Chennai Court August 2001 Judgments
A. Manivannan and 2 Others Vs. Sivaraj and 6 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ403
ORDER1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the dismissal of the application under Order 14, Rule 2, C.P.C. The petitioners' are the defendants 3 to 5. The suit O.S.No.338 of 1997 filed by the respondents 1 to 7 herein is one fordeclaration and injunction. The written statement was filed on 24.12.1997. On 19.4.2001, the petitioners filed an application to try the issue relating to valuation as a preliminary issue. This was dismissed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Namakkal on the ground that it was belated and that the court- fee paid is correct.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K. Raman Raj submitted that the Court below had failed to exercise its power under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act ('Act' in short). According to the learned counsel all questions relating to the valuation ought to be considered by the Trial Court before evidence is recorded. Not having decided the question at the appropriate time, it was not open to the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Velvette International Pharma Products Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chennai-ii
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: 2002(82)ECC58; 2002(139)ELT527(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of cer-tiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in Order-in-Original No. 22/2000 (C. No. V/15/47/96 Cx. Adj.), dated 31-10-2000 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in its decision reported in 1994 (99) E.L.T. 500. 2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of the product 'Nivaran 90' which has been classified and declared by the petitioner with the Central Excise Department as a Ayurvedic medicine under Chapter , sub-heading 3003.30 of Central Excise Tariff Act and totally exempted from excise duty by virtue of Notification No. 32/89, dated 1-3-89 and 9/93, dated 1-3-1993. On a specific intelligence, the officers attached to the first respondent conducted a search of the factory of the petitioner on 11-11-1993 and obtained statements from the staff working in the office ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuki Leather (P.) Ltd. Vs. T.N.K. Govindaraju Chettiar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: [2002]110CompCas474(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J 1. The counsel contends that hypertechnicalities should be allowed to be urged in order to escape the consequences of an action which can only be described as a fraud being played on the statutory Tribunal, in this case, the CLB. The appellants when faced with an application under Section 235 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') for investigating into its affairs, made a submission before the CLB through its counsel that the persons in charge of the company would buy the shares, which they had purported to allot to that applicant before the CLB long after that applicant had informed the company that it did not desire to have the allotment as no share certificates had been sent to it for a long number of years after the payment of a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs to the company. The receipt of the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was never disputed. Admittedly, only a sum of Rs. 1 lakh had been repaid. 2. In order to avoid the affairs of the company being investigated and to avoid the li...
Tag this Judgment!Sanmugam and ors. Vs. Trichy Thanjavur Diaseas of Church of South Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ572
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S.Nos. 2977, 2973, 2975, 2976, 2978, 2979 and 2980 of 1982 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Trichy have preferred Second Appeal Nos. 1038 and 1176 to 1181 of 1991 respectively aggrieved against the judgment and decree made in A.S.Nos. 172, 169, 170, 171 and 173 to 175 of 1990 on the file of Principal District Judge, Trichy, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 7.3.1990.2. The case in brief for disposal of all the appeals is as follows:- Trichy Thanjavur Diaseas of Church of South Indian Association Trust represented by the President filed the suits as plaintiff against the respective defendants for delivery of possession of the suit property and also for past and future arrears of rent. The plaintiff had purchased the right, title and interest of the suit property under two registered documents dated 27.9.1981 and 28.9.1981 from the legal heirs of Tmt. Man Singh. The respective defendants in the s...
Tag this Judgment!S. Arunachalam Vs. the Managing Director, Southern Structurals, Pattab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR689]; (2001)IILLJ1457Mad; (2001)3MLJ382
ORDER1. The petitioner was employed as Assistant (Trainee) in the 1st respondent company on 2.6.84 for a period of two years. Since he was a Post Graduate Degree holder at the time of joining, he was posted as Assistant inthe personnel department against the permanent vacancy. During the period of two years, the petitioner was treated as a full member of the department and was allotted duties equivalent to other staff of personnel department. He was paid a consolidated stipend of Rs. 650 till his probation was declared on 8.6.86. The petitioner resigned his services with effect from the closing of 12.8.91. On his resignation, the petitioner was paid all statutory dues to which the petitioner was entitled to, except the gratuity for the period from 2.6.84 to 7.6.86. The total amount of gratuity due for the period from 2.6.84 to 7.6.86 works out to Rs. 1,889.80.2. The petitioner made a claim before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.S. Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR462(Mad)
C. Nagappan, J.1. The substantial questions of law that arise in the present reference are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment made on the receiver in the status of 'association of persons' could not be sustained ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the letting out on hire Padmanabha Theatre for screening cinematograph films docs not amount to carrying on of a business is sustainable in law ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances and in the light of the return filed by the receiver himself for the assessment year 1980-81 admitting certain income as arising from business, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there is no material to show that the receiver in fact has carried on any business ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receiver could be said to have rep...
Tag this Judgment!Sakthivel Bankers, Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR144(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the assessee at considerable length. But we are not persuaded to hold that the order made by the Tribunal, directing remand of the matter to the Assessing Officer calls for any interference.2. Admittedly, the search was conducted in the premises of one Lakshmanan and certain documents were recovered during that search, which included documents pertaining to eight firms in which Lakshmanan and his wife were partners and also certain documents concerning his wife. Lakshmanan gave a statement, offering a sum of Rs. 125 lakhs as undisclosed income and pleaded inability to furnish the names of persons in whose favour credits have been entered in the books of account of those firms and of his wife. Notices were issued simultaneously to Lakshmanan, to his wife and to the eight firms. Lakshmanan had no doubt whatsoever as to the purpose for which the notice was issued and he being the person, who apparently was in control of the affairs...
Tag this Judgment!R. Gopalakrishnan Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ47
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. R. Gopalakrishnan was convicted for the offence under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Hence, this appeal challenging the same.2. The short facts leading to the conviction are as follows :(a) The appellant (A1) was functioning as the Manager of the Perambur Branch of the Syndicate Bank from August 1984 to December 1985. M/s. Jaycee Exports, Mylapore, is A2 and Sri Jagadishlal Kanyalal, the Proprietor of the said Company is A3, A2 and A3 in September 1985 floated several companies and by giving the various names opened the accounts in the Perambur Branch where the appellant was working as the Manager. He allowed A2 and A3 to overdraw from those accounts to the tune of Rs. 11 lakhs. To set right the overdrawn limits, which were permitted by the appellant without permisison from the Head Office, he issued ban...
Tag this Judgment!Management of E.i.D. Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Labour and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1074Mad
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. These writ appeals are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated March, 2, 1994 made in W.P. No. 3860 of 1984 and W.P. 4555 of 1987. The appellant and the second respondent in both the appeals are the same.2. Heard Mr. A.L. Somayaji, the learned senior counsel for the appellant. Mr. M.R. Prabhu for the second respondent and the Special Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3 in W.A. 606 of 1995 and first respondent in W.A. 607 of 1995.3. The second respondent was employed by the appellant as Assistant Works Manager (Production) in their Fertilizer factory at Ennore on May 2, 1973. Subsequently he was promoted and posted as General Manager of the said factory with effect from May 1, 1976. While the second respondent was working as the General Manager, his services was terminated by the appellant by order dated November 22, 1992.4. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent preferred an appeal to the Appellate authority cons...
Tag this Judgment!W.A. Shah Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. District Forest Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2001
Reported in: [2003]129STC299(Mad)
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J.1. Petitioners in the writ petitions have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to decide the nature of the sale, i.e., inter-State or local, of sandalwood by the first respondent to the petitioner in the auction sale held by the first respondent on June 19, 1996 and July 6, 1994 respectively, without reference to the proceedings of the Special Commissioner and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated September 16, 1998.2. In my view, these writ petitions are not maintainable and are filed in abuse of the process of this Court. The petitioner has earlier preferred Writ Petition Nos. 183 of 1995 and 1345 of 1996 before this Court and that they have stated that they are not aware of the outcome of the writ petitions. Whereas, it is seen that the writ petitions were dismissed by a common order of this Court dated April 18, 2000 in a batch of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 2320, etc., of 1994 after contest and as many as 20 writ peti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »