Chennai Court January 2001 Judgments
A. Elumalai Vs. Administrator-cum-lt. Governor of Pondicherry and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad265
E. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The petitioner, a Member of the Pondicherry Legislative Assembly has filed the present writ petition praying this court to issue a writ of declaration declaring the election of the 3rd respondent as the Speaker of the Pondicherry Legislative Assembly with effect from 24-5-2000 pursuant to the election conducted on 24-5-2000 as void illegal, inoperative and pass such other further order 2. Heard Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan for the petitioner. 3. At the outset, we hold that the writ petition deserves to be rejected summarily as it is belated and the petitioner is also estopped from seeking the relief of declaration as he had been taking part in the proceedings of the House for nearly six months of which the 3rd respondent was the speaker. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed primarily on the ground of latches as well. 4. The petitioner is the elected representative of the Pondicherry Legislative Assembly. ThiruV...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalingam N. and ors. Vs. Sanjay Trading Corporation and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ532Mad
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. The appeal is filed as against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in W.C. No. 157 of 1988. The appellant as applicant has filed the claim petition under Section 10(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, against the first respondent-management and the second respondent, the insurance company, claiming compensation.2. The appellant was the driver under the first respondent. According to the claim petition filed by the appellant on February 28, 1988 while he was taking long ride of the first respondent car TCZ 4300 for testing and finding out its suitability, after repair he met with an accident and received personal injury on February 28, 1988 at about 2.15 P.M. due to the car dashing against the trees on the road near Puduchatram, on Thirumalisai Thiruvellore Road and sustained grievous and multiple injuries leading to partial and permanent disability which arose out of and in the course of employment and that he worked continuo...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. (a Government ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ771
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J.1. The second respondent before the Principal Sub-court, Tirunelveli (Reference Court under L.A.O.P) is the appellant herein. A total extent of 44.401/2 acres of lands were acquired for mining of limestone for Tamil Nadu Cement Corporation Limited. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 30.4.1986 and the draft declaration under Section 6 was published on 19.5.1987. An Award was made dated 21.4.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at Rs.2,500 per acre. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants sought for reference. The reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,80,000. The reference Court has granted Rs.11,000 as claimed by the claimants for the surface of the soil rights and Rs.1,69,000 for the subsoil rights, and the same had been conceded by the Reference Court. Aggrieved by this determination, the above appeals are filed.2. According to the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sankaran Vs. Emkay Aromatics Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas130(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The instant Criminal Original Petition is to call for the records in C.C. No. 6541 of 1997 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate; Saidapet, Madras and quash the private complaint therein.2. Though several points have been urged in the instant Criminal Original Petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would stress the points which have been raised as additional grounds by filing Crl.M.P. No. 8444 of 2000. The grounds urged are as follows :(i) The Calender Case No. 6541 of 1997 which was taken on file by the leaned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, is il!egal'inasmuch as the complaint has been filed by the respondent's Managing Director through his Power of Attorney Agent, nevertheless the respondent company has miserably failed to file the Company Resolution passed by the Board of Directors, if any, along with the aforesaid Calender Case No. 6541 of 1997 in the year 1997.(ii) The above Calender Case No. 6541 of 1997 which has be...
Tag this Judgment!Craigmore Plantations I (P) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ206Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred against the award of the first respondent, dated August 24, 1994, made in ID. No. 498 of 1989 holding that the order of transfer issued by the petitioner under Exhibit M5 transferring theworkman Kannaiyan from the job of driver to that of field worker was not justified and therefore he should be provided with the job of driver in the Woodlands Division with 50 per cent back wages for the period of his non-employment. Aggrieved against the said award, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition. 2. The contention of the second and third respondents before the first respondent was that having regard to the previous conduct of the petitioner as against the third respondent, the present order of transfer under Exhibit M5 cannot be taken to have been issued on administrative grounds, but only by way of punishment. Whereas, according to the petitioner, the third respondent was found driving the vehicle belonging ...
Tag this Judgment!Subramaniyan and Others Vs. Vijayarani and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ444
ORDER1. The unsuccessful defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No.118 of 1988, the unsuccessful D-2 and D-3 in O.S.No.500 of 1988 and the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.138 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif No. Thiruvannamalai, preferred A.S.No.94 of 1998, A.S.No.95 of 1998 and A.S.No.93 of 1998 respectively and all the three appeals were dismissed on 25.3.1999 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court and aggrieved against this, they have come forward with the present second appeals.2. The case in brief for disposal of all the appeals is as follows:The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 118 of 1998 filed a suit for declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Schedule mentioned property originally belonged to D-l. The adjoined house on the eastern side bearing door No. 13-A originally constituted one single house bearing door No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.M. Khaja Moideen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: [2001]248ITR559(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The assessee, namely, Khaja Moideen, was a citizen of Malaysia and a non-resident during the relevant assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. In the said assessment years, the assessee made gifts of Malaysian dollars to his mother, Tmt. K.M. Fathima Ghani, who is in India and the rupee equivalent of such gifts amounted to Rs. 35,242 for the assessment year 1975-76 and Rs. 52,728 for the assessment year 1976-77. The gifts were made by purchasing rupee drafts from banks in Kuala Lumpur. As the gift drafts were purchased in Kuala Lumpur and given to the mother of the assessee in India, exemption was claimed in respect of these gifts under Section 5(1)(ii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958.2. The Gift-tax Officer denied the exemption claimed. But, on appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax accepted the assessee's contention that the gifts were complete as soon as the foreign money was deposited with the foreign bank with the intention of donating it to the d...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR318(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. South India Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Madras, is the assessee in this case. In respect of the computation of the income for the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee claimed expenditure under several heads such as guarantee commission paid to the directors, expenses incurred in providing motor cars to the directors or other persons for their personal use, expenses incurred for the maintenance of Adyar House occupied by the Deputy Chairman of the assessee-company and also property tax, urban land tax, insurance premium, electricity charges, gardener salary, depreciation, pest control expenses and medical expense reimbursement as perquisite for the purposes of computing the disallowanceunder Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer did not take these expenditure into account for the purposes of computing the amount disallowable under Section 40(c). But, however, the Commissioner of Income-tax (the 'CIT') by virtue of his powers under Section 2...
Tag this Judgment!Coimbatore District Textile Workers Union Vs. E.S.i. Corporation and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ747Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 27522 of 2000 has been filed by the writ petitioner-Union to withdraw the above writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition if necessary at the appropriate time. It is but essential to refer to the details which led to filing of W. P No. 19740 of 1999.I-Case of the petitioner as set out in writpetition:2. The petitioner, Coimbatore District Textile Mill Workers Union filed W.P. No. 19740 of 1999 praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to raise the attachment over B Mill's property of the 3rd respondent and restrict the attachment to A Mill in the interest of providing succour to hundreds of families of the workers who are starved in deprivation and award cost.3. It is the claim of the petitioner that it is a trade union which had taken up the cause of the workers of the third respondent mills. According to the petitioner, in the third; respondent Mill, nearly 900 workers ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Shaud Ali Vs. Additional Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: 2003(89)ECC759; 2001(133)ELT554(Mad)
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The Customs Preventive Unit Tuticorin, on information, recovered precious stones from the house of the petitioner on 27.6.1986 alongwith a chit containing the name of one A.C.M. Zubair. On interrogation, the appellant gave a statement, confessing that he had purchased the said stones from Zubair, who is admittedly a Sri Lankan national. As the petitioner was not having any customs duty paid receipt nor any valid document to prove the licit nature of the goods and after show cause notice, the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Madurai, who is the assessing authority passed an order confiscating the goods and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2500 to the appellant and Rs. 2500 to A.C.M. Zubair.2. On appeal to the Tribunal, the order was modified and the appellant was permitted to redeem the stones on payment of Rs. 25,000 and also reduced the penalty from Rs. 2500 to Rs. 1000. The petitioner applied to the Tribunal to refer the following questions to the Hig...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »