Chennai Court July 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.
C.A. Balakrishnan Vs. Commissioner, Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad170
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for the issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondent to restore possession of the premises to the petitioner housing 'Udipi Canteen', in the Rippon Building Compound, Madras 3 and also for an order awarding exemplary costs anddamages computed at the rate of Rs. 500/-per day from 25-5-1995 till restoration of possession.2. The case of the petitioner was that he was a lessee in respect of a canteen premises to an extent of 1839 sq. feet of land and building thereon comprised in R.S. 1269 PT located within Rippon Building complex for a monthly rent of Rs. 766.25. The said rent was fixed by the Corporation Special Officer in Resolution No. 4945/93 dated 16-12-1993 in modification of the earlier rent of Rs. 200/- fixed by Resolution 225/89 dated 14-3-1989. The lessee code number is 420. A demand notice dated 31-3-1989 was sent to the petitioner by the Corporation for payment of arrears totalling Rs. 36,780/- at the revi...
Metal Powder Co. Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Mad)313
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J :The questions came to be referred at the instance of an assessee, they being :'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that in computing the relief under section 80J of the Income Tax Act for purpose of arriving at the capital employed in various units, the liabilities of head office mainly sales-tax loan and fixed deposits should be deducted ?2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the commission is apart of remuneration and confirming the disallowance under section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act of Rs. 48,000 paid to general manager of the company ?'2. Insofar as the second question is concerned, the learned counsel Mr. Janardhana Raja very fairly states that it is covered against him by the order in the case of Metal Powder Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1999]238ITR756(Mad) . In that view, that question is answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.3. Insofar as the first question is concerned, the following facts will be essential to understa...
Super Spg. Mills Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN331(Mad)
ORDERN.N. Balasubramanian, J. The Tribunal has stated a case, both at the instance of the assessee as well as at the instance of the revenue and referred the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').Questions of law referred at the instance of the assessee :(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a valid charge or mortgage was created by the deed of hypothecation trust dated 1-4-1979 (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of interest of Rs. 83,292 in the assessment year 1980-81 and Rs. 1,14,807 in the assessment year 1981-82 under section 40A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are justified in law Questions of law referred at the instance of the revenue :(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-company is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 1,60,699 for the assessme...
Marappa Gounder (Died), Vs. Kandasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ617
1. Kandasamy, the respondent herein, filed a suit against Marappa Gounder, the appellant herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,060/-, on the basis of a promissory note executed by him. The trial Court dismissed the suit, observing that the promissory note had not been executed by the defendant. However, in the appeal filed by the respondent herein, the lower appellate Court decreed the suit by allowing the appeal. Hence, this Second Appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows :The defendant obtained a loan of Rs. 16,000/- on 03.06.1992 from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note for the said sum. Since the amount was not paid in time despite repeated demands, the plaintiff sent a lawyer's notice on 24.06.1994. On receipt of the notice, the defendant sent a reply, containing false allegations. Hence, the suit.3. The case of the defendant is as follows :The defendant has no transaction whatsoever with the plaintiff in either obtaining any loan or in executing any promissory...
Thiruvanaikoil Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Thiruvanaikoil, Tiruch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ832Mad; (2002)3MLJ70
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in its award in I.D. No. 188/92 and to quash the award dated 21-11-1994 directing the Petitioner herein to reinstate the 2nd respondent with continuity of service with backwages and all other attendant benefits.2. Heard both sides. The 2nd respondent herein was employed as a Clerk under the Petitioner/Bank. An account holder by name Chidambaram has deposited Rs.8000/- on 29-03-1981 under fixed deposit scheme. The said Chidambaram has applied for a loan of Rs.2,000/- from the said fixed deposit. The 2nd respondent, on the guise of assisting him has filled up the loan form for a sum of Rs.4,200/- instead of Rs.2,000/- and after obtaining Rs.4,200/- from the Bank, he paid Rs.2,000/- to the said Chidambaram. Thereafter, the said Chidambaram has given a written complaint to the Petitioner /Bank against the 2nd respondent herein. On the b...
Smt. Sivabakyam and anr. Vs. the Management Udayagiri Estate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ938Mad
ORDERA. S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. The wife and the son of the deceased Sivakumar, have filed the above Civil Miscellaneous appeal.2. The deceased Sivakumar was admittedly employed in the Udayagiri Estate as a Workman and he was drawing a salary of 377 per month. On 29.12.1987 he received personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment time, he was 24 years old. Shortly thereafter, on 5.1.1988, he died.3. The appellants filed an application in Form G as stipulated under the Workmen's Compensation Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 32,988.4. The said claim was resisted by the respondent and in fact, a counter statement was filed.5. The Commissioner for the Workmen's Compensation/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimabtore-12, took the claim petition on file as W.C. No.76 of 1989.6. During enquiry, the first appellant examined herself and also marked documents namely Exs.A1 and A2, a copy of the hospital chit for taking treatment and a copy of the death ce...
Chinnasamy Vs. Subakmul Gulecha and D. Heerachand Gulecha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad46; (2002)3MLJ229
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein who lost in both the Courts below. The plaintiff seeks declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The suit property belonged to one Sudarsanam Reddiar. He mortgaged the property to one Muthulakshmi Ammal. The plaintiff claimed that he redeemed it and purchased the property after discharging the mortgage on 09.02.1978. While so, when the first respondent interfered with his possession, he made enquiries. He learnt that in a Court auction sale conducted in the execution proceedings in O.S.No.1704 of 1973 filed by the second respondent against the aforesaid Sudarsanam Reddiar, the first respondent purchased the property. 3. According to the plaintiff, he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and in any event the Court auction sale conducted is not in accordance with Order 21 Rule 54 C.P.C. and therefore it cannot be held to be a valid attachment or sale...
Needle Industries Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ369Mad
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Needle Industries Ltd., Nilgiris, aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, dated July 31, 1995, made in C.P. No. 197 of 1994, has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on -various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and has its factory at Nilgiris. The company engages about 595 workmen and it has a recognised union called Needle Makers Union. After negotiations, a wage settlement was entered into between the recognised union and the management on December 11, 1993, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This settlement gave certain benefits to all the workmen of the company in respect of union membership and whether they are parties to the settlement or not and in turn the workmen were expected to give certain assurance regarding production, etc., and also agreed that they will not make any dem...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. S. Rajesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC368
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The above revision has been filed against the order passed in LA. No. 1227/2001 in M.C.O.P. No. 805/1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court) Kancheepuram dated 31.7.2001.2. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 151, C.P.C. to direct the respondent/claimant to appear before the Company Board Doctor or before the Medical Board so that he could be examined and the Doctors would be able to place correct facts/materials before the Court.3. The Tribunal took the view that there is no necessity to compel the respondent/claimant to appear before the Insurance Company Doctors and dismissed the petition.4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent.5. It is true that the respondent/claimant has examined one Doctor by name Thiagarajan as P.W. 2 who is a General Surgeon. He has deposed that the respondent/claimant has sustained injuries to the extent of 40% with reference to the injury on the head. In the...
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR619]; (2002)IVLLJ26Mad
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The award setting aside the dismissal of the workman has been passed primarily on the ground that during the period of suspension of four years, he had not been paid any subsistence allowance. The subsistence allowance, admittedly, was paid only after the dismissal, which itself followed four years of continuous suspension.2. The denial of subsistence allowance during such a long period will certainly have a deleterious effect on the workman's capacity to defend himself at any enquiry. It has been laid down by the Apex Court in more than one case that subsistence allowance is an allowance which is meant to enable the workman to subsist. If that allowance is deposited after the completion of the enquiry which took several years, the punishment inflicted would be prima facie vitiated. The impugned order of dismissal, therefore, cannot be sustained.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however urged that the dispute itself was raised only after a long delay of fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »