Chennai Court January 2002 Judgments
Parry Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: [2002]255ITR194(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This revision is filed against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. A very novel question is involved in this revision.2. The assessee is a company. It was liable to pay the agricultural income-tax and was regularly paying the tax for the relevant assessment years. For the purposes of the assessment, the assessee-company had chosen its assessment year to be from July to June, that is for the year 1990-91, its assessment year was from July 1, 1989, to June 30, 1990. So also, for the year 1991-92, the assessment year was from July 1, 1990 to June 30,1991, and for the year 1992-93, it was from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992. However, it seems that the Agricultural Income-tax Act was extensively amended with effect from April 1, 1992, and the definition of 'previous year' as it appeared earlier vide section 2(t) underwent a change. The term 'previous year' is now defined as :' 'previous year' means twelve months ending ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Vs. State Rep. by Narcotic Control Bureau, South Zonal Unit, Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3725
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Muthu, the second accused was convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 21 of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, he has filed Criminal Appeal No.513 of 1998. 2. The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau has filed Criminal Appeal No.1056 of 1998, against the acquittal of one Chella Muthu, respondent herein, A-1 in respect of the charge under Section 8-C read with Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 3. Since both these appeal arise out of a single case, a common judgment is being rendered through this.4. The short facts leading to the filing of these appeals could be summarized as follows:' (a) The complainant, Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, is PW-1. On the basis of the information received by him, an auto rikshaw, bearing registration No.TMA 4113 was inte...
Tag this Judgment!R. Parasakthi Vs. the State Election Commission Represented by Its Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ817
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows:- 'To issue a Writ of Declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ declaring that the election results declared by the second respondent on 3-10-2001 that the third respondent is elected as President of Vellakavi Panchayat is illegal and unlawful and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct fresh election for Vellakavi Panchayat as per the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rule, 1995.' 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:-First respondent, who is the authority to notify and draw election programmes for various Panchayats throughout the State of Tamil Nadu, issued election notification in respect of Vellakavi Panchayat situate within the Kodaikanal Taluk. As per the election programme drawn by the first respondent, nomination covers from 24-9-2001 and continued upto 1-10-2001. The petitioner filed his nomination pa...
Tag this Judgment!Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, Rep. by Its Council S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR772]; (2002)1MLJ720
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J. 1. This writ petition is filed against the order passedby the Industrial Tribunal in Industrial Dispute No.90 of1989. The reference for adjudication is 'whether the demandfor payment of bonus to the workers at 8.33% for the years1986-87 is justified; if not, to what relief they areentitled' and also for another issue. The other issue is notrelevant for the present and hence it is not extracted. 2. The facts are as follows: The Christian MedicalHospital was founded about 90 years ago; Subsequently, medicalcollege was stated. There are 3500 employees of variouscategories in the hospital. The employees of the ChristianMedical College (hereinafter referred to as 'CMC'), claimedthat the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act applies tothem. The management contends that the Payment of Bonus Acthas no application for C.M.C. Hospital as it is exemptedunder subclauses (b) and (c) of Section Section 32(v) of theAct. 3.The employees' contention is that the hospitalmanufactures...
Tag this Judgment!inderchand D. Kochar Vs. Puratchidasan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad8; (2002)1MLJ665
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The prayer in O.A. No. 1110/ 2000 is for the appointment of an advocate Receiver to take charge of the property bearing Door No. 17, North Boag Road, T. Nagar Chennai-600 017 and to administer the Kalyana Mandapam, being run there, pending disposal of the suit.2. A. No. 5746/2001 is for dismissal of the suit, which according to the applicant, on the face of it is barred by limitation.3. The suit itself is for a decree and judgment against the defendants for Rs. 43,79,775/- together with further interest at 30% per annum on the said amount till the date of realisation and in the event of the defendants not paying the decree amount permitting the plaintiff to sell the property mortgaged as set out In the schedule, which was offered as security for the entire loan and appropriate the sale proceeds through the Court.4. The case of the plaintiff is as follows :After receiving money from him under a registered agreement for sale on 17-10-1989 and also subsequently recei...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Best and Crompton Engineering Limited, Automotive Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ37
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The point for determination in this writpetition is as to whether the 2nd respondent could sustain anindustrial dispute before the 1 st respondent Labour Court atMadras, when the cause of action for the dispute arose atJamshedpur within the State of Bihar. The following few factsas pleaded by both the petitioner management and the secondrespondent are as follows. 2. According to the petitioner, it'sregistered office is situate at Madras and the factories aresituate in and around Madras and Bangalore. The petitioner isthe manufacturer of dynamos, starter motors, alternators etc.,for automobile vehicles. The major customer for dynamos,starter motors, alternators was Tata Engineering andLocomotive Company Ltd., (TELCO), Jamshedpur. The 2ndrespondent was employed for the service centre at Jamshedpurand he was throughout working only at the said service centre.The 2nd respondent was under the control of the RegionalManager, Calcutta under whose control the service ce...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, South Zone, Madras Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT(Cri)36; 2003(159)ELT62(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The accused 1 and 2, the respondents herein were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 20 and 23 read with 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act alleging that they exported 6 kilos of ganja by concealing the same in the Senna Leaves bags out of India. After trial, they were acquitted. Hence, this appeal by the Deputy Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, South Zone, Chennai.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:'(a) Senna Kesavan, the first accused is a commission agent doing business in exporting Senna Leaves and Senna Pods in the name of M/s. Ramesh and Babu at Tuticorin. P.S.A. Charles, the second accused/second respondent is a Job Typist helping A1 in typing the correspondence between A1 and importers outside India. (b) A1 got the orders for sending Senna Leaves and Senna Pods from a firm by name M/s. Tai Ping Trading Company in Hong Kong in the year 1987. Accordingly, he sent 17 bales of Senna Leaves and 6 bales of Senn...
Tag this Judgment!Kethmul Vs. Hussaini Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ568
ORDER1. The Rent Control Appellate Authority held that a second application for fixing the fair rent is maintainable and therefore, this revision.2. The revision petitioner is the tenant. In 1983, the respondent/the landlord fifed HRCOP No. 1167 of 1982 under Section 4 of the Act. Fair rent was fixed at Rs.221 per month. On appeal, it was quantified at Rs.211 per month. After the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a tenancy agreement. Notwithstanding the fact that the fair rent had been fixed in the above proceedings, a sum of Rs.500 per month was paid as rent and received by the respondent. In March, 1995, the respondent filed RCOP No.575 of 1995 for fixing the fair rent. The Learned Rent Controller while dismissing the petition on the ground that a second application for fixation of fair rent was not maintainable, proceeded to quantify the fair rent on the basis of the materials produced before him. The fair rent thus fixed was Rs.1311 pe...
Tag this Judgment!T. Ravindran Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore and t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ160Mad
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J. 1.This writ petition is filed against the awardpassed by the Labour Court in I.D. No.213/90. The petitionerbefore this court was the workman in the second respondentsociety, namely, Pollachi Co-operative House ConstructionSociety. The workman joined the service on 25.10.7 6. On19.5.89 he submitted his resignation. It was handed over tothe Secretary in person. Subsequently on 29.5.89 he sent aletter withdrawing the resignation letter. After thiswithdrawal letter was given, a communication was received fromthe second respondent dated 11.10.89, which was received on13.10.89 by the petitioner herein stating that his resignationletter was accepted already. Therefore, the petitioner hereinraised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court. Beforethe Labour Court he submitted that on 11.10.89 he submittedanother application requesting the management to permit him tojoin duty. On the same day the management wrote a letterinforming him that his resignation has been accepte...
Tag this Judgment!Muthusamy Vs. Mani,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ689
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above Civil Revision Petition is filed underSection 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the orderdated 16.8.1996 made in an application filed in R.E.A.No.1023of 1993 under Order 21 Rule 95 and Section 151 of C.P.C fordelivery of possession of the immovable property as per thesale certificate issued by the Court. 2. The revision petitioner is a Court auctionpurchaser who purchased the property on 2.11.1983 in the courtauction for a sum of Rs.25,8 00/- and according to thepetitioner, 1/4th of the amount was paid on the very same dayand as per the sale notification, the balance amount was paidon 16.11.1983. The Judgment Debtor filed an application underSection 47 of C.P.C in R.E.A.No.867 of 1983 to set aside thesale, which application came to be allowed by the trial Courton 21.11.1984. The said Order was carried on in revision tothis Court by the decree holder in C.R.P.No.159 of 1995 andultimately this Court allowed the revision thereby set asidethe ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »