Chennai Court January 2001 Judgments
V. Karthikeyan Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2001
Reported in: [2001]106CompCas685(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. V. Karthikeyan and T.L. Pragasam, who are arrayed as A2 and A5 respectively in the private complaint filed by the Registrar of Companies for the offence under Section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') have filed these two petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code') seeking for quashing of the said proceedings in E.O.C.C. No. 177 of 1998.2. Whether the offence under Section 207 has been taken cognizance of validly by the Trial Court before the expiry of the period of limitation ?.This is the main question posed before this court in these petitions.3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, through Iggi. Resorts International Ltd., the subject company, declared a dividend of 25 per cent at its annual general meeting held on 25-9-1996, it did not pay the dividend amount on or before 5-11-1996, i.e., within 42 days from the date of declaration of the dividend and the said non-payment would amount to an of...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Hidayathulla Vs. Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad251; II(2003)BC484; (2001)2MLJ257
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The sole question involved in this revision petition is relating to interpretation of Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The brief facts are that the petitioner appeared to have pledged certain gold jewels with the respondent herein for a borrowal of certain amount on 10-12-1993; and that on the petitioner failing to repay the borrowed amount within the stipulated period, the respondent Bank was obliged to bring the jewels for auction after giving reasonable notice to the petitioner. The auction is stated to have been held on 20-5-1997. The grievance of the petitioner is, that, inasmuch as, Section 176 contemplates the filing of a suit for recovery of the debt and the period described for filing such a suit being three years, the provision contained in the said section which enables the pawnee to sell the pledged goods on auction after giving reasonable notice for the said sale should also be done within the period prescribed for filing the ...
Tag this Judgment!Soundarammal and ors. Vs. Vasantha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad177
C. Nagappan, J.1. These three appeals arise out of a common Judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam in O.S. Nos. 48 and 49 of 1984 and 8 of 1986, dated 2-2-1987.2. The suit in O.S. No. 48 of 1984 was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 31,937/-with subsequent interest from out of the estate of Rasu Reddiar held by the defendants.3. The suit in O.S. No. 49 of 1984 was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 31, 875/-wilh subsequent interest from out of the estate of Rasu Reddiar held by the defendants.4. The suit in O.S. No. 8 of the 1986 was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,437.50 with subsequent interest from out of the estate of Rasu Reddiar held by the defendants.5. The trial Court tried the above three suits along with the suit in O.S. No. 53 of 1984 and by a common judgment dismissed the suits in O.S. Nos. 48 and 49 of 1984 and 8 of 1986 with costs and decreed the suit in O.S. No. 53 of 1984 with costs. There is no appeal preferred against the decree in O.S. No. 53 o...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Steel Ex-employees Association Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2001
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1507Mad
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The appellant is an Union of the ex-employees of the Tamil Nadu Steels Limited, Arakonam. In these appeals, the said Union challenges the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court whereby, the learned single Judge dismissed the two writ petitions filed by the appellant by a common Judgment. In W. P. No. 14993 of 1999, the appellant challenged G.O.Ms. No. 524 Industries (MIA. I) Department, dated August 21, 1998 as also G.O.Ms. No. 623 Industries (MIA. I) Department, dated September 22, 1998 issued by the 1st respondent in so far as they order the recovery of Voluntary Retirement Scheme compensation. The other writ petition (WP. No. 14994 of 1999) was for an issue of a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide employment to the members of its association any posts commensurate with their last employment and pay as also to protect their pay and revision thereof under the Fifth State Pay Commission's recommendations as per G.O.Ms. No. 524 Industri...
Tag this Judgment!Jeeva Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2001
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR580]; (2001)ILLJ1547Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the award of the first respondent, dated June 3, 1994 made in I.D. No. 340 of 1992 holding that the non-employment of the second respondent was not justified and therefore he should be reinstated with all back wages and continuity of service.2. Though very many contentions have been raised by the petitioner attacking the main award, having regard to the settled legal position namely, that an employee cannot be proceeded against outside the provisions of the Standing Orders applicable to the establishment, there is no scope for considering the case of the petitioner in this writ petition. In this context, reference can be made to the order of the dismissal Exhibit M-12, dated September 16, 1989, in which it specifically stated that the second respondent was proceeded against having regard to the misconduct committed by him, under Clause 15(c) of the Model Standing Orders applicable to the petitioner establishment.3. Clause 15(c)...
Tag this Judgment!Sethu Film Distributors Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR307(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred is regarding the valuation of the publicity materials for the pictures for which the value of the closing stock was taken as 'nil'. The assessment year is 1979-80. The assessee had been admittedly valuing the closing stock of the publicity material for all the assessment years prior to that assessment year. It was the case of the assessee that having applied its mind to the rules, according to him, the rules, viz., Rules 9A and 9B of the Income-tax Rules, enabled him to treat the value of the publicity material also as 'nil' when the value of the film for which the material had been prepared is taken as 'nil' by reason of that film having been exhibited for a period of 90 days or more in the accounting year.2. The assessee's contention did not find favour with the Assessing Officer, but did with the Commissioner whose ruling has been reversed by the Tribunal. The assessee is before us and contends that the Commissioner's order should be res...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Sivakami Mills Ltd. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1512Mad
Ms. A. Subbulakshmi, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order, dated April 22, 1992 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Madurai, in E.S.I.O.P No. 37 of 1988.2. The petitioner/appellant filed a petition under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act for a declaration that the ex gratia payment made by the petitioner were not wages and the order passed by the respondent, dated August 12, 1988, is null and void. The petitioner, employer is a proprietor of a mill, carrying on Business in manufacturing cotton yarn. The mill is already covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act and they are paying the contributions regularly. They are maintaining relevant records as stipulated under the Act. The Corporation issued show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to pay contribution on certain alleged omitted wages for the period 1985 to 1987, a sum of Rs 3,49,078.21.3. The respondent contended that only after due enquiry and considering the materia...
Tag this Judgment!C. Edward and ors. Vs. M. Soundarapandiyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2336
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. While I pronounce this order, I cannot but begin with a note of anguish, as in this case an episode of black sheep from the Police Department is exposed causing serious concern over the functioning of the law enforcing agency.2. The petitioners for having committed 'sin' of obtaining the order of anticipatory bail from this Court and in compliance of the condition imposed in the said order having appeared before the Sub-Inspector of Police who is the Investigating Officer in the case, were beaten up by him by police lathi on his being aggrieved that the petitioners approached this Court without his permission resulting in the hospitalisation of the petitioners for several days for curing the injuries inflicted on their bodies. This unfortunate incident is brought to the notice of this Court in this petition filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. requesting suitable action against the Sub-Inspector concerned, as their cry to the higher officials seeking for app...
Tag this Judgment!Swamy Match Works, Represented by Power Agents, the Oriental Insurance ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2001
Reported in: I(2001)ACC524; (2001)1MLJ449
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. Appeal is directed as against the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No. 21 of 1989.2. The applicants are M/s.Swamy Match Works, represented by its subrogee/power agent, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, and the Oriental Insurance Company Limited are the appellants in this appeal. The appellants filed an application for compensation for the damage caused to the goods sent through the railways. The first applicant sent 1000 bundles of safety matches by rail from Salt Cotaurs on the Southern Railway to Farukkabad to be delivered to their dealer M/s.Naveen Stores at Kaimganj under railway receipt No. 389932. The consignment was made available at Farukkabad by the railways in a damaged condition. According to the applicants, apart from the suit consignment another consignment of 100 bundles which are not concerned of this case were loaded in that wagon. Assessment delivery report was issued by the destination station setting out the...
Tag this Judgment!M. Muthu (Died) and Four Others Vs. Arulmigu Sundareswararswamy Devast ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ438
ORDER1. The Appellants who suffered decree before the lower appellate Court has filed this second appeal. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.6860 of 1986 before the Trial Court for ejectment. The 1st appellant/defendant was in possession of the suit property bearing Door No.39, Bundar Street, Chennai-1. The monthly rent was Rs.5,000. There are four floors. Each floor is measuring 3,121 sq.ft. The respondent/plaintiff issued a notice under Ex.A1 dated 21.6.1986 determining the tenancy. Thereafter the respondent filed the said suit on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai. The lower Court dismissed the suit on the basis that the plaintiff waived the notice by accepting the rent subsequent to the issue of the notice and so the said suit without any notice cannot be sustained in law. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-temple filed appeal in A.S.No.315 of 1989 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The lower appellate Court accepting the case of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »