Chennai Court March 2000 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Deenal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC108; AIR2000Mad360; 2000(2)CTC519
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Railway, Claims Tribunal, Madras Bench, in O.A. II/2/1990 dated 3-12-1990. The Union of India represented by its General Manager is the appellant in the above appeal,2. According to the claimant one Deenal, wife of Ramanathan. It was contended that shewas travelling by train No. 92 7, Karnataka Express on 18-4-1989 from Katpadi to New Delhi in Second Class Sleeper Coach. The trian met with an accident on 18-4-1989 at 2.30 p.m. at Lalilpur in the course of which the claimant sustained injuries. In the application it was stated that she sustained fracture of pelvis bone and she was treated in several hospitals from 18-4-1989 to 30-5-1989 and later she undertook treatment at Christian Medical (College Hospital, Veilore. She had also lost her personal belongings. Total compensation of Rs. 46,000/- was claimed.3. In the counter filed by the Railways, the accident wns admitted. The fact that the petitioner had receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR153(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. There are two tax cases ; one at the instance of the assessee and another at the instance of the Revenue.2. Tax Case No. 2129 of 1984 is at the instance of the assessee and the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payment of Rs. 12,500 to the flag day fund was not an allowable deduction ?'3. In so far as the reference at the instance of the Revenue is concerned, the following questions of law have been referred to us by the Tribunal in relation to the assessment of income of the assessee for the assessment year 1977-78 for our consideration :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 13,14,124 being the contribution towards provident fund is allowable under section 3G(l)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether...
Tag this Judgment!Pandian Roadways Corporation Vs. Presiding Officer, Additional Labour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ1350Mad
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This petition has been filed by the Transport Corporation called Pandian Transport Corporation which is a statutory Corporation. An award of the Labour Court, Madurai dated September 30, 1992, is challenged whereby a conductor who was ordered to be dismissed in the domestic enquiry was directed to be reinstated by the Labour Court though, the Labour Court found that the said conductor would not be entitled to the back wages.2. Following is the factual panorama :The Respondent conductor was put in two years of service as an apprentice and his period of apprenticeship was extended by six months further. It was during this period that on December 2, 1983 the bus in which he was on duty being TNM-5357 came to be checked by the checking staff during its trip to Marampatti. The checking was done at 11.45 AM at Choodamanipatti Division. It was found during that checking that 0.90 paise ticket bearing No. 30744 was issued to a passenger travelling in the bus. It was punche...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Chennai-10 Vs. M/S Albert ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC83
ORDER1.Petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award dated 9.1.97 passed by the Arbitrator.2. The case in brief is as follows:The petitioner Corporation had floated a tender on 15.4.94 the purchase of massor dhall, good quality delivery at the Civil Supplies Godown in Madras City. The respondent participated and quoted the lowest rate of 13,490 per M.T. and offered to supply 10,000 M.Ts. The necessary security depositamount was also remitted by the respondent on 19.5.9 and agreement was executed on 20.5.94. The Corporation has issued orders for supply of 10,000 M.Ts. of masoor dhall. 50% has to be supplied on or before 14.6.94 and the remaining 50% has to be supplied before 14.7.94. However, the respondent supplied 348.187 tonnes before 14.6.94 and 58.576 tonne were supplied before 14.7.94 The total quantity of supply made by him was 406.763 tonnes only. However, respondent was applying for extension of the period of supply quoting...
Tag this Judgment!S. Madasamy thevar Vs. A.M. Arjuna Raja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad465
S. Thangaraj, J.1. The respondent in A.S. No. 91 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge. Srivilliputhur has filed this Second Appeal challenging the Judgment and decree passed by the said Court.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 422 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif. Srivilliputhur for declaration and injunction. The trial Court after full trial, dismissed (sic) suit and the unsuccessful plaintiff filed A.S. No. 91 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur who allowed the appeal and hence, the Second Appeal.3. The following substantial questions of law are framed in the Second Appeal:--'(1) Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is in accordance with Order 41, Rule 31, C.P.C.?(2) in a suit for declaration of title and for consequential injunction does not the initial burden of proof lie on the plaintiff?(3) in keeping with the Initial burden. Is not the plaintiff bound to prove his case by positive evidence on his side, ra...
Tag this Judgment!H. Prakashchand Chordia Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Mad)532; [2000]244ITR474(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. Writ Petition No, 17590 of 1997, is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay to the petitioner the balance of consideration of Rs. 9,01,500 together with interest on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 9,01,500.2. Writ Petition No. 17591 of 1997 is filed for issue of a writ of declaration to declare the provisions of Sub-clause (2) of Clause (b) of Section 269UA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, providing for the discount from the total consideration payable to the transferee of the property under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act ultra vires.3. Both the writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner and he is the owner of the property admeasuring 1,757.94 sq. ft. of an undivided interest in the portion of the land in the compound of 'Shadowbush' in R. S. No. 106/3 of Layout No. 118 of 1963, Corporation of Madras, as Plot No. 7, No. 110, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-34, and super built up area of 6,700 sq. ft. in the third floor of t...
Tag this Judgment!Management, NLC Employees' Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR248]; (2000)IILLJ1002Mad
ORDERK.G. Balakrishanan, C.J.1. Appeal is filed against the order dated August 13, 1999 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 6709/1996.2. The 2nd respondent's name was sponsored by Cuddalore Employment Exchange and an interview was conducted by the appellant society on May 28, 1991 and pursuant to that, the 2nd respondent was selected and he joined the duty on May 29, 1991. His services were terminated on September 17, 1991 by the order passed by the Special Officer of the Society. The 2nd respondent raised an industrial dispute and by the award passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Cuddalore it was held that the termination of the service of the 2nd respondent was illegal as no opportunity was given to the employee before his service was terminated and the appellants were directed to reinstate the 2nd respondent forthwith with continuity in service but without backwages. This award was challenged by the appellants herein before the learned single Judge in W.P....
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Rajendran and Another Vs. Recovery Officer (of Indian Bank) Debt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas19(Mad); 2000(2)CTC99; (2000)IIMLJ171
ORDER1. Petitioners in C.M.P. No.1704 of 1999 in C.M.A. No.211 of 1999 on the file of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai are the appellants in the above appeal. They filed the present appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC')2. The case of the appellants herein is briefly stated hereunder;The second appellant is the wife of the first appellant. They filed the present appeal against the order of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dismissing the injunction petition to restrain the respondents herein from auctioning the schedule mentioned property and from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of them, who are subsequent purchasers of the mortgaged property of the third defendant viz., Velur D. Narayanan who has borrowed some amount from the second respondent Indian Bank, Park Town, Chennai 3 on creating equitable mortgage in 1989. According to them the second respondent though claims to be obta...
Tag this Judgment!Savani Transport Pvt. Ltd. No. 234-A. Kamarajar Salai, Madurai Vs. M/S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC55; 2000(2)CTC567
ORDER1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1986 and made in O.S.No.167 of 1983 on the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Madurai. The second defendant is the appellant herein.2. The case of the plaintiff is concisely narrated below:-The suit is one for a recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000 being the value of the damaged consignment with subsequent interest at 12% per annum. The plaintiff entrusted 45 bags of cotton yarn on 8.5.1980 to the second defendant-appellant for safe carriage from Madurai to Bombay intended to be delivered at their sales depot at Bombay plaintiff who booked the consignment also insured the consignment with the second plaintiff under the marine insurance open policy under policy No.125000/3/1/00470/79 to compensate the first plaintiff against any loss or damage caused to the consignment during transit under Ex.A.1 and as such, the plaintiff is insured and the second plaintiff is the insurer. On 15.5.1980, the first plaintiff has received a...
Tag this Judgment!N. Dhandapani Vs. SelvIn Alias Selvam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad369; (2000)IIMLJ352
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. An interesting question arises for consideration in this transfer petition. The petitioner prays for an order to transfer Revision Petition (Pa. Ma.) 22/99/A4, pending on the file of District Revenue Officer (Revenue Court), Dindigul to any other Revenue Divisional Officer (Revenue Court) in any other district. The present petition for transfer has heen filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Before considering the present claim of the petitioner, it is useful to refer the case of both parties. According to the petitioner, he is in possession and enjoyment of 288 sq. feet of land in S.F. 129/A-1 in Oddanchatram village. He put up a construction in the said land some 25 years ago wherein he is run-ningateashop. Like him, there are a number of persons who are also in occupation ofsmall portion of land in the said S.F. No. and have also put up construction therein for running petty shops. He continues to pay water tax, house tax, electricity charg...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »