Chennai Court March 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.
Tamil Nadu State Transport and Transport Corporation Retired Employees ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ564Mad; (2001)2MLJ304
ORDERK. Narayana Kurup, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioners arc seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant family pension under the existing Pension Rules to the families of the members of the petitioner association who were Government employees, who had been permanently absorbed in various Transport Corporations in respect of the services rendered by them under the Government.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are as follows:Prior to 1972, Public Transport Service was conducted by the State Transport Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. Then, the Government constituted Transport Corporation for each district and the employees working in the Transport Department were required to exercise their option to work either in the Transport Department or to get absorbed in the newly created Corporations. When the option was called for, the employees were assured of all benefits including terminal benefits like family pension,...
Susilamma Vs. Chandrappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ701; II(2002)DMC17
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The petitioner has preferred the revision aggrieved against the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri made in Cri.R.C No. 79 of 1994 dated 6.9.1995.2. The case in brief is as follows :The petitioner filed an application for maintenance against the respondent and claimed a sum of Rs. 500/- per month. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 20.2.1993 in Soolagiri Police Station according to the custom prevailing in the community. Both of them lived as husband and wife at Peria Thinnanoor village for a period of 1 1/2 months. Thereafter at the instigation of the family members, the respondent failed to take care of her and he had also married another girl.The respondent is getting a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month, but the respondent opposed the application and stated that the alleged marriage on 20.2.1993 was done in the police station out of compulsion. He never took her to his village and le...
P. Kalairaj Vs. Nallammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ788
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The suit properties originally belonged to the joint family comprising of the plaintiff, second defendant and their father Pappiah. The plaintiff was the only son of Pappiah through his first wife Gowrammal. After the death of Gowrammal, Pappiah married Gowrammal sister Venkatammal and she died without issues and after her death, Pappiah married the first defendant and through her the second defendant was born. The plaintiff, second defendant and their father constituted a Hindu Joint family. When the plaintiff was 10 years old, he was given training by his father Pappiah for the barber work and the plaintiff was also assisting him in his barber work and he earned from that profession and out of the earnings derived from that profession, the plaintiff and his father Pappiah saved much and from the joint exertion made by them the father purchased common half share of the suit property under regis...
J.D.P. Associate No. 238, Ramakrishna Mutt Road Chennai-4 Vs. Tmt. K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC409; 2003ACJ454; [2001(91)FLR277]; (2001)IILLJ535Mad; (2001)2MLJ452
ORDER1. The appellant is the opposite party against whom an award was passed by the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation, Chennai. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of one Saravanan who died on 6.11.1994. In the course of the employment, while fixing the fibreglass in the fourth floor he fell down and died. A sum of Rs.2,000 was given by the appellant for funeral expenses. The notice dated 4.12.1996 was issued by the respondents to the appellant making a claim. Since the appellant did not pay the compensation of a sum of Rs.2,00,000, the petition was filed before the Commissioner. 3. A counter was filed by the appellant denying the allegations stating that the appellant does not employ workmen directly but allows it tocontractors. The appellant is not aware of the said Saravanan. There was no contract of employment between the deceased Saravanan and the appellant, the application is not maintainable. The respondents are also not dependant on the earnings of the deceased. Th...
Vellapandi Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)252; 2001CriLJ2772
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Vellapandi, the appellant herein has filed this appeal challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 376(2)(g), I.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The accusation is that the appellant and two others on 16-3-1986 at about 2.00 p.m. in Thottakudi village near Poonakudi Karuva forest, committed a gang rape on the victim girl Kalvi alias Kalvi Lakshmi aged about 18 years.3. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 8 were examined, Exs. P1 to P11 and M.Os. 1 to 5 were marked. On the side of the accused, Exs. D1 to D7 were marked.4. The short facts could be summarised as follows :-(a) P.W. 1 Kalvi alias Kalvi Lakshmi, the victim belonged to Thottakudi village. At that time, she was unmarried, aged about 18 years. On the date of occurrence, i.e. on 16-3-1986, she went for cooly work to the place situated near her village and finished the work at 11.00...
Coimbatore and Periyar District Dravida Panchalai Thozilalar Munnetra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1296Mad; (2001)2MLJ512
P. Shanmugam, J.1. The writ petitioner Union is the appellant herein. The writ petition was directed against the award of the Labour Court upholding the order of dismissal of a workman. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the award of the Labour Court. The writ appeal is against this judgment.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are as follows:On October 16, 1979, the workman of the first respondent mill went on strike in reference to a bonus issue. On October 18, 1979, the workman concerned in the writ petition namely R. Damodaran and eleven others were alleged to have assembled opposite to the residence of the Director inside the mills premises and shouted slogans, indulged in criminal acts and acted in disorderly behaviour subversive of the discipline and damage to work and to property belonging to the mill. It is alleged that on January 24, 1979, R. Damodaran and another workman- Kulandaiswamy threatened the other employees of the mill and caused ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Chiranjeevi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR571(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu , J.1. Having heard counsel, perused the order of the Tribunal, as also the instruction issued by the Board being Instruction No. 1310, dated February 26, 1980, we do not find any good reason to call for a reference.2. The Tribunal has held that the assessee, who is a film actor, maintained his accounts in the cash system, and that under the annuity policy, he was to receive the annuities in terms of the policy, though the producer had paid the full value of the policy for purchasing the policy. So far as the assessee is concerned, the amount would reach him only as and when the annuity was paid to him by the insurance company. Even in earlier assessment years, the assessee had been assessed to tax only on the amounts actually received by him during the year. The tax case petition is dismissed....
Dr. Devendra Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, Ripon Buildi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4823; (2001)2MLJ10
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.1. This Contempt Application has been filed for punishing the respondents for non compliance and wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 3.8.2000 in W.A. No.1171 of 2000, despite the receipt of the order. The parties to the contempt application are same as in the writ appeal.2. To substantiate, the applicant has filed a detailed affidavit stating that the fifth respondent has not been making the construction as per the approved plan and rules. He also states that in W.P. No. 10965 of 2000 filed by the appellant on 30.6.2000, a learned single Judge of this Court granted an interim injunction for a period of four weeks restraining the 5th respondent from constructing any further. The order was vacated by another learned single Judge on 7.7.2000 on lunch motion as it was pleaded by the fifth respondent that on 6.7.2000, a stop-work notice was issued by the second respondent, in response to which, a reply was sent along with the plan on 7.7.2000. On appeal ...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. D. Selvaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR303(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. A partition between the father and son, made on June 18, 1972, had been accepted by the Department by an order made under Section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Despite that, gift-tax proceedings were initiated for the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82. Those proceedings were rightly set aside in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner's finding was confirmed by the Tribunal.2. The Revenue has chosen to seek a reference with regard to the correctness of the order of the Tribunal. When the Department had itself admitted that the property had belonged to a Hindu undivided family consisting of the father and the son, and has accepted the partition between the two, it cannot allege that the share allotted to the son, by making appropriate entries in the books of account, amounted to a gift. It is elementary that in a Hindu undivided family, a coparcener has a right by birth, the son was as much entitled to the property of a Hindu undivi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Arihant Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR149(Mad)
ORDERRate of depreciationCatch Note:Commissioner on the facts of the case was justified in setting aside assessment for allowance of correct depreciation as the order was not only erroneous but even prejudicial to interest of revenue.Application:Also to current assessment year.Decision:In favour of revenue.Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred to this court, viz.,'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax by exercise of powers under Section 263 was not justified in setting aside the assessment for the allowance of correct depreciation ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for the 30 per cent, depreciation on rigs mounted on lorries employed in digging horewells ?'2. With regard to question No. 1, which deals...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »