Chennai Court October 2001 Judgments
Padmavathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ642
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This is an unique matter in view of the unusual factual situation. A notification for filling up six vacancies in the post of Inspector of Fisheries was issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (in short 'the Commission'). The selection was to be on the basis of the written examination and oral interview. Out of the six posts, one post was meant for the Scheduled Caste candidates; one post was meant for the Most Backward Class and Denotified Communities; two posts were for the Backward Class candidates, including one post reserved for the women amongst them and two posts were for open competition, one post having been reserved for women.2. After the interviews were over, the following factual position was obtained on the basis of merits;1. Pradeepkumar 198.0 O.C.2. Jude Armstrong 196.0 M.B.C.3. Panchayatha Rana 195.0 M.B.C.4. Sharmila 188.0 B.C.5. N.M. Velmurugan 172.5 B.C.6. Padmavathi 171.0 O.C.7. Not relevant8. not relevant.14. Renuka 142.) S.C.15...
Tag this Judgment!E.i.D. Parry (India) Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC399(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The petitioner-dealer in all these petitions is a manufacturer of sugar. It purchased sugarcane from farmers. The minimum price payable for such purchase is statutorily fixed by the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 made under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, it being open to the parties to agree on a higher price, if they so choose.2. It is the case of the assessee that in all these years the assessee had not contracted to pay any higher price to the farmers who had supplied sugarcane and price which it had agreed to pay was the price fixed under the Sugarcane (Control) Order. Clause 3 of that Order provides for minimum price for sugarcane payable by the producer of sugar. That is a price which the Central Government is required to notify from time to time having regard to the factors set out in that clause.3. In addition to the price fixed by the Central Government under Clause 3, producers are also required to pay an additional price...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare Department, Fo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ689
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J .1. This writ appeal has been filed aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge selling aside the notification on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions under Section 5A as also Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The land of the petitioner, ad-measuring 20 1/2 cents in Survey No. 131 situate in Andhiyur Village in Udumalpet Taluk of Coimbatore District, has been notified for acquisition along with other lands for the public purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidars. Draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was gazetted on 5.3.1983. The name of Thangamuthur Gounder, whose legal representatives are the respondents 1 to 8 here, is found in the said notification. Section 5A enquiry was conducted, as urgency clause was not invoked. Then under the said provision, a notice had to be given to the above person but it was not given on the ground that he was absent from the villa...
Tag this Judgment!N.D. Nambisan Vs. the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ671
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This is a peculiar case. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and challenged the letter dated 15.10.1996. Before we go to the root of the matter it will be better to understand few facts.2. The petitioner was posted as a telephone operator in the year 1952. He was confirmed in the year 1956. At that time and even prior to his appointment, there was an office memorandum which was ruling the situation, that was dated 22.6.1949, where under the seniority and promotions were made on the basis of the length of service in the Department in the respective cadres. This was changed by office memorandum dated 22.12.1959, where the seniority in respective cadres was to be fixed only on the basis of confirmation and not on the basis of the length of service. This situation was itself changed because of the Supreme Court's decision reported in Union of India and others v. M. Ravi Varma and others wherein it was held that the change in the office me...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR641(Mad)
A.K. Rajan, J.1. The question that has been referred for our consideration is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 18 of the Surtax Act read with Section 244(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the over payment of the self-assessment tax paid by the assessee ?'For the assessment year 1976-77, the surtax liability was determined at Rs. 56,00,940. After giving credit to the pre-assessment tax paid by the assessee, the assessment resulted in a refund of Rs. 3,40,366. The Assessing Officer did not allow the assessee interest under Section 18 of the Surtax Act read with Section 244(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, an appeal has been filed by the assessee.2. In the case reported in Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT : [1995]216ITR759(SC) , the Supreme Court has held that Section 214 provides for payment of interest to an assessee on the excess amount ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Varadarajan (Co-operative Sub-registrar) Special Officer Salem Co-o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ582
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of the aforementioned writ petitions as a common question of law is involved in the same. In majority of the writ petitions, the validity of G.O.Ms.No.269, Co-operative Department, dated 8.6.1988, is questioned. In the rest, the validity of the action pursuant to the said Government Order is challenged on the basis of the plea of invalidity of the said Government Order though there is no prayer for declaring the said Government Order as invalid. In short, all the writ petitions depend upon the validity of the said Government Order. It is agreed at the Bar by all the concerned lawyers that the writ petitions can be disposed of on the question of the validity of the aforementioned Government Order alone. It will be, therefore, our task to test the constitutional validity of the abovementioned Government Order.2. We have found practically from all the writ petitions that on the basis of the aforesaid Government Order, the proceedings of...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Greaves Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: 2002(80)ECC69; 2002(139)ELT34(Mad)
1. The State represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise is challenging the acquittal of the respondent in E.O.C.C. No. 99/96 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.G. 11, Egmore, Chennai - 8. Heard Mr. N.P. Kumar learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R. Sudhakar learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. The complaint came to be filed alleging violation of Sections 9(1)(b)(i) and 9(1)(bb)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. In support of the prosecution case, four witnesses were examined. One of the main contention put forward before the trial Court at the instance of the defence was that, the prosecution in this case has to be necessarily preceded by an approval by the Principal Collector of the Department and that prior approval by the Principal Collector is wanting in this case. The learned trial Judge accepted this defence and acquitted the accused. Mr. N.P. Kumar learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that Ex. ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Muniappa and anr. Vs. Perumiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad90; (2002)1MLJ54
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This second appeal is preferred from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri dated 4-4-1990 made in A.S. No. 84/88 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court viz. the District Munsif, Hosur made in O.S. No. 188 of 1979 dated 26-6-1985.2. The respondents herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 188 of 1979 seeking for a declaration that they are entitled to use the mamool MN path way cum cart track as shown in the plaint plan, for a consequential permanent injunction along with the relief of mandatory injunction for removal of the varandah construction put up by the appellants and for a declaration that the vacant space shown in the plaint plan is a common space between the parties along with consequential injunction. It is alleged that the first respondent is the owner of the house and vacant site described as ABCD in the plan by way of purchase under a registered sale-deed dated 26-4-1949 while the second plaintiff is th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.i. Property Development Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR601(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee carries on construction activity. It had two projects, one of which had been completed in the previous years relevant to the assessment years and the other project was incomplete. The assessment years are 1987-88 and 1988-89. The expenditure incurred on overheads of the head office was shown in the books of account as having been allocated to the project which was complete and no part of the administrative expenses was shown against the project which was incomplete.2. The Assessing Officer found fault with that method and sought to allocate a part of that expenditure to the incomplete project. On appeal, the assessee's point was accepted. That having been confirmed by the Tribunal, the Revenue is in appeal before us.3. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the method followed by the assessee conveys a distorted picture as the expenditure incurred for the head office is an expenditure which is relatable not only to the projects completed dur...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank SC/ST Employees' Association Vs. Assistant General Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ13Mad
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The question that arises in the writ appeal is whether there should be reservation as found in Article 335 of the Constitution of India in the Nationalised Bank for the post of special assistants. The learned single Judge who heard the matter along with other three writ petitions dismissed the claim of the reservation made by the appellant/writ-petitioner, and against the said order, the present writ appeal has been preferred.2. We heard Sri Anantharaju, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sampathkumar, learned counsel for the respondents.3. The submission of Sri Anantharaju, learned counsel for the appellant is that the post of special assistant is a selection post and the reservation under Article 335 of the Constitution of India should be made available for the selection to the post of special assistants. Learned counsel also submitted that a member from the scheduled caste community should also be included in panel for selection. His main submission...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »