Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-05-1989
Reported in : (1990)IILLJ474Mad
ORDERS. Mohan, Offg. C.J.1. The short facts leading to the writ appeal are as follows : 2. The first respondent-Bank was constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (Act 23 of 1955). The said Act came into force on 1st July 1955. According to sub-section (3) of Section of 4 the said Act the service conditions of the employees of the Imperial Bank of India were to be the same as on 1st July 1955. It was on that date the Imperial Bank of India was taken over by the State Bank of India. The terms and conditions of service were duly altered by the State Bank of India. The appellant joined the services of the first respondent-Bank as Law Officer on a contractual basis on terms and conditions contained in the offer of appointment dated 24th October 1977. On 2nd February 1978 an order of appointment was issued in and by which he was appointed for a period of three years with option to the Bank to absorb him as a Law Officer on long term basis on satisfactory completion of the initial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-29-1989
Reported in : (1989)ILLJ588Mad
Venkataswami, J.1. The question that has been referred to the Full Bench by one of us (Mohan, J, as His Lordship then was) is 'Whether a writ would lie against a Co-operative Society under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ?' 2. This question seems to loom large for quite some time not only in this Court but in the other High Courts as well, as could be seen from the cases cited by the counsel on both sides. 3. Mr. M. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 4124, 4154 and 4167 of 1986 and Mr. Somayaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. Nos. 607 and 608 of 1984, have advanced main arguments inviting this Court to answer the question in the affirmative. 4. On the other hand, Mr. M. R. Narayanasamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has advanced arguments inviting this Court to answer the questions in the negative. 5. Before giving our answer to the question referred to us, it will be fruitful to refer the cases cited on b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-08-1989
Reported in : (1990)1MLJ457
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 4775 of 1979. The appellant herein was the petitioner in the writ petition. The respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition. We shall refer to the parties as per their array in the Writ Petition.2. The petitioner was a Development Officer in the employ of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, and while he was functioning in Namakkal Taluk, it transpired during the claim of investigation of life policy on the life of Kalianna Goundar of Peramandampalayam village, Namakkal Taluk, that the claim was not a genuine one and hence the case was referred to Special Police Establishment/Central Bureau of Investigation, Madras, for a more detailed investigation. The first information report was filed on 18.7.1974 in which the petitioner was shown as the first accused. He, along with others, was found to have had been instrument...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-29-1989
Reported in : (1992)1MLJ54
Venkataswami, J.1. The question that has been referred to the Full Bench by one of us (Mohan, J.) as His Lordship then was) is.Whether a writ would lie against a Co-operative Society under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. This question seems to loom large for quite | some time not only in this Court but in the other High Court as well, as could be seen from the cases ' cited by the counsel on both sides.3. Mr. M. Ravindran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.4124, 4154 and 4167 of 1986 and Mr. Somayaji, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.Nos.607 and 608 of 1984, have advanced main arguments inviting this Court to answer the question in the affirmative.4. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Narayanasamy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, has advanced arguments inviting this Court to answer the question in the negative.5. Before giving our answer to the question referred to us, it will be fruitful to refer the cases cited on both side...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-09-1989
Reported in : [1992]73CompCas44(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. Both the writ petitions are taken up for hearing by consent of parties. 2. The prayer in W.P. No. 13883 of 1989 reads as follows : '... to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the first and second respondents and respondents Nos. 3 to 46, 72 and 90 being the directors of the company to forbear from transferring the shares held by the proposed transferors being respondents Nos. 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 44 to 121 held by them in the second respondent company to any other person who is not a shareholder of the second respondent-company.' 3. The prayer in W.P. No. 14134 of 1989 reads as follows : '... to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the first respondent to forbear from transferring any shares of the second respondent-company from the existing shareholders to any other person, which transfer is sought to be effected subsequent to September 25,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-09-1989
Reported in : (1990)1MLJ248
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. Both the writ petitions are taken up for hearing by consent of parties.2. The prayer in W.P. No. 13883 of 1989 reads as follows:-to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st and 2nd respondents and respondents Nos. 3 to 46, 72 and 90 being the Directors of the Company from transferring the shares held by the proposed transferors being respondents Nos. 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 44, to 121 held by them in the 2nd respondent company to any other person who is not a shareholder of the 2nd respondent company..The prayer in W.P. No. 14134 of 1989 reads as follows:to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to forbear the transfer of any shares of the 2nd respondent company from the existing shareholders to any other person, which transfer is sought to be effected subsequent to the 25th of September, 1989 by deposit of the share ce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-19-1989
Reported in : (1989)76CTR(Mad)97; [1989]176ITR321(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is a registered firm. In relation to the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76, the assessee claimed deduction in respect of the provision made for retrenchment compensation in sums of Rs. 18,561, Rs. 9,318 and Rs. 19,142, respectively. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim so made by the assessee and on further appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was held that there was no certainty of Payment with regard to retrenchment compensation as in the case of gratuity payment and that there was also no method of working out the basis of quantification of the prospective retrenchment compensation if and when it was required to be paid and, therefore, the claim for deducting the provision for retrenchment compensation from the profits and gains cannot be countenanced. In the appeals preferred by the assessee before the Tribunal, the disallowance was upheld on the ground that there was no ascertained liability and the possibility of such a liability a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-18-1989
Reported in : [1991]71CompCas723(Mad)
1. In all these writ petitions, the main point relates to the validity of section 2(4) of the Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1987 by which the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the Registration Act, 1908, had been amended. The writ petitioners have sought for a declaration that the amendments are ultra vires, unconstitutional and void. The circular issued by the Inspector-General of Registration, Madras, dated December 9, 1988, is also assailed as illegal and invalid. 2. The averments in the affidavit filed in the first of the writ petitions are referred to hereunder 3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of constructing flats in the city of Madras. It sells undivided share of land to prospective builders/purchasers under registered sale deeds. Thereafter, the purchasers build their flats at their own expense. Hitherto, stamp duty was collected only on the value of the undivided share in the land. Consequent to the amendment of the provisions, stamp duty is demanded on the cost of proposed const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-31-1989
Reported in : (1991)ILLJ250Mad
1. When we adjourned the matter to enable the parties to produce copies of settlements entered between them by virtue of which payments of part of the bonus awarded by the Tribunal were made to workers other than those covered by the interlocutory order of this Court, the writ petitioners filed a petition for review of our judgment regarding grant of interest by the Tribunal. The same is posted before us as W.M.P. No. 20389 of 1989. The ground urged in the review petition is that the Interest Act of 1978 having come into force only in August, 1981, is not applicable to this case as the proceedings before the Tribunal were pending already. No doubt, we did not notice the fact that the Interest Act of 1978 came into force three years later in 1981 and, therefore, not applicable to this case. But, that will not vitiate our conclusion on the question of interest. We have held that the Industrial Tribunal having powers wider than a civil Court in the matter of adjudication of an industrial ...
Tag this Judgment!