Chennai Court August 2001 Judgments
Muthiah Vs. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ304
ORDERA. Subbulakshmy, J.1. Landlord is the petitioner.2. The landlord filed petition under Section 10(3) of the Rent Control Act for eviction on the ground of own use of the petition mentioned premises. The case of the petitioner is that O.S.No. 268 of 1998 was filed in the Sub Court, Dharapuram for partition and that suit ended in compromise and final decree was passed on 7.8.1991 and as per that decree, the petition mentioned property was allotted to the share of the petitioner and the respondent who was the tenant already in the petition mentioned premises became the tenant under the petitioner. After the partition decree the respondent/ tenant was informed about the ownership of the suit property. The petitioner, contends that he is doing business in cattle feeds and other goods at new door No. 218 and old door No. 43/A at Dharapuram and that premises is now allotted to the share of the brother of the petitioner, and the petitioner is doing his business in door No. 218 by paying mo...
Tag this Judgment!Goshen Stones Crushers Vs. Mrs. Fathimuthu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: 1(2002)ACC700
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. Second respondent in M.C.O.P. 36/1987 who is the first respondent in M.C.O.P. 38/1987 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 second respondent, driven by the first respondent and in the accident that occurred on 1.2.1987, due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, the deceased Khader Mohideen who was travelling in that lorry died. The claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 36/1987 are mother and sister of the deceased Khader Mohideen. Wife of the said Khader Mohideen is the fourth respondent and she filed a separate petition in M.C.O.P. 38/1987 claiming compensation.3. The second respondent in the petition, owner of the lorry filed counter in M.C.O.P. 36/1987 contending that the deceased Khader Mohideen did not obtain permission of the respondent for travelling in that lorry and so, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. He did not file any counter in ...
Tag this Judgment!J.P. Samuel and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: 2002(141)ELT338(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner has been carrying on the business of exporting seafans, dried flowers and other decorative items from 1961. The petitioner also registered with the Marine Products Export Development Authority set up by the Government of India to give a thrust to marine exports. The petitioner has been exporting seafans for several years. In the year 1994, the petitioner secured an order from a German firm for supply of 1400 kgs. of seafans. The first consignment of 343 kgs. of seafans were not permitted to be exported on the opinion of the 2nd respondent, the Regional Deputy Director of Wild Life Preservation, Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi that the seafan is a form of coral and covered by the expression 'Wild Life' as used in Entry No. 1 of the negative list of exports and could not be allowed for export. The petitioner thereafter approached the 4th respondent, the Assistant Director, Marine Products Export Development Authority, Tuticorin w...
Tag this Judgment!Samarasa Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd., Madras and Etc. Vs. State of Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad271
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act, 1943, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was enacted to regulate and control the business of Pawn Brokers in the State of Tamil Nadu. The said Act got the assent of the Governor General on the 8th Nov. 1943 and published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 23rd Nov. 1943. 2. As per Section 3 of the Act, no person shall, after the expiry of three months from the date on which the provision of this Act came into force in any area, carry on or continue to carry on business as pawn broker at any place in such area, unless he has obtained a pawn brokers licence under this Act. The explanation to Section 3 of the Act makes it clear that where a pawn broker has more than one shop or place of business, whether in the same town or village or in different towns and villages, he shall obtain a separate pawn brokers licence in respect of each such shop or business. 3. Section 22 of the Act enables the State Government to make rules to c...
Tag this Judgment!The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition) and anr. Vs. S. Alga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ366
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the appeals and the cross-objections arise from the common award of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment. The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition), Sivakasi and the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Virudhunagar, aggrieved by the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur dated 6.10.1999 made in L.A.O.P. Nos. 74, 77, 79 and 82 of 1993 enhancing the compensation from Rs. 100 per cent to Rs. 3,050 per cent, have preferred the above appeals. The respondents/ claimants preferred the cross-objections seeking further enhancement at Rs. 450 per cent.2. Certain extent of lands as described below were acquired by the Government for establishing a 230 KV Sub-station by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in Anuppankulam village, Sattur Taluk under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act I of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').A.S.No.L.A.O.P....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.S.K. Adi Chetty Suravel Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR633(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Assessing Officer has discretion under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whether or not to initiate penalty proceedings. The word used in the section is 'may'. The Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa : [1972]83ITR26(SC) , has laid down that the penalty will not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so where a discretion is given to the authority.2. In this case, admittedly, in relation to the assessment year 1960-61, the Commissioner had directed that the penalty proceedings which had been initiated earlier be dropped and, in obedience to that order, the penalty proceedings had also been dropped by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. That was on March 29, 1972.3. Long thereafter, fresh penalty proceedings were said to be initiated on February 18, 1978. After the dropping of the penalty proceedings by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, on the basis of the satisfaction which the Commissioner had reach...
Tag this Judgment!Palani Sri Murugan Textiles Ltd. (by Official Liquidator) Vs. Assistan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: [2002]110CompCas190(Mad); [2002]254ITR333(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Revenue contends that there is no nexus between the receipt of interest and dividend by the official liquidator, and the expenditure which the official liquidator incurred towards maintaining his office, payment of salary to staff, legal charges, Government commission, etc.2. This contention is without any merit. When the official liquidator, is appointed by the company court, after a winding up order is made, the custody of the company's assets passes to the court and the official liquidator functions under the supervision of the company judge. The official liquidator is an officer of the Central Government who has to carry out the duties assigned to him under the Companies Act and by the company court in respect of the affairs of the company in liquidation. While performing such duties in relation to the company in liquidation, the official liquidator has necessarily to incur expenditure on payment of salary to the employees, establishment costs, legal ex...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Jewellary Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Mad)719; [2001]252ITR712(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Several questions have been raised by the appellant. We have heard counsel for the appellant at length. We have also heard counsel for the Revenue. The appeal is admitted and is also being disposed of by this order.2. There was a search in the premises of the appellant on the 28th and 29th of September, 1995. The appellant is a firm, which carries on business in jewellery. After the search, an assessment was made within the period allowed by law, on the 30th of September, 1996. The assessment so made was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld some of the additions made, and with regard to some others it set aside the additions that had been made as before making such additions the report which the Assessing Officer had relied upon had not been furnished to the appellant.3. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred firstly in the manner in which it has considered Section 158BG of the Income-tax Act by holding that the Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendran T. Vs. Chief Engineer, Distribution - Madras Region and Spec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ18Mad
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. An unsuccessful petitioner challenges the dismissal of his writ petition wherein he had challenged the disciplinary proceeding and the resultant punishment of dismissal. Few facts would be necessary.2. In the year 1986, the petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (in short, the Board) at Perumhakkam, Chengalpattu Division. He, vide application, dated June 5, 1986, applied leave for one day, i.e., on June 6, 1986. The leave was granted. However, the petitioner did not report to duty on June 7, 1986. His explanation was called by memo, dated June 14, 1986, as he was found to be continuously absent. The memo, was received and acknowledged by one P. Jayashree for T. Rajendran (petitioner) on June 18, 1986. The petitioner sent an application on July 13, 1986 for unearned leave from July 13, 1986 to October 10, 1986. This leave was refused by memo, dated August 11, 1986, and the Petitioner was directed to join duty. However, th...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sivagami Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4618
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of one Sekar who was killed In the police firing on 12-7-93 at about 7,15 p.m. within the limits of Mecheri Police Station. According to the petitioner, her husband the deceased Sekar was a tailor having a tailor shop near the police station in Dharmapuri Main Road, Mecheri, Mettur Taluk, Salem District and was earning around Rs, 3,000/- per month. He was the only bread winner of the family consisting of the petitioner, her mother-in-law and two children. The husband of the petitioner was killed by indiscriminate firing by the police and, therefore, she has approached this Court for a direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pay Rs. 3 lakhs towards compensation for the death of her husband.2. The said claim of the petitioner is resisted by the respondents on the ground that on 12-7-93 at about 1.30 p.m. one person by name Kannari was murdered. One Allimuthu was suspected to be the accused for th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »