Chennai Court June 2002 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. Prakashchand Vs. Sha Harakchand Misrimull Rep. by Its Partner M. Oa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad372; (2002)2MLJ580
A. Kulasekaran, J. 1. The defendant is the appellant. The Plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of amount in O.S. No. 7968 of 1986 before the VII Asst Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, which was dismissed. As against the same, the plaintiffs have filed an appeal in A.S. No. 155 of 1989 before the VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Madras which was allowed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, this second appeal has been filed.2. At the time of admission of this second appeal, the below mentioned substantial questions of law are framed:-i) Whether the incorporation of the names of some of the partners of the plaintiffs firm in the Register of Firms after the institution of the suit, when the names did not find a place at the time of institution of the suit, could cure the defect and save it from dismissal under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1952 as amended? ii) Whether the court below is not bound by the unreported judgment of this Hon...
NeslIn Joseph Prim Vs. the Presiding Officer, Central Government Indus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ686Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Chennai, dated 17.7.2001, made in I.A. No. 35 of 2001 in I.D. No. 101 of 2001, holding that the Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to try the dispute referred, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and for consequential direction to the first respondent to take up the Industrial Dispute (I.D.101 of 2001) on its file and decide all the issues comprehensively including the merits of the case,2. According to the petitioner, the second respondent Establishment is a joint venture company which undertakes the work of drilling for extraction of oil from the earth. As such the 2nd respondent is an Industry as per Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner joined the service of the 2nd respondent Organisation as an Assistant Driller on 29.4.89 by an order dated 28.4.89. On completion of probation period, he was appointed as an ...
Srinivasa Aiyengar, Vs. Indrani,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ131
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.503 of 1980 are the appellants in the above second appeal.2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.503 of 1980 for redemption of the mortgage under the conditional sale deed dated 11.6.1969 and for recovery of possession, with future mesne profits. 3. According to the plaintiffs, they executed a usufructuary mortgage deed dated 8.7.1957, which is marked as Ex.B6, in favour of one N.Rajakumar Naidu, for a sum of Rs.1,500/- and the said mortgage was assigned in favour of the second defendant under Ex.B7-assignment deed dated 15.4.1964, for the benefit of her father Ramasami Naidu. Thereafter, the first plaintiff and others, by a conditional sale deed dated 11.6.1969, marked as Ex.A1 (a certified copy of which is also marked as Ex.B8 dated 11.6.1969), sold the mortgaged properties in favour of Ramasami Naidu, which is now held by the legal representatives of Ramasami Naidu.4. Contending that the said sale deed dated 11....
Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR798(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The revision is against the order of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has confirmed the two orders of the earlier authorities. The first claim was regarding Rs. 4,00,000, wherein the appellant claimed that they have paid a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 for the management and technical service charges to one other company named United Nilgiris Tea Estate Company Ltd. The second claim was about the expenditure incurred for repairs to the buildings to the tune of Rs. 24,14,397.54. On both the counts, the courts below have found against the petitioner.2. In so far as the first payment of Rs. 4,00,000 is concerned, that was the amount claimed by the assessee on the ground that they had given the task of supervision and management of the tea estate to one United Nilgiris Tea Estate Company Ltd. All the courts have rejected this claim on the ground that there was not even a single ag...
Smt. Vasanthi Visweswaran Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR94(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The assessee comes on an appeal against the concurrent orders by the lower authorities. The substantial questions of law, as are disclosed from the appeal memo are as under :'(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the loan of Rs. 1,12,500 received from R. S. K. Shanmugavel is the undisclosed income of the appellant ? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,572.50 which was the appellant's savings as undisclosed income of the appellant'? (c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in not deleting the addition of Rs. 1,12,500 and Rs. 14,572.50 representing the alleged undisclosed income of the appellant and in not allowing the appellant's appeal in full ?' 2. While arguing, learned counsel for the appellant...
Shankar Sundaram Vs. Amalgamations Ltd., Chennai,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas252(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. An interesting question of law arises in this appeal on the scope of the expression 'affairs of the company' occurring in sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 and further questions whether the said expression would include the affairs of the subsidiaries of the holding company and whether a shareholder of the holding company can seek relief against the subsidiaries in terms of section 402 of the Companies Act and on the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board to decide the said questions as preliminary issues arise in the appeal.2. The appeal is filed against the order of the Company Law Board upholding the preliminary objection raised by respondent No.1 wherein the Company Law Board held that the appellant cannot claim reliefs against subsidiaries in terms of section 402 of the Companies Act and deleted the names of subsidiaries and their directors from the array of parties. 3. The necessary facts are that the appellant herein, who is the petitione...
Amalgamations Limited, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai Vs. Shri Shank ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas280(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This appeal is preferred against that part of the order of the Company Law Board rejecting certain preliminary objections raised by the appellant and also against the order where the Company Law Board has not dealt with certain preliminary objections raised by the appellant and also against certain directions given by the Company Law Board in its order. 2. The respondent herein has preferred a company petition, C.P.No.94 of 1999 before the Company Law Board under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act against the appellant herein and also against other 22 persons. The appellant herein has raised certain preliminary objections to the effect that in a company petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act against the holding company, no relief can be granted in respect of the management of subsidiary companies. The Company Law Board, by the impugned order has upheld certain preliminary objections raised by the appellant and directed deletion of the...
Bhagwan R. Daswani, Proprietor, Sulur Agencies, Coimbatore Vs. the Col ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-03-2002
Reported in: 2002LC924(Madras); 2004(168)ELT298(Mad)
ORDERW.P.No.17286 of 1994 1. This petition is for writ of declaration that the searchconducted by the officer attached to the first respondent on23.1.1990 from the place of residence of the petitioner and seizureof Indian currency totalling to Rs.83,42,070/- from the residence ofthe petitioner as illegal and without authority of law.W.P.No.17287 of 1994: This petition is for issue of writ ofdeclaration that Notification No.68/63 dated 4.5.1963 as amended andissued under Section 12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, in sofar as it seeks to make Section 121 of the Customs Act applicable tothe Central Excise Act as ultra vires and without authority of lawand not applicable to the petitioner for the purpose of confiscatingor seizing the cash from the petitioner.2. The averments made in both the writ petitions are one and thesame which are as follows: The petitioner is a registered dealer incamphor. He was assessed under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax. He was assessed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›