Chennai Court April 2001 Judgments
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, United India Building 4th Floo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad489
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. First defendant in O.S.No.20 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore has filed the above appeal. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed the said suit against the first defendant and 15 others, for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,41,285.30 from the first defendant with interest thereon at the rate of 19.5 per cent per annum from the date of suit till date of payment. By judgment and decree dated 25.10.90, the Court below has granted a decree for Rs.19,18,792 with interest per annum at 12 per cent per annum from 5.10.83 to 29.9.86, and from the date of the suit till date ofrealisation with proportionate costs, hence the present appeal by the first defendant.2. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated hereunder:- The plaintiff entered into a contract of insurance with the first defendant on 12.9.1983 to cover the second defendant's buildings, machinery, stocks of all kinds, raw materials, gunny bags, barrels, tins, firewood waste cashew nu...
Tag this Judgment!A. Krishnan Prop. Kodeeswara Traders 89-a, Ethukapallivagal St, O. Smi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: [2001]106CompCas694(Mad); 2001CriLJ3494
ORDER1. The above petition was dismissed on merits on 7.12.2000. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner was absent when he was called on two occasions, this Court was constrained to dispose of the main petilion after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent.2. Some months later, the counsel for the petitioner would request this Court to post the matter for 'Being Mentioned' , as he can be given an opportunity to make submissions on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the prayer for quashing the proceedings in question. Accordingly, he was permitted. The Registry was directed to post this matter for 'Being Mentioned' .3. Mr. Jyothi, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue at length, contending the following points:-i) Under Section 7 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the payee is defined as the person named in the instrument, to whom or to whose order the money is by the instrument directed to be paid, is called the 'payee'. In thiscase, payee is the Company in w...
Tag this Judgment!Ezekial Toyo Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Nib Cid, Chenn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(80)ECC64
ORDER1. This revision has been directed against the order passed by the Additional Special Judge (N.D.P.S.Act Cases) Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.141 of 2001 in C.C. No. 98 of 1999. 2. The prosecution case is that on 26.3.99 at 15.00 hours at the bus stop near Tambaram Railway Station, the first respondent was found in possession of 250 gms of Heroin Powder and the revision petitioner who is the secondaccused in that case was said to be in possession of 1 kg. of Heroin in his house at No.26/1, Vengambakkam Salai, Balaraman Nagar, Kaspapuram, Chennai-600 073, without any valid permit or licence. Therefore, both of them were charge sheeted for an offence under Section 8(c) read with 21 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act. 3. Section 21 of N.D.P.S. Act empowers the court to impose a sentence of R.I. for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to twenty years and also fine, which shall not be less than one lakh of rupees but which may extend to two lakhs of rupees for an offence of p...
Tag this Judgment!M. Chinnachamy and 3 ors Vs. R. Satyanarayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4443
ORDER1. Challenging the proceedings under Section 7(1), 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 2(1a)(a) and (m) and Rule 55 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the petitioners A. 1 to A.4 have filed the above petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 25 of 2000 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Attur, Salem District.2. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the partners of M/s. Live-O Company at Salem, which manufactures carbonated, soda and cool drinks. The third petitioner is the wholesale dealer of the said cool drinks. The fourth petitioner is the owner of the shop No.2 at Attur town bus stand.3. On 28.8.1999, the respondent/Food Inspector inspected the shop belonging to the fourth petitioner and took sample of the Live-O cool drinks. After purchasing six bottles from his as sample, he prepared the mahazar attested by the witness and signed by the fourth petitioner. Thereafter, the Food Inspector/respondent herein requested the Local Health ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Geetha Hotels (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR879(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The view of the Tribunal which is sought to be assailed by the Revenue, is consistent with the law laid down by theSupreme Court in the case of East India Hotels Ltd. v. CAT : [1997]223ITR1(SC) , and the question referred to us regarding the correctness of the Tribunal's view that the assessee is entitled to the grant of extra shift allowance on plant and machinery installed in the restaurant section of the assessee's hotel, is therefore required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessment year is 1982-83. 2. The Supreme Court in that decision has held that (headnote) : 'Depreciation is allowed on machinery and plant and not with reference to the nature or character of the activity carried on in the premises where the said machinery is installed.' That observation was made with reference to Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which sets out the rates at which depreciation is admissible in sub-items (iii) and (iv) of it...
Tag this Judgment!Techno Futura International Ltd. and ors. Vs. T.S. Anthony Samy and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas600(Mad)
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.1. All the three criminal original petitions have arisen in this way :The respondent herein instituted criminal proceedings by way of filing private complaints in C.C. Nos. 6979 of 1999, 6988 of 1999 and 7049 of 1999 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging that the petitioners herein have committed offences under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The first petitioner herein is the company, the second petitioner is the managing director and petitioner Nos. 5 to 8 are the directors of the company. The first petitioner-company borrowed Rs. 10,00,000 from the respondent for their business purpose and the second petitioner in his capacity as managing director issued thrice cheques dated May 18, 1999, May 25, 1999, and June 1, 1999 (C.C. No. 6979 of 1999), June 8, 1999, June 15, 1999, and June 22, 1999 (C.C. No. 6988 of 1999) June 29, 1999. July 6, 1999, July 13, 1999 (C.C. No. 7049 of 1999) each of the value of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Sundaram Industries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR396(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. Four questions have been referred by the Tribunal. They concern a company, which is engaged in the activity of retreading tyres. The assessment years are 1982-83 and 1983-84.The first question is regarding the correctness of the Tribunal's view that the amounts which had earlier been shown in the assessee's book as sundry credit balances of the customers and written back in the profit and loss account of the assessee is not taxable as the assessee's income. Counsel for the revenue relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. T. V. Sundaram lyengar and Sons Ltd. : [1996]222ITR344(SC) , and submitted that the decision of the Tribunal runs counter to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in that decision.That decision was rendered by the Apex Court in the background of the facts as observed by the court :'There is no dispute that the deposits in the case before us were received from trade parties who had not made any claim for repayment of the b...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Varma Vs. Srichand Bajaj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ120
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.5.1980 rendered in O.S.No. 1185 of 1974 by the Court of First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. The appellant as the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No. 1183 of 1974 in the Court of I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras for declaration that the defendant is not entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 11363.50 from the plaintiff in O.S.No. 4396 of 1973 on the file of the 7th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras and for directing him to return the said amount and for costs.3. The plaintiff would submit in his plaint that the defendant filed O.S.No. 4396 of 1973 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000 together with interest at 21% p.a. against M/s. India Metres Limited represented by its Managing Director V. Sankar, that the defendant impleaded the plaintiff also as the fourth defendant along with the two others namely K. Balarama Rao and P. Brahmayya, who are the Directors of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Duraiswamy Mudali Vs. K. Jayarama Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ137
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. The second defendant is the appellant. The first respondent herein filed a suit for declaration and injunction or in the alternative for possession.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property having purchased the same under sale deed dated 7.4.1971. The said sale deed was preceded by an agreement dated 3.4.1971. Ever since the date of sale, the plaintiff has been stocking hay in the suit property. The defendants are close relations and they are threatening that they would not allow the plaintiff to be in peaceful possession of the suit property. The entire site is surrounded by a compound wall on the south north and east bounded on the west by Chellammal cattle shed on the south and east by a street and on the north by the site purchased by the first defendant's father. Originally the property was the joint family property of Subramania Pillai, Balakrishnan Pillai and Ramachandra Pillai. They were living in the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Brindha Devi and ors. Vs. Jayasekaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 1(2002)ACC39
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. Claimants and 3rd respondent in the claim petition are the appellants.2. Claimants filed petition claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death caused to Thamilarasu, the husband of the first claimant and father of the second claimant in the road accident that occurred on 5.9.1990/6.9.1990 in-between 12.00 midnight and 2.00 a.m. at Sankagiri-Salem main road near Maavilipalayam junction. According to the claimants, the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the second respondent Corporation bus and the bus bearing registration No. TCB 9561 dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased and the deceased died on the spot. So, the claimants vehemently contend that only the driver of the second respondent Corporation bus was responsible for the accident and the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.3. The second respondent Corporation filed counter contending that the driver of the second respondent Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »