Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(4)CTC715; (2004)1MLJ440; [2004]51SCL169(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The appellant/petitioner challenges the judgment of the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, challenging the order dated 21.6.1990 passed by the Union of India, first respondent herein, (in short the 'Government') whereby the Government refused to grant approval to the appointment of the appellant as the Chairman and Managing Director of the second respondent company (in short 'the company').2. On 2.6.1988, a resolution came to be passed in the Annual General Meeting of the company, appointing the appellant as the Chairman and Managing Director with effect from 14.7.1988 upto 13.7.1992, i.e. for a period of four years. He was to get the remuneration of Rs. 7500/- per month in addition to 1% commission on the net profits of the company and other perquisites. As per the amended provisions of Section 269 of the Companies Act, which amendment came into force from 1.6.1988, an application dated 19.7.1988 came to be made for approval under that sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2004]271ITR38(Mad)
A. Packiaraj, J.1. Since the issue involved in the two revisions are one and the same, I deem it fit to pass a common order.2. The petitioner has been convicted for offence Under Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default to undergo 45 days rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in C. C. Nos. 17 and 18 of the 1992 against which appeals were filed in C. A. Nos. 14 and 15 of 2001 before the Additional District Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 2), Madurai, who confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to one of fine of Rs. 1,000, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.3. In as much as two courts have already gone into the facts and given concurrent findings holding the accused guilty, it may not be necessary for me to go into the facts and circumstances of the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)IIILLJ676Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This writ petition has been filed praying to issue' a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent and quash the order dated February 7, 1997 made in I.D. No. 77 of 1992.2. Heard the learned counsel for both and perused the materials placed on records.3. In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner Bank would submit that the Guindy Branch of the petitioner Bank opened an extension counter in the Defence Officers Training School at St. Thomas Mount and the said extension counter used to work on all Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays between 12 noon and 2 p.m.; that the staff of the Guindy Branch would be deployed to the extension counter for attending to the transactions; when once the transactions are over, they would return to the branch and account for the transactions of the day; that the second respondent was working as a Cashier in the Guindy Branch and he also used to go to the above extension counter.4. The pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : II(2004)BC95; 2003(4)CTC781; (2004)1MLJ395
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J. 1. This is a classic text book example of how a debtor can evade payment of his dues by hiding in the lanes and bye-lanes of law.2. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant in C.S.No. 1019 of 1995 for recovery of Rs. 96 lakhs and odd towards the supply of generators for wind mill. A petition was filed in Application No. 1187 of 1996 to record the Memorandum of Compromise dated 29.11.95 entered into between the parties. In the said memorandum of compromise, it was stated that the appellant/defendant will pay a sum of Rs. 76,02,166.54 and on receipt of the said amount, the suit will be withdrawn. The learned single Judge, by his order dated 10.4.96, refused to record the memorandum of compromise by stating that the memorandum of compromise cannot be taken in parts and the earlier part made into enforceable decree even while the later part remains part of the compromise memo signed by the parties. According to the learned single J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(1)CTC48; (2004)1MLJ381
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J. 1. These appeals are filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging the common order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos. 5748 and 5749 of 1989 dated 1.9.1998. The writ petitions were filed by the land owners challenging the Land Acquisition Proceedings wherein the appellant/Tamil Nadu Housing Board was impleaded as third respondent. The writ petitioners have primarily contended that the mandatory requirements of Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) have not been complied with and as such the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act is vitiated and the authorities have not chosen to notify the names of the land owners/petitioners in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act viz., G.O.Ms.No. 165, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 3.2.1986, even though the land owners have purchased the properties in question in the year 1984 and 1985 respe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2004Mad175; 2004(1)ARBLR472(Madras); II(2004)BC140; 2004(1)CTC132; (2004)1MLJ387; [2004]51SCL373(Mad)
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J.1. The above appeal is filed as against the order of the learned single Judge dated 8.1.2003 in Application No. 4847 of 2002 in original application No. 808 of 2002.2. The appellant herein has filed the above application before the learned single Judge, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is the case of the applicant that under Hire Purchase Agreement, the applicant has let on hire various machineries more fully described in the schedule to the said application and as per the terms and conditions entered into on 14.1.1999, the respondent has to pay the hire charges for a period of 36 months. However, the respondent had failed to pay the hire charges and additional finance charges for belated payments and as on 15.11.2002, a sum of Rs. 63,79,462.14 has become due and payable by the respondent to the applicant. It is the further case of the applicant that in the Hire Purchase Agreement, necessary arbitration clause is incorporated and a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2004Mad185; 2004(1)CTC414; (2004)1MLJ474
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.1.1990, in A.S.No. 21 of 1987, on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, reversing the Judgment and decree in O.S.No. 520 of 1981 dated 29.8.1986, on the file of the District Munsif, Ambasamudram.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that pathway referred to in the plaint as BEFGC as a common pathway and consequentially for permanent injunction not to interfere with the plaintiff's use of the pathway. The case of the defendants is that it is not a common pathway but it is exclusive property of the defendants. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the trial Court found that the property referred as BEFGC is not a common pathway and dismissed the suit On appeal, the first appellate Court reversed the Judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for.3. Aggrieved against the Judgment and Decree of the first appellate Court, this second appeal has been filed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2004Mad161; (2004)1MLJ116
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. Plaintiff is the petitioner herein, who has filed the suit in O.S. No. 1279 of 1998 on the file of Sub-Court, Coimbatore, for recovery of Rs. 29,64,000/-, with interest and costs, against the respondents herein.2. Respondent herein filed an application in I.A. No. 1071 of 2001 under Order 14, Rule 4 and Section 151 of CPC, praying to decide the preliminary issue as to whether the said Court is vested with the territorial jurisdiction to try the said suit, as this Court, in C.R.P. No. 1513 of 1997, directed to decide the same.3. The trial Court, after affording an opportunity to the parties, allowed the petition, holding that it is not vested with the territorial jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision.4. Mr. T. R. Rajaraman, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner agreed to purchase the property in Coimbatore and approach the first respondent herein at his Coimbatore office, paid the amount and entered into an a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(4)CTC641
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the first respondent dated 20.4.2001 in T.S.E. No. 28 of 1995, in and by which, the first respondent set aside the order of dismissal dated 14.9.1995 issued to the second respondent.2. The brief facts, which lead to the filing of the writ petition are as under:The second respondent was at the time of dismissal working as Chief Regional Manager of the petitioner bank at Chennai. While he was working as Manager of the Cannaught place branch, New Delhi between 13.7.1987 and 30.6.1989 and as Chief Manager of the said branch from 1.7.1989 to 16.2.1991, he is stated to have committed certain irregularities in respect of one of the constituents of the bank viz., M/s. Rakesh Kumar Mukesh Kumar, a partnership firm and also in respect of one Dinesh Trading Corporation. Further, while he was working as Chief Regional Manager, he was required to oversee the operation of the branches under his control. As such, in resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)192CTR(Mad)383; [2004]266ITR12(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee made a claim for deduction of a sum of Rs. 17,49,889, which it had paid to its foreign collaborator in terms of the agreement which had been entered into between the parties on June 7, 1990. The payment was made during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1993-94. That payment was for the purpose of obtaining transfer of technical know-how which comprised of technical information, as also drawings and licence. The sum so paid was the first of three instalments that were to be paid under the terms of that agreement.2. Though the foreign collaborator sent some technical information, that collaborator subsequently did not supply the drawings and thereafter reneged on the agreement. The assessee thereafter filed a suit against that collaborator, which was subsequently settled in a later assessment year, under which it received certain sums, which was about 60 per cent, of the amount that had been paid by the assessee.3. The assessee's claim...
Tag this Judgment!