Chennai Court December 2000 Judgments
K. Venkatanarayanan Vs. Balaji and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2000
Reported in: II(2001)ACC259; 2002ACJ1063
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem, in M.C.O.P. No. 27 of 1997. The claimant is the appellant in the above appeal.2. According to the claimant-appellant on 24.9.1996 at about 8.45 p.m. when he along with his wife, was returning home in his Hero Punch moped, bearing registration No. TN 27-9721 from Kalki Temple located near Ramakrishna Road junction, the rider of the scooter bearing registration No. TN. 27-A 6041, came in a rash and negligent manner. He dashed against the claimant's moped. As a result of which, he and his wife fell down from the moped. He sustained fracture on his left leg and also injuries on his left eyebrow, left shoulder, left index finger, fracture of the maxillary bone and fracture of zygoma. The moped which he was driving was also damaged. He took treatment in a private hospital by spending huge amount and after discharge from the hospital, he was using crutches for walking. The accid...
Tag this Judgment!P. Arumugam Vs. the Management of Viralimalai Co-operative Land Develo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1717Mad
ORDER1. The petitioner/employee, having been dismissed from service by the first respondent/Bank Management by an order dated 17.4.1987, raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.167 of 1990 before the Labour Court, Madurai and the same was transferred as I.D.No.81 of 1992 of the Labour Court Thiruchirapalli viz., the second respondent herein, who by an award dated 10.3.1993 confirmed the order of dismissal dated 17.4.1987. Hence, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus under the following facts and circumstances of the case.2. A disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner/employee by the first respondent/management by a memo dated 7.4.1986 for alleged charges of misappropriation of funds of the first respondent/management to the tune of Rs.100 on 8.1.1982 and a further sum of Rs.517 on 6.12.1986 towards his travelling allowance and encashment of leave to his credit, respectively.3. It is further alleged that when the petitioner was under interim suspension, he...
Tag this Judgment!S.S.D. Oil Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: 2002(146)ELT263(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above writ petition is filed seeking the relief of issuance of a writ of declaration to declare condition No. 4B(ii) of the Notification No. 88/2000, dated 12-6-2000 issued by the first respondent as unconstitutional, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India in so far as the petitioner is concerned.2. The case of the petitioner as averred in the affidavit filed in support of the above petition is : that the petitioner is a manufacturer of refined edible oils, Vanaspathi and allied products; that the petitioner is a mediumscale industry in the State of Tamil Nadu at Iyyappanthangal, Chennai; that it obtained 'No Objection' certificate to manufacture Vanaspathi from the Directorate of Vanaspathi as required by the provisions of erstwhile Vegetable Oil Products Control Order, 1947, which was replaced by Vegetable Oil Products (Regulation) Order, 1998 and Vegetable Oil Products (Standards of Quality) Order, 1975; that ...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Roadways Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Mad)544; [2001]251ITR213(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Counsel submitted that the question now raised, is one which arises under the Finance Act, 1983, which question, if considered in the light of the speech of the Finance Minister which preceded the enactment, and in the light of the settled law that the court must take the words in a fiscal statute as they occur, not adding to them or subtracting therefrom, as also in the light of the revised definition of the 'jeep' given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, tenth edition (2000), is a question of law, reference of which should be called for by this court. The question reference of which is sought by the assessee is as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that jeep owned by the company should be treated as a motor car for the purpose of Section 40(3)(vii) of the Finance Act, 1983.'Jeep' is not defined in any of the fiscal Acts. No other legislation containing a definition of the term has been brought to our notice. In the Concise Oxford Dictionary, tenth edi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: 2001(128)ELT375(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. We heard the Counsel at some length under the impression that answer is required to be given to the question and that what was before us is a reference. We have therefore had occasion to examine the matter more deeply that what we would have done otherwise. Having heard the Counsel and having perused the relevant rules, we are satisfied that the questions proposed do arise and require our consideration. The Tribunal is directed to refer the question as to whether the Tribunal was correct in extending Modvat credit on inputs received under cover of endorsed invoice when such endorsement is not a document prescribed under Rule 57G(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal shall also send a statement of case together with the materials relevant for answering the question....
Tag this Judgment!Kannammal and anr. Vs. Mannammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ628
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No. 383 of 1986 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai, have preferred the second appeal, aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1999 on the file of the District Court, Tiruvannamalai, partly allowing the judgment and decree dated 21.4.1999 made in O.S.No. 383 of 1986.2. The case in brief is as follows:The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction. The suit property originally belonged to Tirumalai Reddiar, the father of the plaintiffs and it was his ancestral property. Out of love and affection, Tirumalai Reddiar executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The settlement deed was duly executed, attested and registered. The plaintiffs also accepted the settlement deed and they were put in possession and enjoyment of the property. Patta was also transferred in their name and they paid kist. The portion originally belonged to the plaintiffs' father was purchased by t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ne Plus Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas376(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This application is filed to dispense with the holding of the meeting of the equity shareholders and the creditors of the applicant-company.2. The applicant has stated that there is a proposal for a scheme of amalgamation to merge the applicant-company with one Opus Software Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai. According to the applicant, the scheme of amalgamation was approved by the board of directors and shareholders of Opus Software Solutions P. Ltd., Mumbai. According to the applicant, there are only six equity shareholders in the applicant-company and all the shareholders have read the copy of the scheme of amalgamation and granted their approval and consent to the scheme of amalgamation. The consent letters of all the equity shareholders of the applicant-company (transferor-company) giving their consent for the proposed scheme of amalgamation of the applicant-company with Opus Software Solutions P. Ltd., have also been filed. They have also expressed the...
Tag this Judgment!Donghee Vision Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. Tube Investments of India L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas460(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This application is filed to set aside the order dated September 29, 2000, passed in C. P. No. 90 of 2000, winding up the applicant-company, and to restore C. P. No. 90 of 2000 to be heard on the merits after the applicant files its objection to the winding up petition.2. The applicant in C. A. No. 2389 of 2000 was the respondent in C. P. No. 90 of 2000 and the respondent in the company application is the petitioner in the company petition. The parties are hereinafter referred to as shown in the company application.3. The respondent herein has filed company petition, C. P. No. 90 of 2000 for winding up of the applicant-company under Sections 433(e) and (f), 434(1)(a) and 439(1) and (b) of the Companies Act, 1956. In the petition filed for winding up, the respondent has stated that the applicant is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and having its registered office at 'No. 722/T, Chesney Town House, Commander-in-Chief Road, Eg...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Reserve Bank of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas467(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This application is filed to implead the applicant as a party/respondent in C. P. No. 496 of 2000.2. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application read as under :3. The applicant is a Ph.D., in Economics and was a visiting Professor of Economics in the University of Harvard, U.S.A. The applicant was a Union Cabinet Minister during 1990-91 and he filed several public interest litigations. In the affidavit, there is a reference to the steps taken by the applicant in filing a writ petition against the disinvestment of shares of the SPIC group held by TIDCO in favour of a few individuals and the order passed in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal. According to the applicant, M.C.C. Finance Ltd. is a part of the group of companies of the late M. A. Chidambaram: In the affidavit, there is also a reference to the default committed by M.C.C. Finance Ltd. in the repayment of principal and interest to the depositors and the appoint...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Seetha Venkatesh Mills Employees Union Vs. Government of Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ185Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. This writ petition is for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent relating to the notice dated September 7,2000 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to refer the dispute for adjudication after receipt of the failure report from the second respondent and till then direct the third respondent to continue to maintain the existing service conditions that prevailed prior to September 7, 2000 awaiting any award that may be passed by the Industrial Tribunal in respect of the issues contained in the notice, dated March 5, 2000 of the third respondent issued under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. According to the petitioner on December 29, 1992, a settlement was entered, into between various unions representing the workmen including the petitioner and the third respondent, in and by which the third respondent agreed to reopen the Mills on December 30, 1992 which was under lay of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »