Chennai Court November 2000 Judgments
Cit Vs. Anglo French Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Mad)231
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.The assessee is a company whose industrial undertaking was nationalised. The Act under which it was taken over provided for compensation in a limited sum to be distributed (sic-among) the classes of persons in the order of priority provided in the Schedule to the Act. The arrears of tax for the years prior to the date of nationalisation that is in 1986 is not an item for which first priority is given. That liability is not taken over by the Government or by the corporation. The undertaking of this company was subsequently transferred by the Government to the Pondicherry Textiles Corporation. This court in the case of Pondicherry Textiles Corporation v. Union of India : [1999]239ITR457(Mad) after considering the provisions of the Anglo-French Textiles Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Textiles Undertaking) Act, 1986, held that the Pondicherry Textiles, Corporation is not the successor of Anglo French Textiles, although the entire undertaking was transferred ...
Tag this Judgment!Pandian Vs. A. Abitha Begam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ402
ORDER1. The above civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.4.2000 made in RCA No.4 of 1998 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 24.4.1998 made in RCOP No.5 of 1997 by the Rent Controller and the Court of Principal District Munsif, Sivaganga.2. An application has been filed by the petitioner/landlady before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant from the premises bearing door No.25 in Ward No.16, Nehru Bazaar of Sivaganga town under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). The averments of the petition are that the petition property was originally belonging to and in enjoyment of one Abdul Azeez and the appellant became the lessee under him on a monthly rent of Rs.300; that while so, on 9.11.1995, the respondent/landlord purchased the pet...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Dhandapani Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director, Bank of India, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ384Mad
ORDER1. Admittedly, the petitioner was declared as insolvent on 5.11.1990 and therefore, his service was terminated by order dated 15.7.1991 by the respondent-bank, invoking Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Thereafter, by order dated 3.8.1992, the order of insolvency was set aside by this Court, on the basis of which the petitioner, by his representation dated 14.8.1992, requested the respondent bank to reinstate him in service. However, the request was rejected by the respondent bank by their proceedings dated 11.9.1992. Hence, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in Ref.No.ZO/IR dated 11.9.1992 on the file of the second respondent, to quash the same and to direct the respondent to reinstate him into service with all benefits of which he is entitled under the terms of his employment.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the case of one S.Subbaraya Davey, who was termina...
Tag this Judgment!Balasubramaniam M. Vs. Management of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ362Mad; (2000)1MLJ597
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The appellant, who had lost in a writ petition before the learned single Judge, has come up in this appeal. In that writ petition, he challenged the Labour Court Award. The Labour Court Award was also against him in the sense that his dismissal after the domestic enquiry by the first respondent was upheld by the Labour Court. The learned single Judge, also upheld the award, and that is why the appellant/petitioner is before us. Petitioner/appellant was working as an assistant in the employer Company, and at the relevant time he was working in Pondicherry, where for the tax saving reason, the purchasers of Chassis used to take the delivery, because the tax is lower there. For that purpose, this Company had opened an Office in Pondicherry, and the appellant/petitioner was working there. Complaints started pouring against the appellant/ petitioner that he was receiving unauthorised payments from the customers. Therefore, a notice came to be served on him and the expla...
Tag this Judgment!Vargheese Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2295
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Special Judge, E.C. Act, Thanjavur, dated 12-1-1994 rendered in S.T.C. No. 47 of 1992, convicting the appellant/first accused under Clauses 3 and 4 of Tamilnadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of Standards) Order, 1977 read with Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for four months.2. Short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows :Prosecution had examined P.Ws. 1 to 4, and marked Exs.l to 10. P.W.4 Inspector along with his party, attached to Civil Supplies, C.I.D., Cuddalore, made an inspection on 27-7-1990 at 12.30 hrs. at the premises of the appellant and second accused situate at No. 6/3, Vellore Housing Board Building, Gundusalai, Cuddalore N.T., wherein the accused 1 and 2 were found manufacturing adulterated tea. On enquiry, the appellant admitted th...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Kumar Mohnot Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1605
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The Central Bureau of Investigation filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and two others for the offences under Sections 120-B read with 420, 468, 471 read with 468, I.P.C. in the year 1995. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses, out of 24 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. At that point of time, the prosecution filed an application under Section 311, Cr. P.C. praying for permission to examine 5 more persons as additional witnesses.2. The petitioner/accused objected to the said application on the ground that the names of additional 5 witnesses were not mentioned in the charge sheet and out of the 5 persons, 4 persons were treated as accused during investigation. Therefore, they cannot be treated as witnesses and their statements cannot be construed as statements recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C.3. The trial Court, while rejecting the objection of the petitioner/accused, upheld the contention of the prosecution and allowed the application. T...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Nagammal Mills Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ248Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-management herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in Complaint No. 117 of 1987 in I.D. Nos. 1 to 5 of 1986 and to quash the award dated January 7, 1993.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the same as prayed for. Per contra, though no counter-affidavit has been filed, the case was contested by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. They argued the matter and justifying the impugned award, they pleaded that the writ petition may be dismissed for want of merit.3. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments. I have perused the contents of the affida...
Tag this Judgment!HussaIn Shaw Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2142
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred from the judgment of the Special Judge under E. C. Act, Thanjavur dated 12-1-1994, made in S.T.C. No. 64 of 1992, convicting the appellant/accused under clause 3 of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of Standards) Order, 1977 read with Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to undergo R.I. for one month.2. The short facts leading to the conviction could be summarised as follows :--On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. P1 to P9 were marked, P.W. 2 turned hostile.3. On 29-6-1991 at about 3.00 p.m., P.W. 1, Special Tahsildar, Flying Squad along with his party made an inspection at the shop premises of the appellant/accused, situate at No. 440, Main Road, Nellikuppam. He served a notice on the accused, as found under Ex. P1. He purchased 540 grams of groundnut oil for Rs. 18.30...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Electricity Board North Division, Through Its Divisional El ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ741
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 75 of 1984 before the Sub Court, Dindigul are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh being the damages caused by fire to the building, but whereas, the trial Court awarded only Rs. 40,000 by the decree and judgment dated 29.1.1987. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred this appeal.2. The brief facts are as follows:The first plaintiff is the owner of the suit building and he had let out the same to the second plaintiff, who in turn had sublet the suit property to the defendants on a monthly rent of Rs. 925. The defendants became tenants on and from 1.3.1983. It is stated that the suit building is measuring 85 feet north to south and 45 feet east to west and it is a good, strong and sound building. The front portion is a tiled veranda and next to it there is a hall and there were rooms on either side of the said hall and there is a big hall measuring 20 feet x 20 feet and also tiled ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sankar Vs. G.L. Vijayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ241
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.7.1987 made in R.C.A. No. 10 of 1993 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, thereby reversing the fair and decretal order dated 15.12.1992 made in R.C.O.P. No. 215 of 1986 by the Rent Controller and Additional District Munsif, Madurai.2. The landlord has filed the rent control original application before the Rent Controller against his tenant for eviction of the premises bearing door No. 60 of South Avani Moola Street, Madurai Town, under Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(2)(vii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on averments that the said premises belongs to him under a Will dated 9.2.1951, that since being a minor the property was looked after by his father Kanagavel; that the respondent became the tenant of the premises for running his lorry booking office on terms that he...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »