Chennai Court April 2003 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.
Sampath M. Vs. S. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ411Mad
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner who is admittedly the Secretary of the Sungarahalli Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, praying to summon the respondent for wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 30189 of 2002 dated July 24, 2002, and punish him under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (Co-operatives) contra.2. On facts, what comes to be known is that the petitioner who was serving as the Secretary of the Sungarahalli Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, has been placed under suspension with effect from April 16, 2001, on the alleged misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs. 26,00,000.3. It is the case of the petitioner that from the date of his suspension till date, the subsistence allowance has not been paid in his favour as it is required under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance A...
Ramachandran Vs. Y. theva Nesom Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad262; (2003)2MLJ130
A. Kulasekaran, J. 1. The defendant, who lost his case before the lower Appellate Court is the appellant in this second appeal. The respondent herein has filed the suit O.S. No.26 of 1986 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli for recovery of amount. 2. The case of the respondent herein is that she sold the property under Ex.A1 on 31-08-1984 for a total consideration of Rs.35,990/-, but the sale consideration is mentioned only as Rs.9,900/- in the deed as the appellant herein has agreed to pay the balance sum of Rs.26,000/- separately, later. Since the appellant failed to pay the said sum, as promised, the respondent has filed the above suit.3. Before the trial court, the respondent herein has marked Exs. A1 to A9 and examined herself as PW1 and one Devasundaram, Advocate as PW2. The case of the appellant herein is that the sale consideration is only Rs.9,900/-, the claim of the respondent is false besides that barred under Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act. The appel...
The Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. K.B. Avurumankutty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)201; [2003]264ITR177(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue was:'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the value of a car and jewellery given by the assessee to his daughter at the time of her marriage cannot be subjected to gift-tax?'2. The Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said gift of car and jewellery came within the exception. However, we cannot restrain ourselves from quoting the finding of the Tribunal.'In the case under consideration before us, the father has gifted a car and jewellery to his daughter. Though the family is a muslim family, there is a legal obligation on the part of the father to safe-guard the marriage of his daughter. Therefore, in order to avoid talaq, the assessee had to give certain properties to his daughter at the time of her marriage. A car and the jewellery given to the daughter by the assessee for her well being who in turn is under legal obl...
Duraiswamy Naicker Vs. Kaliammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ823
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The plaintiff-decree holder in O.S. No. 1386 of 1979 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi has preferred this revision as against the order dated 11.2.1997 passed in E.P. No. 726 of 1982 arising out of the above said suit.2. The plaintiff obtained a decree against the defendants on 21.1.1982 in respect of money claim. The suit was filed in the year 1979 and decree was passed on 21.1.1982. During the pendency of the suit, The Tamilnadu Debt Relief Act (XIII of 1980) came into force and the defendants did not claim any benefit under the said Act. But however, when the plaintiff sought to execute the decree in 1982, the defendants-judgment debtors have resisted the execution proceedings on the ground that are entitled to the benefits conferred under the Tamilnadu Debt Relief Act (L of 1982).3. The claim of the defendants-judgment debtors was accepted by the Executing Court and the Execution Petition was dismissed on 11.2.1997. Aggrieved by ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.K. Mylsamy Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)636
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. These two appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the question is common and they are pertaining to two different assessment years, they being 1985-86 and 1986-87.2. These appeals are against the order passed by the Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue against the order passed by CIT(A).3. The question on which these appeals seem to have been admitted is as follows:'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had valid materials to hold that the assessee is entitled to higher rate of depreciation of 40 per cent when admittedly no hire charges were accounted for in the relevant assessment years?'4. The relevant facts are as follows :The assessee has business of selling cattle feed and poultry products. He also has the business of letting the vehicles on hire. The assessing authority refused to grant 40 per cent depreciation charges in terms of Entry III(2)(ii) of Appendix I to the IT Rules on the...
The Management of Kutty Flush Doors and Furniture Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ1053Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The writ petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in I.A. No.266/98 in I.D. No.469/95 and quash the order dated 6.10.98 and direct the first respondent to allow I.A. No.266/98 and pass such further or other orders. 2. Heard Mr.S.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. With the consent of counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.3. As against the 2nd respondent, the writ petitioner management, for certain financial irregularities alleged to have been committed by the 2nd respondent and various misconduct, framed charges, conducted domestic enquiry and based upon the enquiry officer's findings, the 2nd respondent was dismissed from service. As against the said dismissal dated 5.1.94, the 2nd respondent raised an industri...
Major K. Mathews (Rtd.) Vs. the Registrar-general, High Court of Judic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad411
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Major K. Mathews (Retired) has approached this Court to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that an ordinary member of the public like him who is conducting a case, party-in-person in a civil or criminal Court, is entitled to be seated in the Court and to make use of the table available in the Court-room and such liberties should not be interfered with or questioned by the members of the Bar.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, it is stated that he domiciled in Chennai from 1954. In June, 1963 he was Commissioned in the rank of 2nd Lieutenant by the President of India; in the India-Pakistan War in 1971, he was an independent Company Commander in the rank of Captain and was awarded three Medals. In 1975 when his advocate in a rent control case, betrayed his confidence and failed to prosecute his case at a crucial stage, he continued his case by appearing in person. It is stated that so far he had appeared in the High Courts of Keral...
N.A.S. Ansari and A. Zinathunnissa Vs. T. Ramalingam Rep. by His Power ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad286
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The defendants, who are unsuccessful before the two courts below are the appellants in this second appeal. 2. Heard Mr. V. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. For convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed before the trial court.3. The plaintiff, through his power of attorney agent, instituted the suit O.S. No. 23/96 for recovery of the sum of Rs. 67,700/= due on a promissory note, dated 14.4.93 with subsequent interest at 12% on the principal sum of Rs. 50,000/=. The defendants resisted the suit. The trial court framed the following issues for consideration :-'i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit claim from the defendants ?ii) Whether the suit promissory note has been fabricated by Power of Attorney Agent Sambandam ?iii) Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation ?iv) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to ?'4. The plaintiff's power of attorney agent was examined as P.W.1 and the plaintiff was...
Jegajothi Vs. the Manager, Local Office, Employees State Insurance Cor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ510Mad
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Order No.57-283538/DP/TUT/96 dated 13.3.1998 and quash the same and directing the respondent to pay the arrears of dependant benefit amount with interest at the rate of 12% from 22.12.1995 till the date of payment and to pay the monthly benefit amount to her.2. Admittedly, the petitioner is the mother of one Suresh Kumar, who died on 22.12.1995 leaving his wife Annapoorani, father, mother and sister.3. As per Rule 58(1)(A) of ESI (Central) Rules, 1950, a widow and children of the deceased employee have got preferential entitlement to the benefit of the insurance scheme under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Only in the absence of widow and children, the benefit is payable to other dependants, viz. the parents. 4. Section 60 of the Act bars any transfer of right to receive any amount of any benefit unde...
S. Muthuraman and ors. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ52Mad
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The charge memo that was issued to the petitioners - workmen on 26.8.1989 set out the following:W.P.6335/96 1. Yesterday i.e. 26.8.89 by about 6.15 p.m. when the Mill Spinning Superintendent Thiru. Vasudevan Nair, Personnel Officer Thiru. A. Natarajan and Maintenance Manager Thiru. S.S. Mohanram were returning home from finishing their work in the mill with a Ambassador car bearing Regn. No. TAA595 which belongs to the Mill, you have blocked our car between Pagaiyani village and Nemmaalli Village (Ramanathapuram-Devakottai Main Road) in a narrow bridge with two cycles and you had intention to attack them. 2. At about 6.30 PM when the mill car driver byname Bhagavathy after seeing the cycles blocking the road on the bridge, he had no way to drive the car and stopped. At that time S. Chelladurai, A. Mohanram, K. Palanisamy and S. Muthuraman who were assembled and appeared suddenly before them them with dangerous weapons like knife, Aaruval Velkambu and stick...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »