Chennai Court August 2001 Judgments
Chandrasekar B. Vs. Management of Parry and Company Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ658Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated August 10, 1994, made in Writ Petition No. 5108 of 1987.2. The first respondent herein-Management of Parry and Company, aggrieved, by the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), Madras (Appellate Authority under the TNSE Act) Madras 6, in TSE. No. 24 of 1985, dated August 1, 1986, filed Writ Petition No. 5108 of 1987, before this Court. An objection raised before the learned Judge stating that the appellate authority who said to have passed an order on August 1, 1986 was relieved of the post and assumed as Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Inspection). Accordingly the said authority did not pass orders in the appeal, filed by the appellant herein on or before August 1, 1986 when he ceased to be the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act (in short, the Act). They also received the order bearing the signature of the appellate authority dated Augus...
Tag this Judgment!Kannan S. (D) and ors. and Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ1015Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issue in all the matters is one and the same and interconnected, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Writ Appeal No. 911 of 1991 is filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated February 8, 1981, made in Writ Petition No. 9124 of 1997. Writ Appeal No. 1250 of 1991 is filed against the order of the very same learned Judge, dated August 23, 1991 made in W.M.P.No. 14055 of 1991 in Writ Petition No. 9124 of 1987, in and by which, the learned Judge clarified his order, dated February 8, 1991. Contempt Appeal No. 15 of 1992 is against the order passed in Contempt Application No. 464 of 1992, dated December 2, 1992, holding the respondent therein/Deputy General Manager, Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., guilty of contempt of the order, dated February 8, 1991 read with clarificatory order, dated August 23, 1991. For the convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed in Writ Appeal No. 911 of 1991. 2. The admitted facts are as follows: T...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. M.V. Subbiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR671(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Revenue contends, that the value of labour quarters in an estate cannot be excluded from the net wealth of the assessee who is a partner in the firm which owns the estate. The assessment year is1974-75. The revenue's contention was not accepted by the Tribunal and therefore the reference.Section 5(1)(ivb) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as it stood during the relevant year reads thus :'5. Exemption in respect of certain assets.--(1) . . . (ivb) one building or one group of buildings owned by a cultivator of or receiver of rent or revenue out of, agricultural land : Provided that such building or group of buildings is on or in the immediate vicinity of the land and is required by the cultivator or the receiver of rent or revenue, by reason of his connection with the land, as store house or for keeping livestock ;' The requirements to be fulfilled for claiming the benefits of this provision are that the person claiming the benefit is a cultivator or a receiver of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pondicherry Industrial Promotion Develo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR748(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee which is a corporation set up by the State to promote industrial development and investments, adopted the hybrid system of accounting before the close of the accounting year 1980-81, with regard to the interest and rent receivable as it found that large amounts under these two heads had remained unrecovered for a long period of time, and it was considered desirable to adopt the cash system of accounting with respect to those two heads. Such a hybrid system was followed in the following assessment year as well. The Assessing Officer and the appellate authority having held that the assessee could not have changed the system of accounting to a hybrid system, the assessee took up the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal having agreed with the view of the assessee, this reference before us has been brought by the Revenue.2. Counsel for the Revenue fairly invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Krishnan Vs. S.A. Nanjan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas849(Mad)
B. Akbar Dasha Khadiri, J. 1. The appellant herein is the complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri.2. This criminal appeal has arisen in this way :The appellant herein is an Advocate. According to him, the first respondent is the managing partner of a firm known as 'Sivasakthi Tea Industries'. The second respondent is stated to be a working partner. According to the appellant, on April 13, 1991, the first respondent issued a self-cheque for Rs. 20,000 drawn on State Bank of Travancore, Coonoor Branch, which he had endorsed in favour of the appellant. Similarly on April 20, 1991, the first respondent issued another self-cheque drawn on the same Bank and endorsed the same in favour of the appellant and received Rs. 25,000. Exhibit Nos. P-1 and P-2 are the cheques. When the cheques were presented to the Bank, they were returned with exhibit Nos. P-3 and P-4 endorsements as funds insufficient on September 16, 1991. The appellant gave exhibit Nos. P-5 and P-6 notices to...
Tag this Judgment!Sakkubai Ammal and ors. Vs. M. Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ556
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 458 of 1996 and the defendant in O.S.No. 430 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Chengam have preferred the Second Appeal Nos. 456 and 457 of 2000 respectively aggrieved against the judgment and decree made in A.S.Nos. 39 and 38 of 1999 on. the file of Principal District Court, Tiruvannamalai, dated 24.12.1999 setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 24.12.1998.2. The case in brief for the disposal of both the second appeals is as follows: Plaintiff in O.S.No. 430 of 1996 filed the suit for declaration and consequential injunction relating to the suit property. The suit property originally belonged to one Muthu Mudaliar alias Ganesan. Patta also stood in his name and he was paying the kist. The plaintiff purchased the property from him for a sum of Rs. 32,000 under a registered document dated 15.11.1988. Ever since the date, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property and patta also got transferre...
Tag this Judgment!The India Cements Limited Represented by Its Managing Director Vs. Dir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ484
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the nomination of the respective General Managers of the respective cement manufacturing units at Sankar Nagar and Sankaridurg of the petitioner company nominated by the Board of Directors as owners of the mines attached to the respective cement manufacturing units for the purpose of Section 76 of the Mines Act 1952. the brief facts leading to the writ petition may be summarized as follows.2. The petitioner namely The India Cements Limited is a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act 1913. The main object of the company at the time of incorporation was to manufacture and sell cement. In the course of time, the company besides the cement manufacturing activity also engaged in the other business activities such as shipping, real estate and property development, manufacturing of calcium carbide, manufacturing of foundry products thr...
Tag this Judgment!P. Natarajan Vs. Thamizhmani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: II(2002)DMC618
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. While C.M.S.A. No. 22 of 1991 is directed against the judgment of the District Court, North Arcot District in C.M.A. No. 4 of 1989, C.M.S.A. No. 23 of 1991 is directed against the judgment in C.M.A. No. 7 of 1989.2. Both the said appeals before the District Court were filed by the opposite parties being the husband and wife not being satisfied with the order of the Trial Court, Subordinate Judge, Vellore, in O.P. No. 53 of 1987. In the O.P. which was filed by the husband for divorce, the Trial Court gave a decree for judicial separation. Both the husband and wife filed separate appeals and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the husband and allowed the appeal filed by the wife and hence both the above second appeals by the husband aggrieved by the rejection of his petition for divorce.3. In the petition for divorce the petitioner/appellant herein contended that their marriage took place on 11.2.1976 and after the marriage they were living togeth...
Tag this Judgment!Goshen Stone Crushers Vs. Fathimuthu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ827; (2001)3MLJ450
1. Respondent No. 2 in M.C.O.P. No. 36 of 1987 who is the respondent No. 1 in M.C.O.P. No. 38 of 1987 is the appellant in both the appeals.2. On 1.2.1987 the deceased Khader Mohideen was a passenger in the lorry belonging to the respondent No. 2, driven by the respondent No. 1 and in the accident that occurred on 1.2.1987, due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1, the deceased Khader Mohideen who was travelling in that lorry died. The claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 36 of 1987 are mother and sister of the deceased Khader Mohideen. Wife of the said Khader Mohideen is the respondent No. 4 and she filed a separate petition in M.C.O.P. No. 38 of 1987 claiming compensation.3. The respondent No. 2 in the petition, the owner of the lorry filed counter in M.C.O.P. No. 36 of 1987 contending that the deceased Khader Mohideen did not obtain permission of the respondent for travelling in that lorry and so, the respondent No. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation. He did not file any c...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Angamuthu and anr. Vs. the State Government of Tamil Nadu Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ278
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the Courts below are'the appellants.2. The case in brief is as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit to set aside the attachment proceedings dated 29.9.1983 taken by the second defendant and also restrain respondents/ defendants 1 and 2 from bringing the suit property to sale for the arrears of commercial tax payable by the third defendant. The suit properties originally belonged to one Pachaiammal under registered documents dated 20.9.1915 and 12.3.1920. She died in 1965 leaving behind her only son named K.P. Veerabhadra Mudaliar. Her husband predeceased her. Veerabhadra Mudaliar enjoyed the properties by paying house tax to Thiruchengode Municipality and he had 3 sons and one daughter. The third defendant is the grandson of Veerabhadra Mudaliar through the eldest son named T.V. Angamuthu. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are also the sons of Veerabhadra Mudaliar. T.V. Angamuthu Mudaliar executed a release deed on 11.11.1981 to the other member...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »