Chennai Court April 2000 Judgments
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Mad)125; [2000]111TAXMAN643(Mad)
ORDER1. Writ petition No. 3797 of 2000 is filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Southern Zonal Office against the proceedings of the Commissioner of Income-tax holding that the additional conveyance allowance is taxable as part of salary income.2. Writ Petition No. 5987 of 2000 is filed by the Association consisting of Development Officers in the office of Life Insurance Corporation of India praying for the issue of a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents and other Assessing Authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961 from levying, assessing and demanding income-tax from the members of the pedtioner-association in respect of additional conveyance allowance.3. The officers of the Life Insurance Corporation of India are paid additional conveyance allowance as part of their remuneration. According to the petitioners, this allowance is specifically granted to meet the expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of the duties. On the basis of th...
Tag this Judgment!Management of New Jayalakshmi Vilas Vs. Joint Commissioner of Labour ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ787Mad
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The appellant-management filed the above appeal aggrieved by the Order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 331 of 2000 dated January 11, 2000 rejecting the appellant's Writ Petition.2. The 2nd respondent claiming that he is the employee of the appellant and worked for more than 5 years moved the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, claiming payment of gratuity. The first authority rejected the petition of the 2nd respondent as if he has not completed the five years of service as contemplated under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The appellate authority in the Order dated July 8, 1998 held that the service of the 2nd respondent would have been taken as he had completed his service of five years and so he is entitled for gratuity amount. Challenging that Order, the appellant-Management filed the Writ Petition. The learned single Judge rejected the same. Hence the appellant filed the above writ appeal.3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of th...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Economic Roadways Corpora ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ2024
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in the suit against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 224 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, dated 12.2.1985. The defendant in the suit is the respondent in the appeal. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the plaint.2. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 62,042.61 being the damages suffered by the plaintiff No. 2 in respect of a consignment entrusted with the defendant on 17.2.1982 at Dindigul. The plaintiff No. 1 is the insurer who had compensated the plaintiff No. 2 and the suit was filed for recovery of the amount from the defendant with subsequent interest. On 17.2.1982, the plaintiff No. 2 had entrusted total number of 115 bags of 140 special hosiery cone yarn intended to be delivered to the consignee Yarn Syndicate Limited, 7, Jambu-nath Malik Lane, Calcutta. The defendant had issued a consignment note in G.C. No. 15/1197 dated 17.2.1982. The plaintiff No. 2 has duly i...
Tag this Judgment!Vee Cee Yes Granites Chennai, Rep. by Its Partner K.C. Ragunathan Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas37(Mad); 2000(2)CTC664; (2000)IIMLJ392
ORDER1. Vee Cee Yes Granites, Chennai, the plaintiff/applicant has filed this petition under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to stay the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Chennai. 2. The prayer is as follows:- 'I pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to order the stay of all proceedings in O.A.No.401 of 1998 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry at Chennai pending disposal of the suit in C.S.No.369 of 1997'.3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this application are as follows:- 'The plaintiff filed the suit before this Court on 23.4.1997 in C.S.No.369 of 1997 against the defendants I to 6 for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,03,340 due to the plaintiff under the export bill as well as for the loss suffered by it on account of the non-payment. The third defendant-Central Bank of India, Chennai, the respondent herein, filed written statement on 5.3.1998 stating that they are not vicariously liable and as such, they are n...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeswari Vs. Joint Secretary to Government, Government of India Minis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC97; 2000(72)ECC29
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner herein challenged the order dated 14th July, 1999, passed by the 1st respondent, under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (for short 'the COFEPOSA ACT'), directing the detention of her husband K.N. Thiagarajan, son of K.V. Nagendran, resident of Salem, Tamil Nadu.2. The grounds, in support of the order, suggest that on a tip-off, the officers of the Customs Central Intelligence Unit conducted vehicular check on 28.1.1999 at night at Thoppur Check Post, Kottu Road, Thoppur and stopped a white colour Contessa Car, bearing Registration No.TN-72-A-3004, coming from Dharmapuri to Salem. The detenu and his driver Madhavan were the only occupants. There was no luggage. When questioned, the detenu gave contradictory replies. Since there was no sufficient light and safety, the car was brought to the Customs Office at Salem for a detailed scrutiny...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan and Two Others Vs. Thayumanava Samy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC472
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order of the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Tiruchirapalli in P.No.98 of 1995. The respondents in the said petition are the revision petitioners before this Court. 2. The said petition in P.No.98 of 1995 was filed by the respondent herein under Section 4(5) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 for restoration of possession of the suit property comprised in S.F.No.378/11 of an extent of 0.92 cents of wet land in Rajendram village. 3. According to the revision petitioners, they had filed a suit for injunction against the respondent herein in O.S.No.1206 of 1984 before the District Munsif, Tiruchy. In the said suit, the revision petitioners also filed I.A.No.1235 of 1984 for temporary injunction and an order of temporary injunction was passed. The suit was also decreed in favour of the revision petitioners. The revision petitioners took possession of the suit property, according to the respondent herein, by forc...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Kumar Sutaria and ors. Vs. M. Karthik and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad512
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The applicants/plaintiffs have filed these applications viz., O.A. Nos. 755 and 756 of 1999, seeking for an interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from putting up any construction or obstruction in the common passage running from the applicants' house to T.T.K. Road and for issue of interim mandatory injunction to remove the unauthorised construction of a recently erected wall in front of the gate belonging to the applicants/plaintiffs, pending disposal of the suit filed by them requesting for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.2. The case of the applicants is as follows :--'A) The applicants purchased a vacant land bearing door No. 265-A. T.T.K, Road, Chennai from one P. Madhavan on 1-4-1981 measuring an extent ofl ground 1226sq.ft., out of the total extent of 3 grounds 2265 sq.ft. Through the said Sale Deed, the said Madhavan gave the right of access to the property from T.T. K, Road with a width of 11 feet and...
Tag this Judgment!Durai Murugan and ors. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ215
ORDERV. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. These revisions are filed against the order passed by Judicial Magistrate V, Vellore in Cri. M. P. No. 2827/98 and 2828/98. The accused in C.C. No. 107/91 have filed Cri. R.C. No. 1245/98. The State has filed Cri. R.C. 1290/98 and 1291/98 to set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate V, Vellore.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :(1) The cases relating to C.C.No. 107/91 and 171/94 and 108/91 were registered under Crime No. 37/91 and 38/91 on the file of Sub-Inspector of Police, Latteri Police Station. The occurrence took place on 14-5-91 at about 7 and 7.30 p.m. The cases were registered as case and counter-case. The accused in C.C. No. 107/91 belonged to DMK party and the accused in C.C. No. 171/94 belonged to AIADMK party.(2) On 14-5-91 at about 7 p.m., the AIADMK partymen were playing songs from recorded music through loud speakers supporting their election campaign at the stage erected for public meeting near Latteri bus stand. At t...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (A) Dept., Nungambakkam High Road, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC35
ORDER1. Defendants are the appellants.2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:-Arulmigu Mariamman Temple situate in Kosavampatti Village. Namakkal Taluk, Salem District was founded by the Kavarai Chettiars of that village. The temple was managed exclusively by them and festivals were also conducted by that community people alone. There are Vinayagar temple, Perumal temple, Madeswaran temple and Navagraham temple. The temple land for the temple was donated by the persons who hail from Kavarai Chettiar community of that village. The land was surrounded by houses. The community people applied for sanction to auction the property and it was auctioned for Rs.17,100 and it is in deposit and the interest is spent for the maintenance of the temple. The Endowment Board also appointed trustee from the said community alone as selected by the said community of the village from 1965 onwards. The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Salem appointed trustees from the s...
Tag this Judgment!A. Sampath Vs. Pachaippan and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1519
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the Award of the Motor Accident Claims, Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 703 of 1994, the owner of the vehicle in question has filed the above appeal. In respect of death of one Annadurai in a road accident that took place on 9.6.94, the mother and the wife of the deceased prayed for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000. The court below, after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor in question, passed an award for Rs.2,00,000 with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition. Questioning the said award, exonerating the insurance company from its liability, the owner of the tractor has filed the above appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, after taking me through the order of the Tribunal R.C.book. and insurance policy, namely, Exs. A-4 and A-5, would contend that in view of valid insurance policy covering both t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »