Chennai Court February 2000 Judgments
Connemara Hotel, Spencer International Hotels Ltd. Vs. Employees Insur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR699]; (2000)IILLJ572Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner Hotel has filed this writ petition against the E.I. Court, the E.S.I. Corporation and the Special Tahsildar (E.S.I. Recovery) praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records and to quash the order dated August 4, 1992 made by the first respondent in C.M.P. No. 42 of 1992 in E.I.O.P. of 1992.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents as well.3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the Attorney of the petitioner would contend that the petitioner Hotel is a Unit of Spencer International Hotels Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Madras and 'it is engaged in the business of hoteliering; that the petitioner Hotel employs about 450 employees and wherever it is applicable, the provisions of the E.S.I. Act have been complied; that the petitioner company is also providing facilities for In-Company training and the trainees undergo t...
Tag this Judgment!itc Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (A)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: 2001(127)ELT338(Mad)
ORDERE. Pai Anabhan, J.1. W.P. No. 11047 of 1999 has been filed by M/s. ITC Limited, (Packaging and Printing Division) praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records leading to passing of impugned Order A. No. 41/99(M-I), dated 15-6-1999 by the first respondent herein, quash the same and direct the first respondent to hear and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits without insisting pre-deposit of the balance amount of Rs. 3,23,90,292/- out of Rs. 4,48,90,292/- (i.e., after adjusting Rs. 1,25,00,000/- already paid by the petitioner).2. W.P. No. 15140 of 1999 has been filed by M/s. Pradeep Drug Company Limited, Chennai praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Order dated 20-8-1999 passed by the second respondent herein in Appeal No. 153 of 1999 (M-III), quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to hear the stay application afresh after granting personal hearing to...
Tag this Judgment!C. Sivasubramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Reb. by Sub-inspector of Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC573
ORDER1. The brother of the detenu is the petitioner herein. Under the impugned order of detention dated 26.5.1999 passed by the second respondent herein - the District Collector and the District Magistrate, Villupuram District, Villupuram, the detenu Thiru Panneer (a) Panneer Selvam was detained as a Goonda as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. The detenu is having four adverse cases. The ground case, pursuant to which the impugned order of detention was passed, took place on 18.5.1999. On 18.5.1999, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Villupuram Town Police Station, was on special duty alongwith his party to secure the detenu Thiru Panneer (a) Panneer Selvam - the absconding accused in Crime No.435 of 1999 on the file of the same Police Station. The said Crime No.435 of 1999 was registered against the detenu for the offences under Sections 427, 294(b), 506(ii) and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. At about 9.15 AM, the said Sub- Inspector received information about the deten...
Tag this Judgment!D.N. Udani Vs. the Revenue Officer, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Bui ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC346
ORDER1. Challenging the notice of demand issued by the second respondent to the petitioner's tenant, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The notice is given to the occupier, The Manager, Indian Bank, Villivakkam, Chennai-49, calling upon them to pay the arrears of property tax of a sum of Rs.1,02,050 in respect of property at No .1, Thirumengalam Road, Villivakkam, Chennai-49. It is contended that the Bank is now occupying an area of 4000 sq.ft. and the other portions are vacant. It is no doubt true that the Supreme Court has held in Sudama Devi v. Commissioner, : [1984]146ITR624(SC) that collection of tax shall not be stayed unless there are exceptional circumstances. The petitioner has applied for demolition and reconstruction. The necessary demolition charges have also been paid by the petitioner on 10.7.1996. He has also informed the authorities by letters dated 20.9.1996 and 26.2.1997 that demolition has been carried put and therefore, the levy of house tax in respect of the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Arpana Dutta Vs. Apollo Hospitals Enterprises and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ954; AIR2000Mad340; (2000)IIMLJ772
I. David Christian, J.1. Suit for damages.Plaint allegations briefly stated are as follows :--Plaintiff is a citizen of India and hails from Guwahati in Assam. She was given in marriage to one Tapan K. Dutta, who is a resident of United States of America. After living in United States of America of some years, the plaintiff along with her husband proceeded to Saudi Arabia and the husband is gainfully employed in Saudi Arabia. The plaintiff is residing with her husband in Saudi Arabia and she is a house wife looking after the house and taking care of her husband and children. By about 1986, the plaintiff developed certain gynaecological problems. When she consulted Doctors, they diagnosed that the plaintiff is having a cyst in one of her ovaries, for which they prescribed certain treatment. Even after she took medicines, she was feeling discomfort and the Doctors abroad advised her to go in for removal of uterus, a surgery known in medical terms as Hysterectomy. It was suggested that on...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayaka Mission's College of Pharmacy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad375
ORDERY. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from applying the provisions of G.O.Ms. No. 1596 Health and Family Welfare dated 13-8-1986 by directing the petitioner to make endowment deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs to enter into agreement/bond agreeing to comply with the conditions of the said Government Order etc., holding that the same is not applicable to the petitioner.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 writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this Court to dismiss the writ p...
Tag this Judgment!Sivaram Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: [2000]244ITR136(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dated January 20, 1992, rejecting the request for waiver of interest and penalty for the assessment year 1988-89, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for quashing the said order and for direction to the first respondent to grant waiver of the same as prayed for in their application dated June 29, 1991 under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The facts which are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are stated hereunder :The petitioner is a registered partnership firm carrying on business in textile goods. The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the second respondent. According to them, they voluntarily filed returns of income before the second-respondent for the assessment year 1987-88 on January 1, 1990, and, for the assessment year 1988-89 on September 26, 1990. The taxes due as per the returns were duly paid along with the return. The due dates for filing of the returns for t...
Tag this Judgment!Rajammal R. Vs. Yellow Hammer Accessories and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR499]; (2001)ILLJ383Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The second petitioner before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, in W.C. No. 121 of 1997 against the dismissal of the said petition for compensation has filed the above appeal before this Court.2. In respect of death of one Jagadeswaran in a motor vehicle accident, the appellant herein along with her husband T.P. Rathinasamy filed W.C. No. 121 of 1997, before the said authority claiming compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs. The said petition was resisted by the respondents stating that the deceased was not a workman as defined under Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the first claimant being employed and earning, both of them are not dependents; accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. In support of their claim, the first claimant, father of the deceased was examined as P.W. 1, and 2 more persons as P.Ws. 3 and 4 were also examined, apart from marking exhibits A-1 to A-8. On the ...
Tag this Judgment!Minvaria Oppanda Thozhilalar Sangam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ425Mad; (2000)IIMLJ243
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.The present writ petition has been filed by a Trade Union, through its General Secretary. Mainly speaking, the petitioner's case is that its members, who were contract labourers, were discriminated against and were not absorbed in the regular employment in pursuance of the policy of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, first respondent herein, more particularly, in its unit Ennore Thermal Power Station, second respondent herein, whereas the juniors to these workers were actually absorbed and regularised. A direction is, therefore, sought to absorb the members of the petitioner Union in regular services consequent to the abolition of the contract labour system. The reference to this complaint is to be found in paragraph 35 of the main affidavit, dated November 1, 1998. It is stated therein as follows:'It is submitted that after the filing of W.P. Nos. 13327, 15188 and 16743 of 1998 the workmen listed in Annexure I enclosed herewith are being denied employment by resp...
Tag this Judgment!Sivaram Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: [2000]110TAXMAN243(Mad)
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dated 20-1-1992, rejecting the request for waiver of interest and penalty for the assessment year 1988-89, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for quashing the said order and for direction to the first respondent to grant waiver of the same as prayed for in their application dated 29-6-1991 under section 273A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Income Tax Act.2. The facts which are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are stated hereunder:The petitioner is a registered partnership firm carrying on business in textile goods. The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the 2nd respondent. According to them, they voluntarily filed returns of income before the 2nd respondent for the assessment year 1987-88 on 1- 1- 1990 and for the assessment year 1988-89 on 26-9-1990. The taxes due as per the returns were duly paid along with the return. The due dates for filing of the returns for the assessment years 1987-88 and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »