Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-06-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC170
orderjudgement pronounced by c. shivappa, j.1. the petitioner herein, namely, the indian oil corporation limited, has challenged the order passed in o.p. no. 274 of 1991 dated 18.9.1991. the grievance of the petitioner is that the learned judge has no jurisdiction to interfere with the case of the consent award modifying the interest portion from 19% to 12% and that he has erred in not granting interest for the pre- reference period and restricting the interest claim only from the date of the award.2. along with the memorandum of appeal, the petitioner herein has filed an application under section 5 of the limitation act to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal.3. it is a general principle in the relevant rules/statutes that an action against a judgment must be brought promptly when once the aggrieved party becomes aware of the existence of the judgment against him. where the party is not under disability when he was aware of the judgment, the running of the time will not be suspended and a right is going to be created if the time stipulated expires. the time within which the action may be brought is to be measured from the date on which the aggrieved party had the knowledge of the judgment and also to weigh the nature of the disability that prevented him to invoke the jurisdiction questioning the judgment. if the explanation offered is unsustainable and when a right is created in favour of the party in whose favour the judgment is there, the right cannot be taken .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-13-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC318
order1. this judgment shall govern writ petition nos.9469 and 9470 of 1998 as the parties are common and also the controversy involved. common petitioner herein is a company registered under the companies act which carries its business as steamer agents, stevedores as also clearing and forwarding agents. though the petitioner carries on its business all over india through its branches, the present controversy relates only to the port of madras and the board of trustees of port of madras is the first respondent herein. second and third respondents are also more or less in the same business as that of the petitioner and can be conveniently called as the business rivals. it is an undisputed position that the first respondent is a statutory body and is governed by the provisions of the major port trusts act, 1963 (hereinafter called '1963 act' for the sake of brevity). the whole controversy in the petitions revolves around two berths out of the total six berths at jawahar docks in chennai port. these six berths are for handling deep drafted vessels with a draft of 33 feet and a beam of 105 feet. in short, bigger vessels which carry large quantities of cargo can be berthed at these berths only. out of these six berths one berth which is jd v is licensed to the second respondent, while stilt another berth which is jd i has been licensed to the third respondent by two different agreements. the agreements are common though they have been executed on two different dates. first in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-11-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC571; (1999)IMLJ341
order1. the first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in o.s.no. 356 of 1996 onthe file of the sub-court, namakkal, impleading the first defendant thereinand the respondents 2 to 4 as defendants 3 to 5. the said suit was filed forpartition of plaintiffs 1/12 share in survey no. 533 and for injunctionrestraining the defendants 3 to 5 from putting up any new or additionalconstructions in s.no.533/1. in the plaint it is specifically stated that in anextent of 3.3.acres and 23 cents, shown in the 'a' schedule to the deed ofacknowledgment of partition, a partition was held between the plaintiff andthe second defendant. according to the plaintiff/first respondent, a subdivisionwas effected. the land in survey no.533 was subdivided into three portions.survey no. 533/1 measuring 5 acres 56 cents belongs to the plaintiff anddefendants 1 and 2. it is also specifically stated that the plaintiff anddefendants 1 and 2 together completely hold survey no.533/1, which is thesuit property. the first defendant filed written statement and paid the court feefor division of his share in the property. when the case was posted on23.4.1998, the first and sixth defendants entered into compromise and acompromise memo was filed and it was recorded on 23.4.1998. immediatelyon 24.4.1998 the matter was posted for counter on 28.4.1998. on 28.4.1998counter was filed and the matter was posted for orders on 30.4.1998, in theapplication filed by the petitioner/first defendant in i.a.no. 612 of 1998, witha .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-03-1998
Reported in : 246ITR780(Mad)
r. jayasimha babu, j. 1. the questions referred to us at the instance of the revenue read as follows :'(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that there was no gift of offering's received by the vanamamalai jeer to this mutt (2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in its conclusion that the assessee did not, own the funds offered to him, but held out in trust ?' 2. shri vanamamalai ramanuja jeer swamigal, nanguneri, is the head of the shri vanamamalai mutt, nanguneri, tirunelveli district. he created a trust under a deed dated february 29, 1983, named after the presiding deity of the mutt shri aranganagarappan saswatha dharmasthapana trust. the principal object of the trust was to renovate the buildings of the mutt and temples and to establish schools for propagation of sanskrit and the vaishnavite tradition. the trust was created with an endowment of rs. 5,000. subsequently, a further sum of rs. 2,50,000 was given to that trust.3. the moneys that were given to the swamigal were the amounts whichhave been received as padhakanikkai and sambhavanai from his devoteeswho had made offerings out of their personal regard, personal esteem andadmiration for the swamiji. this court in cit v. sri vanamamalai ramanuja jeer swamigal : 231itr632(mad) negatived the revenue's contentionthat the amount so received constituted taxable income. the court heldthat .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-13-1998
Reported in : 2000ACJ247; (2001)IIILLJ276Mad; (1999)IMLJ117
s.s. subramani, j.1. the second opposite party in workmen's compensation case no. 227 of 1997 on the commissioner of workmen's compensation, coimbatore, is the revision petitioner. this revision petition is filed under article 227 of the constitution of india. 2. first respondent in this revision filed the claim petition making the second respondent and the petitioner liable for getting compensation. first respondent herein is the driver of a vehicle belonging to the second respondent and he met with an accident. making petitioner also liable, he produced an insurance policy. steps have been taken by the second respondent against the petitioner. relying on the insurance policy, award was passed making the petitioner also liable and directed it to pay a sum of rs. 1,21,099. the insurance policy was marked in the case as exhibit a5. 3. after the award was passed it was found that the policy produced before the court was fabricated and therefore the petitioner filed an unnumbered interlocutory application to reopen the award giving various reasons why the award shall not stand as against the petitioner. authority simply returned the same on the ground that the said application is not maintainable and it is only to protract the recovery proceedings. the same is challenged in this revision under article 227 of the constitution of india. 4. the finding that the petitioner wants todelay the proceedings cannot stand since it hasalready deposited the entire award amountbefore the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-02-1998
Reported in : (2000)IILLJ593Mad
p. sathasivam, j.1. aggrieved by the notice of the respondent dated august 16, 1990, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.the case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: the petitioner is a company registered under the companies act, 1956, and having a factory at ennore, wherein it is engaged in the manufacture of medium duty commercial vehicles. it is covered by the employees' state insurance act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the company has engaged various third parties and contractors for the purpose of carrying out various activities including repairs to buildings, plant and machinery and for the purpose of doing various repairs. various activities including supply of materials, is entrusted to third parties who at times carry out work inside the factory premises of the company. the management has no method of knowing whether these contractors or third parties at all employ persons and if so, the number of persons who are in employment with such contractors or third parties. the bills of these third parties are paid in lumpsum upon presentation and they are not expected to give details of the labour element in the bills. the respondent issued a letter dated january 23, 1990, to the management in pursuance of the powers given to the respondent under the act for summoning of records, etc. in this letter, in paragraph 3, the respondent sought for inspection of various documents in regard to 'employees employed by the contractors'. on the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-24-1998
Reported in : (2000)IIILLJ247Mad
y. venkatachalam, j.1. this writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner, invoking article 226 of the indian constitution, for the relief sought for to scrap the order passed by the government in g.o.ms. no. 467, dated march 22, 1990.2. in support thereof, he filed an affidavit, wherein he narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the writ petition and requested the court to allow the writ petition.3. on the other hand, the fifth respondent filed counter rebutting all the material allegations against the respondent one after another and requested the court to dismiss the matter for want of merit.4. the arguments of the learned advocateson both sides are heard.5. the point for consideration is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow the writ petition or not?6. i have gone through the material documents available on record, particularly with regard to the contents of the affidavit, counter, besides the contents of the impugned g.o. and also the relevant material documents available in the typed set of documents. i have also examined the two decisions placed before the court on behalf of the contesting respondent, viz.:(1) nedungadi bank ltd. v. v.k. hariharan [writ petition no. 10712 of 1991, dated august 22, 1996]. (2) moorco (india) ltd. v. government of tamil nadu [writ petition no. 5497 of 1990, dated december 3, 1991], for their application and to give a finding in favour of the respondents. 7. having seen the entire material available .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-20-1998
Reported in : (1998)3MLJ364
orders.s. subramani, j.1. this revision is filed under article 227 of the constitution of india against the interim order of the lower court granting interim injunction restraining the petitioner herein from continuing in the service of the respondent.2. the facts necessary for proper disposal of the revision could be summarised thus:respondent herein joined the petitioner-company limited on 24.1.1981 which is a government of tamil nadu undertaking, as deputy personnel manager stating his date of birth as 3.2.1940 and he was promoted thereafter. as per rules governing the company, he has to retire on 28.2.1998, i.e., at the month end of the year when he attains the age of 58 years. a fare-well party was conducted and the respondent also participated and received gifts and mementos. even before his retirement, he filed a suit on 29.4.1997 as o.s.no. 289 of 1997 on the file of district munsif court, udhagamandalam, seeking a declaration that his date of birth is 1.9.1940. in that suit, he did not file any application for injunction. thereafter, he filed a petition in tr.o.p.no. 6 of 1998 before the district court, udhagamandalam, to transfer the suit pending on the file of the district munsif court, udhagamandalam to the file of sub court, udhagamandalam. the transfer petition was dismissed on 26.2.1998. without disclosing the dismissal of the transfer petition, another suit was filed on 26.2 j 998 seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-15-1998
Reported in : (1998)3MLJ558
orders.s. subramani, j.1. petitioner is the respondent in o.p.no. 216 of 1997, on the file of vi additional city civil court (in charge of vii additional city civil court) the said petition was for appointment of an arbitrator.2. petitioner-kanagarani durairaj entered into an agreement with the 1st respondent for construction of a hospital, wherein there is a clause stating that all disputes and differences arising out of or relating to the said agreement shall be referred to a sole arbitrator or two arbitrators. the agreement is dated 2.1.1996. difference arose between the parties and the same were referred to arbitrators, namely. sivasubramaniam and two others. they inspected the building and made certain suggestions to the respondent. but he did not comply with the same, and measured the constructed area nd the additional area to be constructed area and the additional area to be constructed and gave instructions to the first respondent to complete the work by 10.3.1997. they directed the petitioner to pay rs. 4,75,000. first respondent, even after receipt of the amount, did discharge his duty, and he left the work as it stands, and permitted the petitioner to have her own contractor for completing the work. thereafter, first respondent, ignoring the report of sivasubramaniam and two others, moved an application under section 8 of the arbitration act for appointment of an arbitrator. the application was filed under the old arbitration act, 1940. the same was seriously .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-13-1998
Reported in : (1999)1MLJ117
orders.s. subramani, j.1. the second opposite party in workmen's compensation case no. 227 of 1997 on the file of commissioner of workmen's compensation, coimbatore is the revision petitioner. this revision petition is filed under article 227 of the constitution of india.2. first respondent in this revision filed the claim petition making the second respondent and the petitioner liable for getting compensation. first respondent herein is the driver of a vehicle belonging to the second respondent and he met with an accident. making petitioner also liable, he produced an insurance policy. steps have been taken by the second respondent against the petitioner. relying on the insurance policy, award was passed making the petitioner also liable and directed it to pay a sum of rs. 1,21,099. the insurance policy was marked in the case as ex.a-5.3. after the award was passed it was found that the policy produced before the court was fabricated and therefore the petitioner filed an unnumbered interlocutory application to reopen the award giving various reasons by the award shall not stand as against the petitioner. authority simply returned the same on the ground that the said application is not maintainable and it is only to protract the recovery proceedings. the same is challenged in this revision under article 227 of constitution of india.4. the finding that the petitioner wants to delay the proceedings cannot stand since it has already deposited entire award amount before the .....Tag this Judgment!