Chennai Court November 2001 Judgments
Shobana Ramasubramanyam and 12 ors. Vs. the Member Secretary Chennai M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad125
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. 1. These two writ petitions have been filed complaining of sound pollution and vibration, because of the operation of the heavy machinery, for digging foundation. Protection is sought for by invoking Article 226 jurisdiction. In W.P.No. 16477 of 2001 there is a single petitioner, and the respondents are Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Member Secretary, Corporation of Chennai, Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, and M/s. Ramaniyam Real Estate Limited. The prayer is directing respondents 1 to 4 to initiate action against the 5th respondent for causing environmental pollution and health hazards to the petitioner family and other neighbouring residents, and further directing the 5th respondent, its men, agents and servants not to carry on any piling foundation activities on their site No.74, C.P. Ramaswamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai, 2. In W.P.No. 16505 of 2001 there are 13 peti...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugha Mudaliar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2001
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ459
ORDER1. The writ petitioners are aggrieved against the issuance of 4(1) notification made in G.O.Ms. No. 650 Housing and Urban Development (L.A.III) dated 22.9.1992 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 21.10.1992 and the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act. In G.O.Ms. No. 939, Housing and Urban Development, dated 15.11.1993 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 18.11.1993 in respect of the lands of the petitioners situated in S. No. 223/2 and 222/2 Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore, North Taluk, Coimbatore District.2. According to the petitioners, the lands in question in S. No. 223/2 and 222/2 to an extent of 1.93.0 Hectares concerned in W.P. Nos. 1201 to 1208 of 1997 filed by the heirs of Krishna Gounder and Kuttiammal and after her death on 31.1.2000. Succeeded by her legal representatives, out of the total extent of 10.24.0 Hectares sought to be acquired for the purpose of Ganapathy Neighbourhood Scheme, originally belonged to one Thiru Krishna Go...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Race Club
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR98(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Madras Race Club is a company registered under the Companies Act. It has a committee of management elected from among its members. The managing committee in turn elects stewards. The managing committee also includes nominees of the State Government who by virtue of such nomination are also stewards. The income of the club is assessed to tax. The club conducts racing at Madras and Ootacamund. The racing is conducted under the rules of racing framed by the club. The rules, inter alia, require the jockeys, trainers and others to obtain licences for which they are required to pay a licence fee. The stewards under the rules are empowered to impose fines and levy penalties. The relevant rule providing for levy of licence fees, fines and penalties are rules 36, 37, 84, 91 and 92.2. Rule 36 is in Part IV of the rules of racing which part enumerates powers of the stewards of the club and the relevant portion reads thus :'36. The stewards of the club may impose any fi...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Government Panchayat Town Panchayat Employees Association V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2001
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ99Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the second respondent, dated August 19, 1998, communicated to the Presidents of the Panchayats of St. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union, advising them to continue to pay daily-wages at the rate of Rs. 58 per day to the part time daily-wage employees and the revised rate of Rs. 74 can be made after receipt of further orders from the first respondent as advised by the Personal Assistant of the first respondent.2. According to the petitioner, by the proceedings, dated September 16, 1997, the First respondent passed an order provisionally revising the rates of daily-wages for the part-time menial servants paid from contingencies for the financial year 1997-98, i.e., from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998 at the rate of Rs. 74, that on the previous occasion also, i.e., for the financial year 1994-95, the said rates were revised from Rs. 42 to 53 and when the revised wages were not implemented, a writ petition came to be...
Tag this Judgment!United Labour Federation Vs. Union of India Represented by Its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2001
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ257
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. 1. 1. Handing over of Container Terminal of Chennai Port Trust to a private party, otherwise than by lender/public auction, has evoked this litigation. 2. The appellant in both the writ appeals is United Labour Federation, represented by its General Secretary Mr. K. Nithyanandam. While W.A. No. 2029 of 2001 is directed against the order in W.P. No. 16845 of 2000, W.A. No. 1921 of 2001 is directed against the order in W.P. No. 12783 of 2001. While the appellant was the petitioner in W.P. No. 12783 of 2001, it was not a party in W.P. No.16845 of 2000. W.A. No. 2029 of 2001 was filed obtaining leave, which was granted by this Court. 3. W.P. No. 16845 of 2000 was filed by Chennai Port and Dock Workers Congress (INTUC) represented by its General Secretary Mr.G.Kalan assailing the order dated 3.7.2000 passed by the Government of India, by which the Chennai Port Trust was permitted to conclude a contract with the private party which is P & O Australia Ports Priva...
Tag this Judgment!Swathy Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(139)ELT498(Mad)
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioner in all the petitions is one and the same and it is accused No. 1 in EOCC Nos. 167 to 169 of 1996 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for Economic Offence Cases, Egmore, Madras and it seeks to quash the proceedings in the cases in so far as it is concerned.2. The point for determination in all the petitions is one and thesame and hence they are disposed of by common order.3. The averments in all the petitions are similar and they are summarised. The petitioner company was engaged in manufacture of Zinc Chloride and Zinc Sulphate and it closed down its manufacturing operation in 1991. The petitioner company commenced production of Zinc Sulphate during the year 1985-86 by obtaining Central Excise Licence. The petitioner had informed the Central Excise Department the detailed manufacturing process and the nature of raw material used for manufacture of Zinc Sulphate. Various clarifications raised by the Central Excise department were...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Real Estates, Rep. by Its Proprietor S.K. Krishnamoorthy and anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2001
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas400(Mad); 2002CriLJ1689
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in C.C. No. 5890 of 1997 on the file of V-Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and they pray for quashing the proceedings in the case.2. The respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioners arraying them as accused Nos. 1 and 2 for offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the respondent/complainant, the first accused is a concern, represented by its proprietor S.K. Krishnamurthy and the second accused is S.K. Krishnamurthy and they entered into an agreement for sale with the complainant and he paid a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/-. The transaction did not materialise and hence the first accused concern and its proprietor gave a cheque in favour of the complainant. On presentation, the cheque got dishonoured on 22.5.1997 with an endorsement 'Funds insufficient'. At the request of second accused, the cheque was represented on 3.6.1997 and 14.6.1997 and on both the occasions,...
Tag this Judgment!P.S.M. Ahamed Abdul Khader Vs. T.K. Mohammed Abubucker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad213; (2002)1MLJ396
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 72 of 1984 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 924 of 1987 of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 25-4-2001, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, namely, Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram in O.S. No. 72 of 1984, dated 21-7-1987.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Letters Patent Appeal are as follows :--The appellant/plaintiff is the owner of an extent of 5 acres 11 cents of Punjal lands comprised in S. No. 407/2-B-2 (equivalent to 2.06.5 hectares) situate in No. 38. Kanjirangudl Village, Ramanathapuram Taluk. He purchased the same along with some other Items of land for a valuable consideration from one S.A.M. Liyakath AH Khan and four others under Ex. A-4/sale deed, dated 2-3-1982, registered as Document No. 271 of 1982 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar of Kilakarai. The plaintiffs vendors delivered ...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Cit Vs. Asher Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2001
Reported in: (2001)73TTJ(Mad)727
ORDERI.S. Verma, J.M.In this appeal the revenue has objected to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30-6-1993, by way of following grounds :'1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made under section 43B on the ground that the amount has been paid on 18-4-1990. As per the Calcutta High Court decision in CIT v. Edcons (India) (P) Ltd. : [1992]198ITR86(Cal) the provident fund contribution has to be paid within 15 days from the last date of the month. Hence addition made under section 42B is in order.2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing to reduce the excess depreciation added back amounting to Rs. 31,69,163 for the purpose of section 115J. As per the provisions of Companies Act, the depreciation has to be worked out only on the pro rata basis. If this is done, depreciation will be less by Rs. 31,69,163.3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing to exclude excise duty and sales-tax from the turnover for the purpose of...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Cit Vs. A. Rajinikanth
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2001
Reported in: [2002]81ITD84(Mad)
ORDERA. Kalyanasundharam, Senior V.P. These are two sets of appeals of two assessees that involve identical issue that the value of annuity policies should not be included in the net wealth of the assessees. The assessees claimed that the annuity policies have to be exempt under the provisions of section 5(1)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the case of one of the assessees, viz., Mr. Rajinikanth, the Tribunal for the earlier years had held that the value of the annuity policies should not be included in the net wealth of the assessee. On being pointed out that the decision of the Bombay High Court in CWT v. Ajit alias Hamid Alikhan : [1995]215ITR454(Bom) was not considered and that it may be necessary to consider the same, the Hon'ble President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, was satisfied that the issue involves formation of a Special Bench comprising of three Members. On that basis this Special Bench is constituted by the Hon'ble President of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »