Chennai Court January 2001 Judgments
Pondicherry Co-operative Milk Producers, Union Ltd. Vs. Registrar of C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3262
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The above two contempt applications are complaint and counter complaints of contempt and in both the contempt applications, this Court had ordered notice to the respondents on 4-1-2000 returnable by eight weeks.2. As per orders of My Lord, The Hon'ble Chief Justice along with the contempt applications, the above two writ petitions and the connected miscellaneous petitions also were taken up for hearing, besides W.M.P. Nos. 23143 and 23144 of 2000 in W.P. No. 18210 of 1999 filed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pondicherry, for directions.3. W.P. No. 18210 of 1999 was filed by G. Navaneetha Kannan praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to call for the proceedings of the first respondent, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pondicherry in the proceedings No. 5/7/1/31/RCS/DAIRY/99/415 dated 9-11-1999 and quash the same and consequently appoint the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as Managing Director of the second respondent S...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Deivaprasad @ P.S. Veerabadran Vs. Dr. P.D. Balaji and Eleven Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ44
ORDER1. This suit has been filed for a declaration that the plaintiff alone is entitled to the 1/2 share in the schedule mentioned property and that the Deed of Settlement dated 19.11.1979 in favour of the 1st defendant is void in law, for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant or his agents from collecting any rentals from the suit property from the 8th defendant or any other tenant, for rendition of accounts in respect of 1/2 share rental collectionsand pay over 1/2 share from the date of death of P.S. Sivabhushanammal viz. 13.4.1994 to the plaintiff and for costs.2. The plaint averments are as follows:-The suit property originally belonged to T.K.T. Nayagammal absolutely and she had two daughters viz. Sivabhushanammal and M. Kokilambal. Nayagammal executed a settlement deed dated 9.8.1940 in respect of the suit property. As per the Settlement deed, she reserved for herself the right to enjoy the suit property during her life time without any powers of alienation and afte...
Tag this Judgment!D. Balakrishnan Vs. Pavalamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad147; I(2001)DMC640; (2001)1MLJ415
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Husband is the appellant. Respondent - wife filed H.M.O.P.NO.94 of 1994 on the file of Family Court, Madurai for divorce under Section 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. By order dated 14.3.1997 the Family Court granted a decree for divorce and also directed the husband to pay a sun of Rs. 1,000.00 towards maintenance from the date of petition and Rs.2,500.00 towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband has preferred the above appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are briefly stated hereunder:According to the respondent - wife she was given in marriage to the appellant herein on 10.6.1982 and the same was celebrated at Pushpamandapam, New Colony, Madurai. She was taken to her husband's house at Usilampatti. She lived there for about three months. For the three months their marriage was not consummated. The husband did not have any sexual relationshi...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Muthana and 6 Others Vs. Escorts Finance Ltd., 54. Montieth Road ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)9
ORDER1. In this petition, the petitioners who are accused 2 to 8 before the trial court are seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.8736 of 1999 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.2. The short facts are:The respondent/complainant filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as the Act for short) against the petitioners and three others, as the cheque issued for Rs.24,99,840 had been dishonoured, Accused No.1 is the company and accused 9 and 10 arethe signatories of accused No.1 except the bald allegation that the petitioners are directors, no overact has been attributed to them in the complaint. The complaint without even ascertaining the fact the petitioners 3 and 6 are dead and petitioners 4,5 and 7 have retired from the company two years ago, has filed the complaint. Petitioners 4,5 and 7 are only employees of the first accused company and they left the services of the company in 1997 itself, but they h...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mohammad Ali Vs. Basheer Ahmed, Rep. by His Power Agent Abdul Kalam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ812
ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the petitioner in I.A. No. 397 of 1999 and the third defendant in O.S.No.32 of 1998 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai.2. Before the settlement of issues between the parties in the above suit, the revision petitioner filed I.A. No.397 of 1999 under Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to produce the documents that are provided in the list accompanied in the above application, submitting that the same could not be traced earlier and therefore, could not be produced. However, the respondent/plaintiff objected the permission on the grounds that the first document was not registered and therefore, no right could flow under the same in favour of the revision petitioner; that the second document was a fabricated one for the purpose of the case and the respondent/plaintiff is not a party in the alleged arrangement made under the second document: and that, in any event, the documents 3 to 8 a...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavan N. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR649]; (2001)ILLJ1290Mad
ORDERV. Kanagarj, J.1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the first respondent pertaining to his proceedings in TNSE Case No. 5 of 1985 and quash the order dated May 15, 1989, consequently directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law and to award costs.2. In the affidavit filed in support of thewrit petition the petitioner would submit that hewas employed by the second respondent onOctober 8, 1985 and posted to work atCoimbatore and on completion of probation,his services were confirmed by order datedApril 10, 1987, w.e.f. April 1, 1987; that the second respondent is a manufacturer inpharmaceuticals and has its headquarters atBombay and has spread its business all over thecountry and in Tamil Nadu they are havingtheir Zonal Office at Madras.3. The further averments of the writ petitioner are that the second respondent company developing an hostile attitude towards t...
Tag this Judgment!Abraham Vs. Maria Ambrose
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ571
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of an order passed in L.A.No. 295 of 1998 in O.S.No. 96 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kuzhithurai, under the following circumstances:2. The revision petitioner filed a suit against the respondent herein for recovery of amount due under a cheque for Rs. 50,000 issued by the respondent herein drawn on Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Kanjampuram Branch. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement funds insufficient by the bank concerned. This necessitated the filing of the suit.3. The respondent resisted the suit contending that a sum of Rs. 34.560 had been paid. The matter went for trial. While the plaintiff was being examined as P.W.1. it was brought to his notice by the cross-examining counsel that an endorsement had been made in carbon pencil as if Rs. 34.560 had been paid. When the respondent was being examined in chief, he admitted that the endorsement was made by him even before the dishonouring of...
Tag this Judgment!N. Madhavan Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ454
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the first respondent pertaining to his proceedings in TNSE Case No. 5 of 1985 and quash the order dated 15.5.1989, consequently directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law and to award costs.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioner would submit that he was employed by the second respondent on 8.10.1985 and posted to work at Coimbatore and on completion of probation, his services were confirmed by order dated 10.4.1987, w.e.f., 1.4.1987; that the second respondent is a manufacturer in pharmaceuticals and has its headquarters at Bombay and has spread its business all over the country and in Tamil Nadu they are having their Zonal Office at Madras.3. The further averments of the writ petition are that the second respondent company developing an hostile attitude towards the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Karuthakkan Nadar Vs. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ833
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. Being aggrieved by the fair and decretal order dated 17.4.1998 made in I.A. No. 22 of 1998 in A.S. No. 9 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, the present revision petition has been preferred.2. This Court ordered notice of motion to the respondents on 15.7.1998. The respondents have been served and they have entered appearance through their advocates. At the stage of notice of motion, with the consent of the counsel for either side, the revision itself is taken up for final disposal.3. The factual matrix leading to the revision could be summarised briefly. The petitioner instituted the suit O.S. No. 1339 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and its subordinates from taking any steps to disconnect the electricity supply to the plaintiff's pumpset in S.C. No. 134, Ayankulam.4. According to the plaint averments, the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Durametallic (India) Ltd. Vs. Asst. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: [2003]85ITD442(Mad)
ORDERCherian, A.M.In view of the common grounds involved in these two appeals by the same assessee, they are consolidated in a common order for the sake of convenience. These appeals have been filed by the assessee M/s. Durametallic (India) Ltd., Karapakkam Village, Chennai against the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Madras for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89.2. The dispute in these appeals is regarding the manner of computation of double income-tax relief under the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between the Government of India and the Government of Singapore. During the previous years relevant for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 the assessee was in receipt of royalty from M/s. Durametallic Asia Ltd., Singapore. The assessee being a resident, the income by way of royalty from the foreign concern was includible in its total income. On the royalty amount the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80-0 of the Income Tax Act to the ext...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »