Chennai Court February 2001 Judgments
V.N. Sonal Vs. Nagamanickam and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3428
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The revision petitioner/complainant has filed the revision petition aggrieved against the Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Erode, inC.C. No. 481/1993 dated 5-9-1995.2. The case in brief is as follows. Between 15-5-1989 and 16-8-1991 the accused/first respondent was supplied yarn by Kerala Spinners Limited at Erode and the accused should supply finished products. The accused had not returned finished products to the value of Rs. 9,58,817/-and has committed criminal breach of trust and hence, the second respondent filed a charge sheet against the first respondent/accused. PWs 1 to 8 were examined on the side of the prosecution. PW 1 was then working as Senior Manager in the Kerala Spinners Company Ltd. The Head Office of the Company was in Alleppy and branch office was at Erode. They have entered into an agreement with the accused under Exs. A 1 and A2 and they have supplied yarn since 1989. Totally they have supplied about ...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Ramakrishnan Vs. Bank of Baroda, Madurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ665
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. First defendant in O.S.No.391 of 84 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, aggrieved by the grant of interest at 18 per cent for the suit claim from the date of the suit till date of payment, has filed the above appeal. 2. Necessary facts for the disposal of the appeal alone are briefly stated hereunder:- The plaintiff/respondent herein filed the said suit for passing preliminary mortgage decree for sale of the hypotheca directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,91,678.09 with subsequent interest thereon at 20 percent per annum from date of plaint till payment. The plaintiff is a Bank incorporated under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act V of 1970) with its Head Office at Mandvi, Baroda, Gujarat State and a branch at East Avanimoola Street, Madurai. First defendant applied to me plaintiff's branch at East Avanimoola street for the purpose of construction of a new hotel building, purchase of...
Tag this Judgment!D. Pandi Vs. the Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited, by Its Manager, Having Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad243; (2001)1MLJ750
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Second defendant in O.S.No. 493 of 83 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai is the appellant in the above appeal. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,73,577.01 with subsequent interest at 18 per cent per annum from the date of the plaint till date of realisation, for sale of the immovable and movable properties in the Schedule A, B and C of the plaint and for appropriating the sale proceeds towards the decree amount in case the defendants failed to pay the decree amount within time. The plaintiff has also prayed for for passing of a personal decree against defendants 1 to 5 in case the sale proceeds found insufficient for the decree amount.2. The case of the plaintiff as seen from the plaint is briefly stated hereunder:-The plaintiff is a Banking company as defined under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 carrying on business with its Head office at Trichur and Branch office among other places inclu...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT(Cri)41; II(2002)DMC196
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.1. This appeal coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition of appeal, the record of the evidence and proceedings before the said Court of Sessions and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. A.D. Jagadish Chandra, Advocate for the appellate/accused and of Mr. R. Karthikeyan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State, the Court delivered the following judgment :The accused in S.C. No. 70 of 1999 before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, who was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. has come forward with the instant appeal.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows :One Baby Lizie was living with her parents at Perambalur. During the month of April, 1972, she was found missing from the house, and subsequently she was traced in Royapettah Hospital on 9.7.1972 in the emergency ward undergoing treatmen...
Tag this Judgment!Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)71TTJ(Mad)871
ORDERA. Kalyanasundharam, Senior V.P.These are appeals preferred by the assessee, a limited company, for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1997-98, though involving a common issue, namely, replacement of certain machinery out of the total plant, whether could constitute revenue expenditure.2. For the assessment year 1994-95 the assessee had replaced carding machines. For the assessment year 1995-96 the assessee had replaced auto coner in place of old cone winding machine. The assessee replaced certain old cone winding machine by auto-coner machines in assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 as well. The assessee had stated before the authorities that it had one MMC carding machine, 1958 model that was purchased from G.K.D. Textiles, Coimbatore, in earlier years. Similarly, it had two other old machines. Two carding machines were first added or replaced in assessment year 1991-92 and three more carding machines were added subsequently. Two MCC carding machines replaced in assessment year 199...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. National Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, 768, Anna S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ2143
ORDER1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the XIII-Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, passed in O.S.No.8122 of 1986 on 30.3.1988. The defendant is the appellant herein.2. The plaint averments can be summarised as follows:The stock in Trade and other assets of the plaintiff lying in its business premises at Medavakkam were insured with the defendant under the Burglary Policy No.5060/7500060, dated 20th November, 1985 for a sum of Rs.2,33,500. Under the policy, the defendant has undertaken to indemnify the plaintiff against any loss or damage of the properties insured by theft following upon, burglary or house breaking accompanied by the actual forcible and violent breaking into or out of the premises or any attempt threat during the period of insurance. While the policy was in force, the premises of the plaintiff was burgled on 3.3.1986 and finishing components, such as, lock, device screws, terminal clamps, lock pins, etc. worth Rs.45,036.81, were lost because of theft....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.R. Rajagopalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR527(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Revenue fairly stated that an identical question brought before us concerning the assessment of the co-owner of the lands was answered against the Revenue, and in favour of the assessee in T. C. No. 1087 of 1988 by the judgment dated December 4, 2000 (CWT v. A.R. Krishnamurthy : [2001]249ITR239(Mad) ). For the reasons stated in that order, the question referred to us regarding the correctness of the Tribunal's order which held that the Wealth-tax Officer was not justified in including an additional compensation awarded by the court in the wealth tax assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1976-77 and 1977-78 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. During those years, the amount that had been drawn by the assessee was subject to a bank guarantee and was subject to the outcome of the appeals pending in the courts....
Tag this Judgment!Kamalam C.N. (Ms.) Vs. Presiding Officer, Ii Additional Labour Court a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR950]; (2001)IILLJ500Mad
ORDERK. Narayana Kurup, J.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the party has taken away the bundle and as such, he is not in a position to make any submission. Party is not present nor any fresh counsel.2. Heard learned counsel for the second respondent management.3. The petitioner was originally employedby the second respondent at their office at]Mylapore as an office Assistant. On the closureof the Mylapore Office, she was dischargedfrom service, giving rise to an industrial disputebefore the first respondent namely, the IIAdditional Labour Court, Madras in:I.D.No. 546 of 1988. Before the Labour Court,an issue was raised as to whether the dischargeof the petitioner from service of the secondrespondent is legal. The Labour Court, onappreciation of evidence, has rendered afinding that the office of the second respondentat Mylapore has been closed and they offeredalternative employment to the petitioner atAmbattur which alternative employment hasbeen refused by the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Smt. and Ors. Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Ii a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1306Mad
Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. The sole question involved in this writ petition is as to the justification of apportionment made by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in respect of the compensation awarded to the various dependents namely, the widowed wife, mother, unmarried sister and minor brothers of the deceased.2. The compensation of Rs. 58,152 was determined as payable to the dependents of the deceased employee by the first respondent. Thereafter based on the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Inspector of Labour, 5th Circle, Madras, the petitioners and the second respondent were identified as the dependents of the deceased employee. While the first petitioner is the mother of the deceased, the second petitioner was the minor sister at the time of the death of the deceased, while the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were the minor brothers of the deceased at the relevant point of time. Though there is no specific provision as to at what rate the compensation should be apportioned amongst the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rangasami S. and Mgmt. of Vellandivalasu Weavers' Co-operative Product ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2001
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ844Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. These two writ petitions arise out of the award, dated June 30, 1994, passed in Industrial Dispute No. 1 of 1992 holding that the non-employment of the petitioner in W.P. No. 562 or 1995 hereinafter called the petitioner, was not justified, that however, he was not entitled for reinstatement, but would be entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000 in lieu of reinstatement. Aggrieved against the said award, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 562 of 1995, while the second respondent-society in W.P. No. 562 of 1995 hereinafter called the second respondent filed W.P. No. 2335 of 1995 aggrieved against that part of the award in granting payment of compensation.2. The brief facts leading to the impugned award are that the petitioner was employed as a packer in the second respondent- society, that on an audit conducted in the second respondent-society in the month of June, 1976, shortage of textile goods and threads worth of Rs. 35,418.77 was found out, that the petitioner alon...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »