Chennai Court January 2001 Judgments
K. Thakshinamoorthy and Another Vs. State Bank of India, Arasaradi Bra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad167
ORDER1. The defendants in O.S.No.69 of 1999 in I.A.No.63 of 1999 are the petitioners in this revision petition. The respondent is the plaintiff. The present revision petition has been filed as against the order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai made in I.A.No.279 of 1999 in I.A.No.63 of 1999 in O.S.No.69 of 1999. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.2. The plaintiff-State Bank of India, Arasaradi Branch, Madurai represented by its Branch Manager filed a suit against the defendants for a judgment and decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating/selling the scheduled properties or to create any charge over the same. Pending the suit, the plaintiff also filed I.A.No. 63 of 1999 seeking for interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the properties.3. The defendants filed I.A.No.279 of 1999 for a direction under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint filed in O.S.No.59 of 1999 as not ma...
Tag this Judgment!Usha C.S. Vs. Madras Refineries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ148Mad; (2001)1MLJ802
N.K. Jain, C.J. 1. These writ appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge made in W.P. Nos. 17347 and 17348 of 1998 dated November 3, 2000 dismissing both the writ petitions.2. Necessary facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner- appellant are as as follows:The appellant/petitioner joined the first respondent/Public Sector Undertaking on June 1, 1987 as a Senior Officer and got promoted as Deputy Manager in 1992. She was sexually harassed by the second respondent by means of sexual advances and propositions. She suffered the problem silently and she did not complain -to anyone officially then. In 1992, soon after the second respondent was posted as Head of the appellant's department as General Manager, Corporate Planning, he resumed his old ways and used to pass comments about her appearance despite her objections. It is alleged that as she did not yield to his advances, the second respondent openly fought for her exclusion from the core group for ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Vaithiyanathan Vs. Lakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad310
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The aggrieved petitioner has filed the aforesaid CRPs. against the fair and final orders dated 23-9-98 passed in E.A. Nos. 34 to 36 of 1998 in E.A. No. 790/187 inE.P.No. 536/84 in O.S. No. 1111/74 on the file of the Additional District Munsif No. 1, Tiruvannamalai.2. The case in brief is as follows :--The petitioner is the 12th respondent in E.A. No. 790/87 and he filed these three applications to reopen E.A. No. 790/87, to strike out the names of respondents 11 to 13 from the order passed in E.A. No. 1022/84 and-the order passed in E.A. No. 1022/84 dated 19-8-97 is not binding on the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent/judgment debtor. The petitioner and respondents 11 and 13 are the legal heirs of Unnamalai Animal, one of the judgment debtors. The petitioner is not a party in E.A. No. 1022/84 filed by the assignee decree holders to recognise the assignment and also to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased decree-holder. The legal heirs of t...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijayakumar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ548
K. Sampath, J.1. The above C.M.As. arise out of M.A.C.T. O.P.Nos. 1846 of 1992, 1916 of 1992 and 1855 of 1992 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem. Those three claim petitions arose out of a single accident in which the petitioner in M.A.C.T. O.P.No. 1846 of 1992 and the petitioner in M.A.C.T. O.P.No. 1855 of 1992 were injured and one Manikandan died and his parents filed M.A.C.T. O.P.No. 1916 of 1992. In M.A.C.T. O.P.No. 1846 of 1992, as against a claim for Rs. 1 lakh, the injured Vijayakumar was awarded Rs. 53,850. In M.A.C.T. O.P.No. 1855 of 1992, as against a claim for Rs. 50,000, the injured Muralidharan was awarded Rs. 25,000. In M.A.C.T. O.P.No. 1916 of 1992, as against a claim for Rs. 5 lakhs, Rs. 2,20,000 was awarded. Common questions arise for decision and the C.M.As. are disposed of by the following order.2. The injured claimants and the deceased were travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. TAT. 4946. The jeep dashed against rocks and trees on Yerc...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ523
K. Sampath, J.1. The above C.M.As. arise out of M.A.C.T.O.P. Nos. 1846, 1916 and 1855 of 1992 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem. These three claim petitions arose out of a single accident in which the petitioner in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1846 of 1992 and the petitioner in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1855 of 1992 were injured and one Manikandan died and his parents filed M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1916 of 1992. In M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1846 of 1992, as against the claim for Rs. 1,00,000 the injured Vijay Kumar was awarded Rs. 53,850. In M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1855 of 1992, as against a claim for Rs. 50,000, the injured Muralidharan was awarded Rs. 25,000. In M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1916 of 1992, as against the claim for Rs. 5,00,000, Rs. 2,20,000 was awarded. Common questions arise for decision and the C.M.As. are disposed of by following order.2. The injured-claimants and the deceased were travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. TAT 4946. The jeep dashed against rocks and trees on Yercaud Ghat Road, ...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Special Minor Irrigation Pro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ581
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the common award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai dated 13.4.1989 made in L.A.O.P.Nos. 137 of 1988 and 142 of 1988, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Special Minor Irrigation Programme, Virudhunagar has filed A.S.Nos. 45 and 46 of 1990. With regard to the disallowed claim, the claimants have preferred Cross Objection Nos. 37 and 38 of 1995.2. Since the appeals and the cross-objections arise out of a common award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, the above appeals and cross-objections are being disposed of by the following common judgment.3. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeals and cross-objections alone are stated hereunder:For the purpose of Special Minor Irrigation Programme, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Virudhunagar acquired 93 cents in Survey No. 413/1A, 1 acre 21 cents in Survey No. 413/2 in Injaarnaduvapatti Village and determined the compensation of Rs. 6,000.0...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thanjavur Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR138(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. In the light of the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Sri Hari Mills Pvt. Ltd. : [1999]237ITR188(Mad) , counsel fairly stated that the proposed question will have to be regarded as one which is covered by that decision. 2. It has been held in that case that expenditure on replacement of worn out parts of machinery is expenditure of revenue character, as it was meant to keep the business without break down of machinery and not expenditure incurred for starting a new business. 3. The tax case petitions are, therefore, dismissed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Union Government of India and ors. Vs. Rajamohan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad172; (2001)1MLJ586
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. The unsuccessful defendants in O.S. 4 of 1986 on the file of Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai are the appellants in the above appeal. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 41,554/- with future interest. The learned Subordinate Judge, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, passed a decree on 14-3-1987 for Rs. 34,354/- with proportionate cost in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of thetrial Court, the defendants have filed the above appeal. 3. The facts which are required for the disposal of the appeal are briefly stated hereunder: According to the plaintiff, he was running Eversllver Fancy Circulation business for the past 15 years at Mayiladuthural. In the course of his business, he used to send VP letters and VP Insured parcels for value from Mayiladuthurai to his customers at different places in India according to the rules and regulations under the Indian Post Office Act through the Head Post...
Tag this Judgment!Sua Explosives and Accessories Ltd. and anr. Vs. S. Kumars Nation Wide ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(25)PTC484(Mad)
Prabha Sridevan, J. The applicants in O.A. No. 1193 of 2000, who are the plaintiffs had obtained interim injunction, restraining passing-off which was sought to be suspended and vacated by the respondents. 1. The case of the applicants is this. The first applicant is a public limited company, which started the 'Cinnamon' division to manufacture and sell readymade garments, apparel accessories etc. in the year 1999. Within a short period, the sales reached a figure of around Rs. 1.4 crores. Their products are sold under the trade name 'Cinnamon', and therefore, distinguishable from similar articles. The Retail Outlet, which markets their products at Bangalore has the name 'Cinnamon' and it draws a large number of clients. All the leading departmental stores and fashion arcades sell the applicant's 'Cinnamon' products. On 29.7.1999, the applicant applied for registration of trademark 'Cinnamon' for products, which come under Class 20 and 16. On 9.10.2000, the applicant applied for regist...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Thanjavur Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2001
Reported in: [2001]253ITR138(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. In the light of the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Sri Hari Mills (P) Ltd. : [1999]237ITR188(Mad) , counsel fairly stated that the proposed question will have to be regarded as one which is covered by that decision.It has been held in that case that expenditure on replacement of worn out parts of machinery is expenditure of revenue character, as it was meant to keep the business without break down of machinery and not expenditure incurred for starting a new business.The tax case petitions are, therefore, dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »