Chennai Court January 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Janakiraman Chettiar Vs. Narasimhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ217
ORDER1. This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.7.1987 made in O.S.No.130 of 1985 by the court of subordinate Judge, Dindigul thereby decreeing the suit, as prayed for, which had been filed by he respondent praying to pass a decree for a sum of Rs.31,706.25 with interest and costs. 2. To trace the history of the case, the respondent herein-filed the suit on averments that the defendant borrowing a sum of Rs.25,000 from the plaintiff on 29.7.1982 for his business, executed the suit pronote at Palani agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a. and since the defendant did not repay the said sum in spite of repeated demands, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 27.5.1985, for which the defendant issued a reply dated 4.7.1985 with false and untenable allegations, admitting the execution of the pronote but denying the circumstances under which it had been executed and further denying the passing of the consideration under the pronote and hence the plainti...
Minor R. Muraliraj Vs. R. Ramaraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad208
V. Kanagaraj, J. 1. This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14-9-1988 rendered in O. S. No. 195 of 1983 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore thereby dismissing the suit with costs which has been filed on the part of the appellant herein for declaration that the transfer of 1/4 share of the petitioner in the movable property under sale deed dated 9-2-1972 is void and to set aside the transfer in support of the minor's 1/4 share in the suit property and for costs. 2. Adverting to the facts as revealed in the plaint, the minor plaintiff represented by next friend and mother would submit that he is the son of the first defendant and the suit properties were acquired by the first defendants grandfather Rangaswamy Gounder in a Court auction sale held on 10-12-1928; that the sale was confirmed on 14-1-1929 and possession was obtained on 4-3-1929; that the properties were enjoined in common by the joint family, comprising of Rangaswamy Gounder, his two sons ...
Management of the Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1Mad
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. This writ appeal challenges the order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated February 21, 1997, dismissing the writ petition No. 14070/1986 filed by the appellant herein for a writ of certiorari to quash the Award made by the first respondent in I.D. No.323 of 1983 dated March 28, 1986. 2. Admittedly the second respondent herein was appointed by the appellant-management as a driver on probation in Theni Branch for a period of six months with effect from August 1, 1979. The said period was extended on February 1, 1980 for another period of six months, which ended on July 31, 1980. Again the said period of probation was extended for three months on August 1, 1980 and again for a period of two months on November 1, 1980. The appellant/management terminated the second respondent from service on February 1, 1981 on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. Aggrieved by the said termination order, the second respondent gave a petition to the Managing Director ...
Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. N. Dasar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR788]; (2001)ILLJ1437Mad; (2001)1MLJ739
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. The respondent-employer was in default of payment of contribution for the period from May 14, 1978 to November 30, 1979. The appellant-Corporation passed an order marked Ex. A-1 to pay the aforesaid contribution only on March 26, 1984 and on receipt of Ex.A-1, the respondent-employer paid the amount with interest on five dates starting from June 18, 1985 and ending with June 19, 1987. Thus the entire amount of contribution along with interest pertaining to the period from May 14, 1978 to November 30, 1979 was paid by the respondent-employer.2. In spite of the payment of the contribution as aforesaid with interest, the appellant-Corporation by the impugned order dated October 17, 1988 demanded damages from the respondent-employer under Section 85-B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') totalling to Rs. 3,868.15.3. The respondent-employer repudiated, his liability to pay the aforesaid amount and raised a dispute before ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(128)ELT327(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the order of Tribunal, we are satisfied that a question of law requiring our consideration does arise.2. The Tribunal is directed to refer the following question as to, 'whether the Tribunal was correct in extending the Modvat credit under Rule 57B on High Speed Diesel Oil which is not specified as an input under any notification issued under Rule 57A ?'.3. The Tribunal is directed to submit a statement of the case together with the materials required for answering the question. We may also add here that similar question was called of in R.C.P. No. 19/2000 wherein the respondent is M/s. Pallipalayam Spinners Ltd. Salem. The Tribunal shall mention this fact in the statement of case....
C. Kavitha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ531
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment will govern W.A.No. 1731 of 2000 and W.P.No. 17720 of 2000. The subject of both these proceedings is more or the less identical and both have been filed by the same petitioner.2. The following factual panorama will help to understand the controversy involved:Petitioner is an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, serving as 'stenographer'. She joined this post on 18.7.1991. This was a post reserved for the 'Scheduled Tribe' candidates. At the time she joined the post, it was on the basis of a community certificate dated 12.4.1990, issued by the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, Chennai. According to the said certificate, the petitioner belonged to 'Hindu-Kurumans', which is a Scheduled Tribe. It so happened that by letter dated 19.4.1995, that is almost about four years after the joining, the Life Insurance Corporation directed the petitioner to produce a community certificate duly signed by a Revenue Divisional Officer.It is an admi...
Management 0-322 Kovilpatti Co-operative Marketing Society Vs. Presidi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1516Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The above writ petition is directed against the award of the first respondent in I.D. No. 418 of 1993, dated June 30, 1994, directing the reinstatement of the second respondent with all back wages and continuity of service.2. The brief facts of the case are:The second respondent claimed that he was employed in the petitioner's society as a weigher, on the first instance on and from August 5, 1987, and thereafter, he worked as a salesman from June 27, 1989 on a monthly salary of Rs. 225. According to the second respondent, he along with certain other employees were engaged on daily basis on a deposit of Rs. 500 by way of security deposit, that, they were given frequent breaks in service, that after the new set of office-bearers of petitioner's society, the petitioner was denied employment on and from January 20, 1991, while another person by name L. Rathinaraj Sargunam was appointed in his place. It was also claimed at certain other employees were allowed to...
Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Maritime Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(83)ECC848; 2001(131)ELT328(Mad)
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner, M/s. Madura Coats Limited, have filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents concerning the orders passed in Original C.No. V/55/18/1/89, dated 28-12-1989 and the order passed in Original C.No. V/55/18/1/89, dated 11-7-1991 and to quash the said orders and to direct the respondents to refund the excise duty of Rs. 6,91,585.59/- and Rs. 49,330.51/- paid by the petitioner company in the following cases. ______________________________________________________________ ARE 41 Nos. Date Amount of Excise Duty paid ______________________________________________________________ 44 26-8-1988 Rs. 70,647.56 52 25-9-1988 Rs. 2,03,586.24 58 9-11-1988 Rs. 2,13,765.55 72 8-3-1989 Rs. 2,13,765.55 31 22-11-1989 Rs. 49,330.51 ______________________________________________________________2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner mills would submit that the petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›