Chennai Court June 1996 Judgments
Pazha Karuppiah, General Secretary Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad144
ORDER1. The prayer of the writ petitioner is to issue a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from implementing the scheme of taking water from the Sambai Uthu in karaikudi to Tirupattur.2. The petitioned in this writ petition by name, Pazha Karuppiah, is the General Secretary of the Drinking Water ProtectionCommittee of Karaikudi. The petitioner in his affidavit in support of the writ petition states that the petitioner Committee was constituted by the people of Karaikudi Town for the protection and prevention of dirversion of the drinking water from the Sambai Uthu (Spring) in Karaikudi to the Tirupattur Town. It is further stated that the drinking water needs at the Karaikudi Town is being met from the Sambai Uthu (Spring) which is almost 3,000 years old. The Sambai Uthu which is located along a major weak zone (fault) running between Cuddalore to the North East and Sathankulam in the South West is the main source of water for the Karaikudi Town from time immemorial. In 1987, ...
Tag this Judgment!Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd., Madurai-16 Vs. the Presiding Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC442; (1996)IILLJ606Mad; (1996)IIMLJ566
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The petitioner is a Govt. of Tamil Nadu Undertaking engaged in passenger transport. The 2nd respondent was working as a Conductor under the petitioner. While so, on January 12, 1984, he re-issued two tickets already sold in the previous trip and thus mis-appropriated a sum of Re. 1.60. Hence, a charge memo was issued to him and he submitted his explanation. His explanation was found to be unsatisfactory and therefore, a full-fledged enquiry was conducted. 2. The Enquiry Officer submitted his finding wherein he found that the charge levelled against the 2nd respondent, was proved. Hence, by an order dated October 21, 1984, the 2nd respondent was dismissed from service for the proved charge of fraud and misappropriation. 3. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the 2nd respondent raised a dispute and on failure of conciliation, the same was referred for adjudication and taken on file by the 1st respondent as I.D No. 5 of 1986. During the pendency of the above c...
Tag this Judgment!B. Govindarajulu Vs. the Management of K.P.V. Shaik Mohamed Rowther an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ593Mad
A.C. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated Septembers, 1995 in W.P. No. 2330 of 1992 by a learned single Judge of this Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by the 1st respondent/management.2. The appellant is an employee of the 1st respondent/management. The management filed the Writ Petition aggrieved by the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in J.D. No. 3 of 1986, by which the management was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and back wages.3. The workman was appointed on September 11, 1969 in the services of the management as a Foreman in its dock office. Clause 7 of the order of appointment provides that the workman is liable to do work in the main office or dock office of any type of work involving writing or such like desk work. On June 13, 1982, the workman was transferred by the management from the dock office to the main office. It is not in dispute that the main office is situated across the road from the P...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Indian Bank and Four ors. Vs. District Consumer Disputes ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC84; (1996)IIMLJ241
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above civil revision petition has been filed by the Manager, Indian Bank, High Court Extension Counter, Madras, on his behalf and on behalf of the Indian Bank, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 8.4.1991 in O.P. No. 86 of 1991 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras (hereinafter referred to as the Forum), refusing to entertain the petition filed by the Indian Bank for setting aside the order passed on l.4.1991 setting the petitioners ex parte.2. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the Forum alleging wrongful dishonouring of a cheque issued by him on his personal S.B. Account No. 5891/25 with the Indian Bank, High Court Extension Counter, Madras. The said cheque was drawn in favour of M/s. Kilburn Reprographics Limited for Rs. 10,762-11 on 3.9.1990. Aggrieved by the dishonouring of the cheque dated 3.9.1990, the 2nd respondent filed O.P. No. 86 of 1991 before the Forum to award a sum of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!V. Sulochana Vs. K. Rajagopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC139; (1996)IIMLJ625
S.S. Subramani, J.1. The respondent in O.P. No. 48 of 1982, on the file of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, is the appellant before us.2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Petition.3. The Original Petition was filed by the husband for divorce Under Section 13(1-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, on the following allegations:The marriage between the parties took place on 19.6.1975, and, at that time, tine petitioner was working in the Railways as a clerk and he was residing with his parents' at Pondicherry. Even at that time, the respondent (wife) was working as a School Teacner. Even now both are employed at different places. It is said that after marriage, the parties lived as husband and wife at Pondicherry till September, 1976, and even during that time, the respondent frequently used to go to her parents' house under some pretext or other. It is further averred that the petitioner used to treat the wife with utmost affection, love and con...
Tag this Judgment!P. Samiappa Gounder and Cheran Transport Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Thirumalai Tr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC246
ORDERK.S. Swami, C.J.1. These two appeals are preferred against the order dated 30.11.1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.13710 of 1986 issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District, to issue permit to the petitioner/first respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order either from the Court or on production of the same by the petitioner whichever is earlier. Before, the learned single Judge the Regional Transport Authority, Periyar District was the only respondent. However, on obtaining leave one of the applicants before the Regional Transport Authority, viz., Samiappa Gounder and also the Cheran Transport Corporation Limited have filed these writ appeals respectively against the aforesaid order.2. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the stage carriage permit issued to the first respondent in both the appeals is illegal and invalid because, the very order granting permit was...
Tag this Judgment!Alagu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ512
Janarthanam, J. 1. One Alagu (Petitioner) is the detenu. The detenu, it is said, is a bootlegger. Apart from the ground case, the occurrence relating to which is said to have happened on 22-11-1995, he had come to adverse notice in four other cases. 2. The Commissioner Police, Madurai City (Second respondent) clamped upon the detenu, the impugned order of detention, under the relevant provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in his proceedings No. 118/BDFGIS/95, dated 11-12-1995 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health. 3. Mr. V. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would press into service the lone and sole ground, namely, the second respondent-detaining authority took extraneous materials into consideration for clamping, the impugned order of detention on the detenu, which is getting reflected in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention, and on this short ground alone, he would say, the impugn...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. D. Valliammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Mad)433; [1998]230ITR695(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two questions, for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, passed by the CIT in relation to asst. yr. 1974-75 in the assessee's case 2. Whether the satisfaction of the CIT as to the erroneous and prejudicial nature of the order passed by the ITO as contemplated in s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, is confined only to the issue of notice to the assessee under that section, or should it be a must for purpose of passing an order under the said section, as has been held by the Tribunal 2. The assessee is carrying on moneylending business. For the asst. yr. 1974-75, the ITO determined the assessee's total income at Rs. 59,050 by his order, dt. 30th September, 1976. Later the CIT (Admn.) called ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthan @ Nambian Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC339
ORDERKarpagavinayagam, J. 1. In S.C.No. 25 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, Periyar District, the appellant was charged and tried for the offences under Sections. 302 and 309 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and simple imprisonment for six months respectively on an allegation that on 23-2-1990 at about 10.00 a.m. at Kolakadu of Madathupalayam Village, within the limits of Gundadam Police Station, the appellant Muthan @ Nambian stabbed the deceased Amassai with a knife and caused her dealt and that thereafter he attempted to commit suicide by stabling himself on his abdomen with the same knife.2. To substantiate the above charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 14, filed Exs.P-1 to P-15 and marked M.Os. 1 to 26. On the side of the defence, Ex. D-l was marked.3. The prosecution case, as discerned from the evidence brought on record, could be summarised as follows:The deceased Amassai of 35 years old, was the second wife ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Narayani Vs. the Registrar, High Court and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC660; (1996)IIMLJ325
ORDERRaju, J.W.P. No.239 of 1996 :-1. The above writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-'.....certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to the order in Roc. No. 5901 of 1992/C1, dated 4.3.1993 and quash the same as illegal and unreasonable and direct respondents to promote the petitioner as per relevant rules from the date of her application seeking promotion....'2. The impugned order of the High Court made on the Administrative Side reads as hereunder-'On a careful consideration of the petition of Tmt. K. Narayani, copyist, District Court, Thanjavur, the remarks of the District Judge, West Thanjavur, and other connected records of the case, the High Court passes the following order:- 'In view of the earlier acceptance of the permanent relinquishment and Rule 47 (2) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the request of Tmt. K. Narayani, Copyist...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »