Chennai Court March 2002 Judgments
Anaimalai National EstateWorkers Union representedby Its General Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR427]; (2003)ILLJ44Mad
ORDER1. These writ petitions have been filed by the different Trade Unions registered under the Trade Unions Act,1926, representing the Plantation Workmen employed in the various Estates in Valparai, Anaimalai areas in Coimbatore District. According to them there are about 24,000 permanent workmen and about 26,000 temporary workmen and daily rated workmen employed in the Estate/respondents 2 to 28. Considering that identical issues are raised in all the above writ petitions, it is convenient to refer to the facts stated in W.P.No.4884 of 2002.2.According to the petitioner, the Union has been entering into various settlements from time to time right from 1962 separately for each category of workmen regarding the wages and working conditions. The last of such settlement was entered into between Unions and the first respondent under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') on 10.7.1996`. Though the period of settlement was for three years, ending on 31.1...
Tag this Judgment!Needhimanickam Vs. State by Dsp, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: [2003]47SCL772(Mad)
Malai Subramanian, J.1. The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal against his conviction for offences punishable under Secs. 5(2) read with 5(1)(a) and 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 by the II Additional Special Judge, Chennai. He was sentenced to undergo R. I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer R. I for three months for offence punishable under section 5(2) read with 5(1)(a) of the Act. He was also sentenced to undergo R. I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer R. I for 3 months for offence under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Act. Both the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant paid the fine amount. 2. P. W. 1 Suryanarayanamoorthy is a post man, who used to deliver letters in the Slum Clearance Board Office, where the accused was working as an Assistant. P. W. 1 wanted to have a house allotted to him. On enquiry, he was informed that if the accus...
Tag this Judgment!Saritha Enterprises by Its Manager, Sri Sathynarayanan Son of Late Nar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ426
A. Kulasekaran, J. 1. Defendants are the appellants in the present second appeal. One of the partners in the first respondent firm has filed the suit O.S.No.25 of 1984 before the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul , to pass preliminary decree for the dissolution of partnership and for directing the respondents 2&3 to render a true, correct faithful accounts of the business of the suit partnership firm from 1.4.1983 till the date of dissolution and to pass a final decree in favour of the plaintiff to direct the respondents to pay such amount as may be found due to the plaintiff on taking accounts with interest from the date of dissolution till realisation. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court the appellants herein have filed A.S.69/87 before the District Judge, Dindigul which was also dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Hence the present second appeal.2. The second appeal was admitted on the followi...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs. Vasireddi Rajah Ramagopala Kri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)205; [2003]263ITR144(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue. The assessment years are 1983-84 and 1984-85. The questions are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80L ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that denial of exemption under Section 11 should be restricted to the income arising from investments which are in contravention of the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and that the Income-tax Officer should re-examine the assessee's claim in the light of its decision in the case of Thuluva Vellala Association ?' 2. We will consider the second question first. Section 13(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act was amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1983, and proviso (iia) was added therein by which the time for disinves...
Tag this Judgment!Kiliyambal Vs. R. Govindaraju,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ136
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. The plaintiff who lost before the courts below is the appellant herein.2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.1082 of 1984 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Villupuram against the respondents herein praying for a decree declaring that she is the absolute owner of the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2, who are none else than her sons, from interfering in any manner with her possession and enjoyment of the suit properties through her tenant, the third defendant.3. Briefly, it is the case of the plaintiff that she purchased the suit properties under Exs.A.1 and A.2 from Seethammal and Thambusamy Reddiar respectively on 1.9.1955. But, however the document was written in the name of her sister Ellammal, so that the husband of the plaintiff, who was leading a wayward life would not be able to lay his hands on those properties. Later on, the plaintiff in the year 1959, thought it would be better if the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Woodlands Travels and Agencies and anr. Vs. K. Vasudeva Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(27)PTC352(Mad)
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The present original petition has been filed under Sections 9, 11, 18, 32, 46 and 56 read with Sections 107 and 108 of The Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 in respect of registration of trademark No. 445603 registered in the name of M/s. Shri K. Vasudeva Rao and K.V. Geetha Rao and trading as 'WOODY'S' under class 3D in Part-B of the register.2. This Court ordered notice on 23.11.1992 and the respondents appeared and filed their counter and opposed the application. The parties have let in evidence, both oral and documentary and, thereafter, the matter was heard.3. According to the applicant, the respondents are jointly doing business at Bangalore. The respondents instituted O.S. No. 10716 of 1991 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, against the first petitioner under Sections 105 and 106 of The Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 and also under Sections 55, 56, 60 and 62 of the Act for a permanent injunction restraining the first respondent from in...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Agrifurane Industries Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: [2002]126STC550(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of four writ petitions, they being W.P. Nos. 12463 of 1998, 12464 of 1998, 12465 of 1998 and 12466 of 1998. All the writ petitions more or the less pertained to a common controversy involved.2. Four original petitions, viz., O.P. Nos. 1326 and 1327 of 1997, 1727 of 1997, 3999 of 1997 and 868 of 1998 came to be disposed of by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal by a common order. The present writ petitions pertained to that common order. These original petitions pertained to the various orders passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short 'the Act') as also the Government Orders passed. W.P. No. 12463 of 1998 is against the order passed in O.P. No. 868 of 1998 challenging the communications dated November 11, 1996 and February 13, 1997. W.P. No. 12464 of 1998 pertains to the order passed in O.P. No. 1327 of 1997 which was against the proceedings dated March 27, 1997 rejecting the request of...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Songappa Gounder Vs. K.P. Muthusamy and M. Elangovan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad346; (2002)2MLJ319
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. S.K. Songappa Gounder, the appellant herein, filed a suit on promissory note for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,050/- with interest against the defendants. After trial, the suit was decreed only in respect of a sum of Rs.5,000/- with interest. Challenging the same, the appellant/plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which in turn dismissed the same. Hence, the Second Appeal. 2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the 1st defendant on behalf of the 2nd defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note. In spite of demand through notice dated 29.7.1993, the defendants failed to pay the said sum with interest. Hence, the suit was filed. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants by contending that the plaintiff started a chit transaction and the 2nd defendant joined as a subscriber. Every month, he paid Rs.5,000/- towards chit subscription. The chit auction for the 7th instalment was held on 6.8....
Tag this Judgment!Padmanabhan Vs. Chinnakannu and Pitchaipillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ302
ORDERV. Bakthavatsalu, J. 1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount on the basis of a promissory note. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:- The defendants borrowed Rs.10,000/- from C.P.Madhavan and executed a promissory note on 19.6.93 at Chinna Salem Village agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest at 12%. The said Madhavan assigned the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 1.9.95 for valid consideration. Thereafter, the plaintiff demanded the defendants to pay the amount and also issued notice to them. But the defendants failed to pay the amount. Therefore, the suit is filed for recovery of the amount.3. The case of the defendants is as follows:- The defendants never executed any promissory note in favour of Madhavan. The defendants do not know who is C.P.Madhavan. The suit promissory note is a forged document. The assignment in favour of the plaintiff is not true. It is not supported by any consider...
Tag this Judgment!U. Krishnan @ Kittu Vs. State by : Superintendent, Customs Preventive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2887
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. U. Krishnan alias Kittu, the appellant herein was convicted under Section 8(c) read with 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to undergo an additional imprisonment for 3 years. This conviction and sentence is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in this appeal. 2. The short facts leading to conviction could be summarised as follows:- '(a) Smt.Gladys Lily, P.W.1, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Customs Preventive Unit, Nagercoil received the information on 16.9.1994 that one Krishnan alias Kittu of Radhapuram would be arriving near Antony Church on the eastern side seashore of Idinthakarai village with a bag containing about 10 kgs. of heroin in order to smuggle the same to Sri Lanka. The information was recorded under Ex.P1 by P.W.1 at about 9.00 P.M. After sending the said information to the superior officials, P.W.1, the Superintendent, P.W.2, the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »