Chennai Court November 2000 Judgments
inum Beevi Vs. K.S. Syed Ahamed Kabir (Died) and 15 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ307
ORDER1. The defendant is the appellant. 2. The respondent filed a suit for partition of his three fourth share in the suit property and have separate possession of three fourth suit property and other reliefs. The suit properties only belonged to one Haji Shahul Hameed(SH). He died on 12.1.1986. As per Mohamedan Law the appellant (his wife) and the respondent (his brother) are his heirs, the respondent being entitled to three fourth share and the appellant one fourth. Prior to the suit the respondent sent suit notice dated 27.1.1986 claiming partition to which the appellant replied on 6.7.1986 for which a rejoinder had also been issued. The claim made by the appellant that her husband had given her the properties by a gift deed dated 10.1.1984 was false. The gift deed was obtained from SH when he was under the undue influence of the appellant and not in a lucid mental condition so any document obtained from him is void. Several properties to which SH had neither right nor title have be...
Tag this Judgment!Jugal Kishore Naresh Kumar No. 85 Acharappan St, Madras-1 Vs. Union of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1516; (2001)1MLJ159
ORDER1. The facts leading to the civil miscellaneous appeal are as under:The appellant who is the endorsed consignee/purchaser of 245 bags of wheat (120 + 125) sent from Hardol to Katpadi under railway receipts Exs.B-1 and B-2. On arrival of the goods at the destination, it was found that a portion of the consignment had been damaged in respect of which the respondent, the destination railway, issued joint survey report Ex.A.-1 stating that 120 bags kept for OD were found wet, damaged, discolored, disfigured, fungus attacked and emitting bad smell and the damage was assessed at Rs.15,744. It is not necessary to refer to the umber of bags and the percentage of assessment as the total amount claimed has already been given. The goods were sent on24.8.1990 from Hardol. The goods reached the destination on 13.12.1990 as seen from the D message, Ex.B-3, issued by the Chief Goods Supervisor, Katpadi. According to the appellant, the damage was caused due to the negligence and misconduct on the...
Tag this Judgment!Sabeta Detergents Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR385(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner complains that Section 245 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not complied with before the refund of a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs for the assessment year 1996-97 was adjusted towards the arrears of tax, in the calculation of the amount outstanding as on March 31, 1998, which is the material date for determining the extent of the relief to be granted to those availing of the Samadhan Scheme.2. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he had in fact received an intimation under Section 143(IXa) of the Act for the assessment year 1996-97 in which the amount of refund payable to him had been set out. That order itself states prepaid tax adjustment : that is refund is adjusted against tax due for 1995-96. Despite that intimation having been received by the assessee, the assessee did not communicate any reason to the Department as to why the adjustment as proposed therein should not be made. The assessee chose to remain silent.3. It is only after the amount...
Tag this Judgment!P. Velu Chettiar Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: [2002]256ITR490(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Condition No. 5 in the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which empowers the Chief Commissioners and Directors-General (Investigation) to reduce or waive penal interest for late submission of a return of income, non-payment or inadequate payment of advance-tax, etc., reads thus :'(v) where the return of income is filed voluntarily without detection by the Income-tax Department and due to circumstances beyond the control of the taxpayer such return of income was not filed within the statutory time limit or advance tax was not paid at the relevant time.'2. The petitioner filed his return on January 29, 1997, for the years 1993-94, to 1996-97 voluntarily and paid tax. But, he did not offer any explanation for the delay in filing the returns and did not show what the circumstances were, which could be regarded as being beyond his control and which had come in the way of the returns not being filed in due time.3. The Chief Commissioner, therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramanathan Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: [2002]257ITR477(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The submission of the petitioner is that notice having been issued as provided for in Rule 119(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the interest under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be taken note of for the purpose of determination of the amount payable by the petitioner under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. That rule was in force during the assessment years in question namely, 1971-72 to 1973-74. The Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme provides opportunity to the assessee to pay all the dues, which had remained unpaid by reason of pending litigation. There is no compulsion on the assessee to avail of the benefit of the scheme. When the matters are being settled finally by extending the concession, all the amounts payable by the assessee are required to be taken into account while determining the extent of concession to be given. The Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme is meant to put a final end to the pending litigations. That cannot be done if the contentions lik...
Tag this Judgment!Ramadoss G. and ors. Vs. Management of Tansi Die Castings, Industrial ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ706Mad; (2001)1MLJ123
P. Sathasivam, J.1. With regard to disallowed claim in the award passed by the First Additional Labour Court, Madras-104 in C.P. No.529 of 1991, dated November 6, 1992, the workman has filed W.P. No. 13051 of 1993. Aggrieved by the award of the Principal Labour Court, Madras in C.P. No. 875 of 1993, dated March 27, 1997, the management of Tansi the Castings, Chennai-32, has filed W.P. No. 11664 of 1998. Since common questions are involved in both the impugned orders, the above writ petitions are being disposed of by the following common order.2. Inasmuch as we are concerned with the orders passed in the claim petitions, it is unnecessary to refer the order of dismissal passed by the management and the ultimate award passed by the First Additional Labour Court, Madras in I.D. No.459 of 1987, dated November 30, 1990, reinstating the workman with back-wages and continuity of service. Though the management has filed a writ petition challenging the said award, it is stated that the same was...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Premier Mills Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ99Mad; (2001)1MLJ195
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.A. No. 38 of 1997 in I.D. No. 319 of 1996, the management of Premier Mills, Ltd., has filed the above writ petition.2. According to the petitioner-management, they are having a Textile Mill at Pulankinar, Udumalpet Taluk, where it employs about 1000 workmen and it has a spindle capacity of about 60,000 spindles. In 1983, the petitioner-management put up a voluntary retirement scheme, pursuant to which, the entire labour force of the mill opted for voluntary retirement and left the service. In 1986, one R. Krishnaswamy came forward to take the work of conversion of cops and cone into hank yarn and cone yarn, etc. Subsequently, Krishnaswamy converters handed over the establishment to Smt.R. Mani, who was running it in the name of Sri Vinayaga Converters. Sri Vinayaga Converters was having a separate factory, Registration, Factory Licence, Provident Fund Code No. ESI Code No., Central Excise Regisation, etc. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ennore Foundries Ltd. (Represented by Its Secretary) Vs. Government of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR884]; (2000)IIILLJ185Mad; (2001)1MLJ93
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Since issue raised in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order. For convenience, I shall refer the case of the petitioner in W.P.No. 5724 of 1998. According to them, the petitioner is a factory situated at Ennore wherein it is engaged in the production of ferrous and non-ferrous castings and employs about 2600 employees. It is covered by the E.S.I. Act in so far as eligible employees are concerned and has all along been making contributions under the Act.2. The Clause 19 of settlement, dated January 5, 1994, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act between the petitioner and the third respondent-union is to the effect that upon benefits being available under E.S.I. Act, the benefits flowing under the said settlement was stopped. The benefits under that settlement were to be given by the petitioner to its employees in respect of medical reimbursement. Since several of its employees were not covered...
Tag this Judgment!Hatim and Co., Represented by Its Partners HussaIn and ors. Vs. Radhak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ110
ORDERP. Thangavel, J.1. These civil revision petitions have been filed by the tenants, as revision petitioners, against the common judgment and decrees dated 17.4.2000 and made in R.C.A.Nos. 1005 of 1993 and 1006 of 1993 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, confirming the common order and decretal order, dated 22.3.1993 and made in R.C.O.P.Nos. 1472 of 1989 and 1473 of 1989 on the file of the XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these civil revision petitions are as follows: Smt. Lajja Bai is the owner of the shops bearing Nos. 3 and 5 described in the petitions in R.C.O.P.Nos. 1472 and 1473 of 1989, on the file of the Rent Control Court and the said shops were let out to H. Hatim and Co., and A.K. Hussain & Co., on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 each. The tenants, who are the revision petitioners herein, had failed to pay rent to the landlady, who is represented by the respondents herein, as legal represe...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P. Ramamoorthi Vs. the Madurai Kamaraj University Represented by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ204
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed against the proceedings of the first respondent in Memo No. Estt/T/1/92, dated 12.1.1993 by which the petitioner was demoted to the lowest cadre in the lowest post that is Lecturer from the post of Reader and by which the petitioner was debarred from guiding Ph.D., research scholars.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:The petitioner was selected and appointed by the first respondent in 1976 as Lecturer in Madurai Kamaraj University English Department. In 1984 he was conferred with Doctorate in English by the first respondent University and in 1985 he was promoted as Reader in the Department of English. Later, when the Department of Theatre Arts was formed in 1990, he was transferred and posted as the Reader and incharge of the Head of the Department of Theatre Arts. He had been invited for several International conferences and had prepared 3 U.G.C. E.T.V. programmes. He had written two plays in Englis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »