Chennai Court December 2001 Judgments
K. Madalaimuthu and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-2001
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ254
ORDERMalai Subramanian, J.1. The petitioners in these three petitions challenge the common order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.As.Nos.779 of 1995,1067 of 1995 and 1068 of 1995.The petitioner in W.P. No. 16806 of 1998 and W.P. No. 1548 of 1999 Mr. K. Madalaimuthu and the petitioner in W.P. No. 1549 of 1999 Mr. A. Arumuga Nainar are directly recruited as District Registrars in Tamil Nadu Registration Service and they were appointed as such in G.O.Ms.No. 769/89, dated 4.10.1989. The above said G.O. reads that they were appointed to act regularly as District Registrars by direct recruitment. Paragraph 11 of the said G.O. says that orders regarding the fixation of inter se seniority of the District Registrars appointed by the transfer from the post of Sub Register Grade I and the District Registrars appointed by direct recruitment will be issued in due course. Thereafter, the Inspector General of Registration notified in seniority list of promotee District Registrars...
Tag this Judgment!Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR456]; (2002)IILLJ418Mad; (2002)1MLJ612
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the II Additional Labour Court, Madras, dated August 11, 1993 in I.D. No. 414 of 1989, Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation, Vellore has filed the above writ petition.2. It is seen that petitioner is a transport Corporation wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The second respondent A.A. Swamidoss was employed as conductor. He was assigned duty in Route No. 56-B on June 16, 1976. The bus was subject to a surprise check by the checking squad of the Corporation at about 17.00 hours, various irregularities were found on the part of the 2nd respondent. He also misbehaved towards the checking inspectors and obstructed them from getting statements from the passengers and alsothreatened the concerned passengers. He refused to receive the I.R. memo. On accepting the I.R. memo after sometime, he tore all the I.R. book and ran away from the spot. The checking staff submitted their report dated June 17, 1976 and after scrutinizing t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamilnadu Forest Plantation Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR512(Mad)
A.K. Rajan, J.1. The assessment year is 1987-88.The question that is referred to is as follows :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the following receipts constitute agricultural income : (i) Grazing permits. (ii) Administrative charges. (iii) Weighing charges. (iv) Sale of minor forest produces. (v) Registration fee. (vi) Sale of other permits ?' In the case reported in CIT v. Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation : [2001]248ITR331(Mad) , this court has considered a similar question and the issue regarding 'registration fee' was held in favour of the Revenue and all other issues were held in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Hence, question (v) with respect to 'registration fee' is answered in favour of the Revenue and all other questions in favour of the assessee....
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Subramaniam Alias V.K.S. Mani Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2001
Reported in: 2004(28)PTC82(Mad)
P. Thangavel, J.1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition to quash the order of the first respondent dated 26.4.1988 changing the constitution of the partners in respect of V.K. Kaliappa Gounder and Sons and in respect of the partnership concern.2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the changes in the Register of the Trade Marks have been made without any notice to the petitioner and at the instance of the respondents 2 and 3 which is illegal and is in violation of the principles of natural justice.3. The respondents 2 and 3 filed Civil Suits O.S. 49 of 1988 and O.S. 4 of 1991 on the file of the Principle District Judge, North Arcot Ambedkar District, Vellore wherein the issue raised by the petitioner in this writ petition arise as a vital issue. The learned District Judge, while granting injunction in favour of the respondents 2 and 3 herein, held that the changes made in the Register of Trade Marks at the instance of some of the partners, withou...
Tag this Judgment!Beauty Dyers Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2001
Reported in: 2002LC291(Madras); 2004(163)ELT28(Mad)
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The writ petition in W.P. No. 19884/1999 is filed seeking to issue a writ of declaration declaring Rule 96ZQ of Central Excise Rules, 1944 issued by the 1st respondent as ultra vires Section 34 and 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as it offends Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India insofar as the petitioner is concerned.2. The members of the petitioner-association in W.P. No. 19884/99 are engaged in the process of cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics falling under Chapter 52, 54 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Central Government introduced a scheme enacting Section 34 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to levy Excise duty on production capacity of the industry.3. Exercising powers conferred under Sub-section (3) of Section 34 read with Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Central Government made certain amendments to the Central Excise Rules, 1944. While doing such exercise, the Central Government inserted Rul...
Tag this Judgment!R. Rani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Publ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(150)ELT1395(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Ravikumar, son of Govindan, who had been detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. It is stated that the detenu made a bill of entry on behalf of one M/s. Majestic International for the import of 360 table fans. On opening the said consignment, a large number of electronic equipments and other items were found valuing Rs.90,94,760/- as against the declaration. Consequently proceedings were initiated against him and the order of detention was passed on 26.6.2001. 2. The detenu was served with a show-cause notice by the customs authorities on 26.7.2001 for which the detenu submitted a reply on 31.7.2001. The same was received by the authorities on 1.8.2001. The Advisory Board Meeting was held on 7.8.2001 and the order of detention was confirmed by the concerned authority on 10.9.2001. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the show-cause notice issu...
Tag this Judgment!Jayaraman and anr. Vs. Joseph Pouvatchy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2001
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ410
ORDER1. The petitioners/tenants have preferred the above revision against the order of eviction dated 27.9.2001 made in R.C.A.No.32 of 2001, on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Pondicherry, evicting the petitioners/tenants from the petition premises, namely, Door No. 429, old No. 207, Bharathi Street, Pondicherry. 2. The respondent/landlord initiated the eviction proceedings against the revision petitioners/tenants on two grounds, namely, (i) denial of title and (ii) wilful default in payment of rent from February, 1995. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners/tenants were paying rent to P.W.I Claudi Mantis for one year till January, 1995. But, thereafter, from February, 1995,the payment of rent was stopped to P.W.I Claudi Marius at the instance of one Mariadassou Xavier. Claiming that there are nine co-owners to the petition premises, the petitioners/tenants stopped the payment of rent to P.W.I - Claudi Marius, who is admittedly a co-owner to the petition premises. Acc...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Potash Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Ct) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2001
Reported in: [2002]128STC446(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The definition of 'turnover' in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 lays emphasis on the consideration for the goods which are the subject-matter of sale. Price is not defined in the Act. It is defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 as the money consideration for the sale of goods. The Sales Tax Act of the State does not require that for an amount to be regarded as part of the turnover, the consideration must have been paid by the actual buyer. The definition of 'turnover' is in relation to the dealer who receives the consideration and the source from which that consideration is received is not required to be gone into, so long as the receipt of the consideration for the sale is clear and is established.2. The assessing authority, having sought to tax the petitioner, who is a manufacturer of fertiliser but whose product potash, is not subject to the Fertiliser (Control) Order so far as the pricing is concerned, and who had sold the product in terms o...
Tag this Judgment!C.K. Ranganathan Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2001
Reported in: [2003]45SCL500(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is the accused in STR No. 2644 of 2000 on the file of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry and he seeks to quash the proceedings in the case.2. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 211(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') against the petitioner in which it is alleged that a sum of Rs. 1,44,71,902 has been shown as other expenses, including bad debts, in schedule J in the profit and loss account filed by the petitioner for the period ending 31st March, 1997 and on a direction to furnish break-up for the said expenses, the petitioner furnished break-up figures in the letter dated 28th December, 1998 and it has been noticed in it that out of the total expense of Rs. 1,50,18,708.23, a sum of Rs. 4,46,806.24 being other income and Rs. 1,00,000 being profit on sale of trade mark had been deducted and the balance of Rs. 1,44,71,901.99 was shown as other expenses. The respondent alleged in the complaint that the profit and loss account for the y...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanarathina Bai and anr. Vs. Muthiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-2001
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ622
ORDER1. The unsuccessful defendants 1 and 2 in both the courts below are the appellants.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the execution proceedings in O.S. 1008 of 1971 on the file of District Munsif Court, Nagercoil with reference to the sale of the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff upto and inclusive of the delivery of possession are fraudulent, illegal and void and sought a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,492-65 (Rs. 7852-15 principal and Rs. 2640-50 interest) together with future interest at 12% till decree and thereafter at 6%. The plaintiff is employed as a mechanic in Nesamani Transport Corporation and the second defendant is the husband of the first defendant, who is also working as electrician in the same Corporation. They are well known to each other and were friends. For the money due from the third defendant to the first defendant the first defendant filed a suit in O.S. No. 1008 of 1971 on the file...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »