No. 13303 of 1997.2. Aggrieved by the very same order, the other party to the 'exchange', Smt. A. R. Chandrika has filed Writ Petition No. 15631 of 1997. Since the issue raised is one and the same in both the writ petitions, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Inasmuch as the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15631 of 1997, is also the fifth respondent in Writ Petition No. 13303 of 1997, for convenience I shall refer to Hindustan Motors Limited as petitioner and Smt. A. R. Chandrika as fifth respondent.3. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder :The petitioner is a public limited company having its registered office at Calcutta and a division at Chennai. The petitioner owns a prope...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chellammal Alias Chellam and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ906
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition filed by Chellammal alias Chellam and her husband Kanniappan is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners with reference to the death of their son Natarajan while he was under custody and to take appropriate action against the guilty officials responsible for his death.2. The case of the petitioners is as follows :-The deceased Natarajan is the second son of the petitioners. He was working as Auto Mechanic. The petitioners were able to run the family only with the earnings of their deceased-second son, who alone got a steady income. On 26-8-1992, the deceased did not return home. Next day morning, they were informed that he was taken to Arumbakkam Police Station. On enquiry, they came to know that he was arrested in connection with a complaint of theft and he was remanded to judicial custody. While they were trying their best by taking steps to get the release of their son...
Tag this Judgment!Aurelec Trust Vs. Additional Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(76)ECC465; 2001(129)ELT35(Mad)
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue or writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in E/ROM/553/91, E/Ref/Stay/353/91 & E/Ref/75/91-MAS in E/517/88 (Order No. 70/91), dated 25-11-1991 and quash the orders of the second respondent in E/ROM/553/91 in E/517/88 (Order No. 70/91), dated 25-11-1991 and direct the second respondent to re-dispose the application dated 17-9-1991 presented by the petitioners under Section 35C(2) and to cancel the demand raised by the first respondent in C. No. V/66/15/86-CX Adj./Order No. 1/86, dated 27-6-1986 invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. The only reason which weighed with the second respondent Tribunal in dismissing the R.O.M. application filed by the petitioner was that there was no mention of the two letters and there was no indication that the two letters relied on by the petitioner were brought to the notice of the Tribunal while pas...
Tag this Judgment!Natarajan A. Vs. Management of Salem Central Co-operative Bank and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1670Mad
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner/ appellant comes up before us by way of present appeal. The learned single Judge had confirmed the award, dated September 1, 1986, passed by the Labour Court. By that award, the Labour Court had confirmed the punishment of dismissal meted out to the appellant after a departmental enquiry. The award was passed on the basis of a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Government.2. The petitioner was employed with the respondent-bank as its Inspector and he was placed under suspension on August 23, 1979. A charge- sheet was thereafter served on him containing as many as six charges. He submitted his explanation for the said charges and thereafter, the departmental enquiry ensued. He was thereafter served with a show-cause notice on June 14, 1980 and after consideration of his explanation to the show-cause notice, he ...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Syndicate Bank and ors. Vs. J. Muthukrishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ18Mad; (2001)1MLJ128
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. In the present appeal, the management of Syndicate Bank challenges the judgment by the learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the petition filed by twenty respondents herein. In that writ petition, the respondents who were panelists in the panel maintained for temporary attenders challenged a circular dated August 4, 1988, whereby the management directed that the part-time sweepers may be entrusted temporarily with the duties of sub-staff members in the vacancies of regular stab-staff members arising on account of leave or absence subject to the condition that such sweeper should have atleast passed V Standard. It was then directed by the same circular that in case of the non-availability of the eligible part-time sweepers for temporary entrustment, the said employment should be offered to the empanelled candidates amongst the temporary attenders, again subject to the condition that the candidates, who had completed 240 days as...
Tag this Judgment!A.Y. Prabhakar (Kartha) Huf Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2000
Reported in: [2003]262ITR287(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. These applications have been filed for quashing the proceedings in E. O. C. C. Nos. 346 of 1993, 347 of 1993, 348 of 1993, 349 of 1993, 65 of 1992, 66 of 1992, 350 of 1993, 351 of 1993 and 353 of 1993 respectively on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offence II, Egmore, Chennai.2. The only ground by learned counsel for the petitioner in these applications is that there is no delay in the filing of the returns and as soon as he was served with notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on March 21, 1990, he immediately filed the same on March 30, 1990, without any delay and as such, the prosecution cannot be maintained.3. Mr. Ramaswamy, learned income-tax counsel appearing for the respondent, would represent that the petitioner had earlier filed a similar application before this court and the same was dismissed on March 17, 1995 (A.Y. Prabhakar (HUF) v. Asst. CIT : [1996]217ITR253(Mad) ) and in that order, the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Arunachalam Vs. Pl.R. Arunachalam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ105
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No. 55 of 1994 has filed the above civil revision petition against the fair and decretal order dated 22.11.99 made in I.A.No. 263 of 1999 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, on grounds, such as, (i) that the lower court has failed to appreciate that the delay had been properly explained by examination of the petitioner and the Doctor who treated him as well, besides causing production of the document marked as Exs.A-1 to A-10; (ii) that the application under Section 5 should be viewed liberally, which the lower court has failed to consider; (iii) that the lower court has failed to note that the matter involves substantial determination of issues on facts and the same could not be casually dealt with: (iv) that the orders of the learned Subordinate Judge are opposed to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy : 2008(228)ELT162(SC) : : 2008(228)ELT162(SC) . On such grounds, the pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »