Chennai Court August 1999 Judgments
T. Kumaresan Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowment Depar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC78
ORDER1. The petitioner prays for the issue of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the letter in Mu.Mu.No.92120/92 H2 dated 17.11.1998 on the file of the first respondent, the Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as the Poosari for Arulmigu Vanabadrakaliamman Temple, Thekkampatti, Nellithurai.2. Heard Mr.T.L.Ram Mohan, senior counsel for petitioner, Mr.R.Balasubramanian, Special Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr.W.C.Tiruvengadam for the second respondent and Mr.D.Rajagopal for the 4th respondent.3. According to the petitioner, the second respondent is the hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Vanabadrakaliamman Temple, that a vacancy for the post of Poosari arose in the said temple, that the said post is lying vacant for the past 3 1/2 years, that the petitioner's father was a poosari in the said temple for nearly 40 years, that after reaching the age of super-annuati...
Tag this Judgment!R. Senniappan Vs. the Wildlife Warden. Indira Gandhi Wild Life Sanctua ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC494
ORDER1. The above writ petitions are filed by four petitioners who claim to be agriculturists residing in Pollachi and Udumalpet taluks. According to them, they are rearing cattle to run their livelihood and in the absence of pasture lands in and around their taluk, they used to send their cattle to Anamalai mountain range for grazing. They employ Adivasis for that purpose. The cattle are kept penned on the mountain ranges, which are declared as reserve forest under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. The cattle cannot be brought to their residence everyday from the grazing land since it would involve a distance of about 40 miles. They have been granted licence for grazing. Whileso, all of a sudden, in the year 1990, the Forest Range Officer prevented them from keeping the cattle overnight on the mountains. Hence they challenged the action of the Forest Range Officer, and this Court, in W.P. No. 17474 of 1990, directed the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners and pass ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Lakshmi Vs. M/S. Shanmuga Priya Textiles (P) Ltd., Thungavi, Udumal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1999
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas121(Mad); 1999(3)CTC764
Acts/Rules/Orders:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -- Sections 138 and 142;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -- Sections 200 and 482Cases Referred:Vijayakumar v. M/s. Monara Chits (P) Ltd., 1997 (III) CTC 132;Shakthi Concrete Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Valuable Steels (India) Ltd., 1998 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 354;M/s. Gopalakrishnan Trading Co. v. Baskaran, 1992 (3) Crimes 1094;Sagayadurai v. J.D. Electronics, 1997 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 297Judgment Pronounced by S. Thangaraj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C,No.321 of 1997 on the file pf the Judicial Magistrate, Udumalpet and to quash the same. 2. The respondent herein, Who is the complainant, has filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for an offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner herein alleging that for the purchase of 4.2 counts Cotton Yarn worth Rs.1,35,000 the petitioner herein has issued a cheque dt.4.1.97 drawn on City Union Bank for Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Rajam Pictures Circuit and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1999
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Mad)392; [2000]241ITR735(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The question involved in the batch of writ petitions is whether the demand of interest under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Income-tax Act'), in the certificate of intimation issued under Section 90(1) of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Samadhan Scheme'), is proper, justified and valid in law.2. Since the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar, it is not necessary to notice the facts in each writ petition. In some cases, interest under Section 220 has been demanded on the interest and in some cases, the interest has been levied on the penalty amount, but in all the cases, the petitioners are not aggrieved with reference to the demand of interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 in other demands made under other provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the petitioners are challenging only the demand of interest under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Triad Trading Services Ltd., Chitra Towers, 332 Arcot Road, Kodambakka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC241; (1999)3MLJ546
ORDER1. In all these cases, the issue involved is one and the same. The petitioners are dealers in various consumer goods, groceries and dairy products. They have been purchasing butter/ghee/flavoured milk and other products of the 3rd respondent sold under the brand name 'Aavin' from the 5th respondent who was the distributor for the concerned area. The petitioners have sold the said products giving discount to the public. On the basis that the petitioners were selling the products to the consumers at prices lower than the Maximum Retail Prices fixed for the products, the 5 the respondent refused to sell the dairy products of the 3rd respondent to the petitioners. So the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions, seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4, their officers and agents to take action to ensure compliance with law by their distributors and wholesalers including the 5th respondent. 2. According to the petitioners, though the Maximum Retail P...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjana Textiles, by Its Proprietor K. Natarajan Vs. the Estate Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ768
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner was a lessee with respect to the premises in question. As per the notice dated 26.8.1983 the tenancy was terminated by the Bank and the occupant was called upon to quit and surrender vacant possession of the said premises on or before the date mentioned therein. Show cause notices dated 4.10.1983, 21.10.1983 and 11.11.1983 under Section 4(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation) Act 1971 were issued by the Estate Officer. The said notices were challenged in W.P. No. 12339 of 1983 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 20.11.1991. Thereafter also notices were issued to the petitioner fixing the date for the hearing of the proceedings. The petitioner appeared and raised an objection saying that a fresh notice should be issued and the Estate Officer issued a fresh notice under Section 4(2) of the said Act calling upon the petitioner to appear in person or by duly authorised representative, on 29.1.1992 at the Head Offic...
Tag this Judgment!N. Sekar, Proprietor, M/S. Leo Furnances and Another Vs. Superintenden ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC662
ORDER1. N. Sekar, the Proprietor of M/s. Leo Furnaces and N. Sridhar are the petitioners herein. The first and second petitioners are brothers.2. Superintendent of Police. SPS/CBI/SCB. Madras filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 120B read with 420, 419, 467 read with 471, IPC. This was taken on file by the Trial court in C.C.No.6607 of 1995.3. The petitioners filed a petition under 'Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking discharge from the above case for the reason that there were no materials to frame the charges for the offences under sections mentioned above.4. The respondent filed a counter.5. The Trial Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, dismissed the petition for discharge and framed the charges under Sections 120B read with 420, 468, 471 and 419, IPC. When the charges were read over, petitioners pleaded not guilty. After recording the same, the trial Court posted the matter for trial. At...
Tag this Judgment!Ratna Cafe Vs. E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1999
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ37Mad
K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. Both the appeals in C. M. A. No. 325 of 1992 and C.M.A. No. 566 of 1993 have been filed by the establishment, viz. Ratna Cafe, against the order dated September 4, 1990, passed by the E.I. Court (First Additional City Civil Judge), Madras, in E.I.O.P. No. 122 of 1986 and 4 of 1989, respectively. Brief facts of the cases are:2. The appellant has been carrying on a restaurant business under the name and style of 'Rama Cafe' at No. 425, Triplicane High Road, Madras-5, and also running a canteen at 'Ezhilagam', to cater to the needs of the employees at Ezhilagam. It is stated that foods were prepared at Rama Cafe and taken to Ezhilagam. Both the establishments were treated as one establishment, and the workmen employed at Ratna Cafe are on the rolls of Ratna Cafe only, and used to be engaged for service at the canteen at Ezhilagam. The appellant is also covered as an establishment and has been paying ESI contribution for:1. Salary paid to the staff for the period fr...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ240Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-management herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus forbearing the first respondent, the Presiding Officer, III Additional Labour Court, Madras, from proceeding with the adjudication of I.D. No. 57 of 1992 in so far as the petitioner is concerned.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the second respondent a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.3. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the contents of the aff...
Tag this Judgment!Thiruvalluvar Pokkuvarathu Kazhaka Anna Sumai Thookuvar Pothu Nala San ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ1507Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The Petitioner-Sangam, claiming to be a registered Society had prayed for the issue of writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected with proceedings No. 38173/E1/A/V/Poka/99 dated May 21, 1999 passed by the first respondent and quash the relevant rules in so far as it transfers the duty of weighing from Porter Workers to the conducts and further direct the respondent Corporation to regularise the services of all their workmen from the date of completion of 480 days of service as per Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981.2. Heard Mr. K. Chandru, Senior counsel appearing for Mr. P.M. Subramaniam for the Writ Petitioner Sangam. According to the petitioner-Sangam, the first respondent-Corporation was previously known as the Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation. In all the respondent-Transport Corporation namely at Trichi, Madurai, Tirunelveli, Coimbatore and Bangalore Bus Stands there were about 180 porters who...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »