Chennai Court September 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.
S. Raju Vs. Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Temple Represented by Its Executive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ768
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J.1. Petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus by calling for the records of the second respondent namely the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, to quash his order dated 24.10.2000 and direct the Commissioner to approve the resolution of the Trustees to compromise the litigation and continue the petitioner as a tenant.2. As against the petitioner, the temple, represented by the Executive Officer, has filed a suit O.S.No. 6185 of 1984 for a direction to the petitioner to handover the possession of the property of the temple after removing the superstructure. In the complaint, it is stated that in or about April, 1976, the plaintiff has put up a wire mesh fencing enclosing the Nandavanam. Sometime later, the defendants broke open the wire fencing forcibly and trespassed into the Nandavanam, destroyed the flower plants, stole the coconuts from the coconut trees and then have put a thatched shed unauthorisedly. I...
A. Niyas Vs. C. Damodaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC413
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. From and out of the entire amount deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 4124/1997 on the file of II Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court of Small Causes) Chennai, minus the interest and costs withdrawn by the guardian when the petitioner was minor, the amount of Rs. 57,933/- is lying in the deposit of which the petitioner becomes entitled to withdraw the entire amount.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as early as on 16.3.2001 in C.M.P. No. 3640/2001, the petitioner had been declared as major by this Court and, therefore, the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the entire amount lying to the credit of the Tribunal.4. There is no appearance on the other side. Therefore, this Court is left with no option but to decide the matter based on the materials made available and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the records would...
S. Muthurajan and 3 Others Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ357
ORDER1. In all the writ petitions, the issue involved is one and the same. Hence, all the writ petitions are dealt with by this common order.2. The petitioners have challenged the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in G.O.Ms. No. 879, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 28.5.91 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 19.6.91. According to the petitioners, they have purchased the lands by registered sale deeds on 8.2.89 and the mutation was effected on 30.3.89 and pattas also were granted. However, in the said notification, the names of the petitioners have not been shown and they were not given opportunity to participate in the enquiry conducted under Section 5-A of 'the Act' by issuing notice of Section 5-A enquiry. They came to know of the land acquisition proceedings only when they were served with the notice dated 21.7.94 under Section 12(2) of...
income-tax Officer Vs. Sreevatsa Trading Co. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR133(Mad)
R. Balasubramanian, J. 1. All the appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment. In each appeal the Income-tax Department is challenging the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned trial magistrate in each calendar case acquitting the respondents in each appeal. The appellant in each appeal and the respondents in each appeal are one and the same. 2. The offence complained of is under Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, i.e., the failure to pay the tax deducted at source for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. A-1 is the partnership firm and A-2 is arrayed as an accused in his capacity as the partner of the said firm. There is no dispute from either side that for the assessment years referred to above. A-1 firm deducted tax at source, but however, they have not paid it in time. It is also not in dispute that the tax deducted at source, namely, Rs. 17,799, Rs. 10,800, Rs. 9,450 and Rs. 33,860, respectively, in each of the four appeals have been deposited with the Reve...
Salem Steel Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: 2002(141)ELT12(Mad)
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the 2nd respondent dated 27-3-98 wherein the 2nd respondent rejected the request of the petitioner made in his letter dated 14-11-97. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a re-rolling mill manufacturing CTD Bars, Squares, Rounds, M.S. Bars, etc. which are excisable commodities. The petitioner is also a registration certificate holder under the Central Excise Act. In July 1997, a new scheme was introduced under the Central Excise Act by inserting Section 3-A wherein the manufactures of the products manufactured by a re-roller have to pay excise duty on the annual capacity of production with effect from 1-9-97. The petitioner filed a declaration with the respondents on 1-9-97 declaring that the furnace used by the petitioner is of pusher type. Thereafter, the petitioner after technical opinion by chartered engineers filed another declaration on 14-11-97 to the effect that the petitioner...
Kalpana Lamps and Components Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Mad)549; [2002]255ITR491(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. A mere postponement of liability to pay interest does not amount to discharge whether actual or constructive. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim that the consent of the lender--a public financial institution--to convert the outstanding interest into a term loan liability, which is to be paid in instalments in future years, would amount to constructive discharge of the interest liability.2. Section 43B of the Income-tax Act provides that deduction such as the one in Clause (d), viz., the amount payable by the assessee as interest on borrowings from public financial institutions, are to be allowed as a deduction only in the year in which the amount was actually paid. Mere postponement of the liability does not amount to payment. In the year in which the payment is effected, the deduction can be claimed.3. Learned counsel referred us to a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on December 29, 1993, in Circular No. 674 regarding the applicabi...
P. Retnaswamy Vs. A. Raja and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad131
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This suit has been filed for a direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff as per the agreement for sale dated 10-7-1996.2. Plaint averments are as follows ;The plaintiff is working as Assistant Engineer in the Rajiv Gandhi Transport Corporation, Chennai while the first defendant is the Deputy Manager in the same Corporation. The first defendant who is the absolute owner of the suit property proposed to sell the same for a price of Rs. 10.05 lakhs. The plaintiff accepted and agreed to purchase the same for the said price. In pursuance of this agreement, the plaintiff paid Rs. 8.05 lakhs to the first defendant as part payment of the above said sale consideration. An agreement for sale was entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant on 10-7-1996. 9 months' time was given to the plaintiff under the agreement for paying the balance of Rs. 2.00 lakhs to the first defendant and the plaint...
Poori R. (Alias) Bhoopathi Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR624]; (2002)IVLLJ16Mad
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the award of the Labour Court, Vellore, in I.D. No. 1150/93, dated January 30, 1996. The employee whose claim was rejected by the Labour Court is the writ-petitioner herein.2. The facts which are sufficient for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:By a resolution, dated November 29, 1999, the petitioner was appointed as cashier, Subsequently, he claimed to have been promoted by a resolution, dated July 18, 1991, as assistant secretary. However, his services were terminated with effect from: October 28, 1991 on the ground that the petitioner was not recruited through the Employment Exchange. Therefore, the employee raised the industrial dispute and the first respondent, the Labour Court found that since the appointment was irregular and not through Employment Exchange, the principles relating to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act will not be a...
General Manager, Sri Sarada Mills Vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner (C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR738]; (2002)ILLJ261Mad
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent in Gratuity Appeal No. 5 of 1994, dated August 18, 1994, confirming the order of the first respondent, dated December 31, 1993 in P.G. Application No. 30 of 1991 and quash the same.2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 herein filed an application before the controlling authority first respondent herein for payment of gratuity; that the dispute is in respect of two years that the third respondent herein claimed gratuity for 15 years that the petitioner herein has paid gratuity for 13 years and denied gratuity for two years on the ground that there was interruption of work due to illegal strike during the years 1979 and 1985 that the controlling authority by its order dated December 31, 1993, allowed the application filed by the third respondent and directed the petitioner to compute the amount of gratuity due to the third respo...
Jagannathan R. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR574]; (2002)ILLJ305Mad
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner was the employee of the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. He filed an application under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Authority claiming arrears for difference of gratuity due to the petitioner. The said application was dismissed by the Controlling Authority viz., the 2nd respondent on the ground of delay. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the 1st respondent under Section 7(7) of 'the Act'. The said appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on the ground that as against the order of the Controlling Authority on the preliminary issue, no appeal is maintainable under Section 7(7) of 'the Act'. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after serving 29 years with the 3rd respondent, the petitioner resigned on May 9 1980. Due to some unavoidable cir...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »