Chennai Court July 2001 Judgments
The Government of Tamil Nadu and anr. Vs. S.V. Paul Jayaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ430
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. In this appeal filed by the Government, the order of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent is in challenge. By that order, the learned single Judge of this Court held that the present respondent, S.V. Paul Jeyaraj, was entitled to the pension. The following facts will clarify the controversy.2. The respondent herein was a teacher. He joined the service somewhere in the year 1947 and with few breaks kept on serving upto 31.5.1967. His total period of service was 18 years 7 months and 25 days. All through, he was working in the aided recognised schools, he had also served in army for three years from 13.4.1943 to 20.5.1946. It is, however, an admitted fact that he resigned from his service while he was working in Ramalinga Chettiar High School, Coimbatore. He wanted to serve the tribals and that is the reason why he seems to have resigned from the service. He sent in a representation on 6.6.1967 wherein he sought the pensionary b...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Sri Ram Coffee Estate Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Cour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ220Mad
D. Murugesan, J. 1. The second respondent in the writ petition was employed as an ordinary worker in the writ-petitioner-management. A show-cause notice was issued to him on November 12, 1990 asking him to give explanation as to the complaint dated November 10, 1990 given by one S. Chinniah, Superintendent of the writ-petitioner-management. In the said complaint, the said Chinniah has stated that the second respondent abused him in filthy language and also threatened him with assault. On November 15, 1990 the second respondent submitted his explanation giving a different story by stating that on November 1, 1990 at 10.30 A.M. when he and other workers were drinking coffee, the said Chinniah used certain vulgar language against the second respondent as he normally used to do so with the second respondent and on hearing such use of vulgar language, the other workers laughed at him and this incident created much anger to the said Chinniah and thereafter the said Chinniah also scolded the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanyakumari District Planters Association Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2001
Reported in: [2003]130STC166(Mad)
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner, Kanyakumari District Planters Association, has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein, including their officers and agents, to forbear them from calling upon the members of the petitioner's association to take out registration as dealers under Section 7 read with Section 2(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by placing reliance on the provisions of the amendment to Section 2(r) of the General Sales Tax Act, 1959.2. Heard Mr. K.C. Rajappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.V. Radhakrishnan, learned Government Advocate (Sales Tax) appearing for the respondents.3. It is being rightly pointed that though there is an amendment with respect to the definition of 'turnover', namely, Section 2(r) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, there is no corresponding amendment to the Central Sales Tax Act, This factual position is admitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents...
Tag this Judgment!Meccane Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Mad)70; [2002]254ITR175(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The extent to which the assessee should be held liable for the capital gain alleged to have been secured by it in the assessment year 1968-69 is the matter which the Tribunal considered. The correctness of the consideration so made having been called into question, at the instance of the assessee four questions have been referred to us. In substance those questions are as to whether an agreement to sell accompanied by delivery of possession can amount to transfer ; as to whether when an agricultural land is sold for use as house sites, it can be regarded as non-agricultural, and as to whether the cost of acquisition should be the cost of acquiring the agricultural lands or the market value as on the date the agricultural land is converted for use as land meant for use as house sites.2. The assessee had purchased 6.76 acres of land together with a factory and godown buildings, that factory and godown building being located in an area of about less than an acre, ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Balakrishnan Vs. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: 2002(80)ECC503; 2002(139)ELT278(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The present writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, rejecting the revision filed under Section 129DD of the Customs Act on the ground of limitation. Few facts would be necessary. 2. The petitioner, on 10-2-1987, was intercepted by the Intelligence Officials while he was travelling to Singapore from Madras on suspicion that he was concealing some Indian/Foreign currency and/or some semiprecious stones on his person or in his baggage which he was carrying. On further examination, some semi-precious stones were found to have been concealed in his rectum, which were ultimately recovered. On the basis of this, a prosecution was launched against him and during that an order came to be passed for confiscation of those semi-precious stones, weighing 240 gms. A penalty was also imposed. This obviously was done under Section 111 of the Customs Act. This order, which was passed on 26-10-1987, was challenged b...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Hotels Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(78)ECC584; 2001(133)ELT265(Mad); 2006[2]STR513
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This Writ petition in one sense has really become redundant because the provisions, constitutionality of which is challenged in this Writ petition, are no more on the statute book. However, since those provisions created a liability for the period they were on the statute book, the petitioner, which is a representative body of the hotels is pressing the challenge. The following facts would be necessary to understand the controversy.2. It is common knowledge that while presenting the Budget in the year 1994-95, the Finance Minister proposed to introduce a tax on certain services and pursuant to the same, Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 introduced provisions for the levy of the tax known as the 'service tax', which was defined as the tax chargeable under the provisions of Chapter V. This tax was to apply to all the 'taxable services' provided after the commencement of Chapter V. Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 is a charging section. Few other provisions would ...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Gopi, Rep. by Mother and Next Friend Santhi Vs. Rathinam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC90; (2001)3MLJ470
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.66 of 1984 on the file of Sub Court, Thirupathur, has preferred the second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vellore, in A.S.No.72 of 1989 dated 13.11.1989 reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 28.2.1989.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The minor plaintiff represented by the mother, Shanthi, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit property. The defendant married one Vimala, and as they have no issues, the defendant married the mother of the plaintiff on 14.12.1980 according to the custom prevailing in the community in Pallikondan Village. Ever since the date, they lived as husband and wife for a period of three yearsand thereafter, she was driven out of the house and the minor plaintiff was born on 2.11.1983 in the Government Hospital at Ambur. The defendant has not been paying anything towards the maintenance of the plaintiff and ...
Tag this Judgment!Murugesan K. Vs. Management of Baragath Industries and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ259Mad
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the Award of the Labour Court, Trichy dated April 25, 1994 in I.D. No. 64 of 1993 whereunder the claim of the petitioner for the back wages had been totally rejected.2. The petitioner herein raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 69 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Labour Court, Madurai challenging the termination of his service. The Additional Labour Court, Madurai, under the Award dated May 6, 1991, had set aside the order of termination and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with back wages. Though the petitioner was reinstated by the first respondent, the back wages of the petitioner were not settled. Hence, the petitioner raised the present industrial dispute by filing a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the computation of the back wages. Under the impugned Award, the Labour Court, Trichy found that the petitioner is not entitled for the back wages, si...
Tag this Judgment!B. Parvathy Vs. Ramakrishna Mission Represented by Duly Authorised Pow ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ309
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The unsuccessful second defendant before the lower appellate Court has filed this second appeal.2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No. 932 of 1980 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for declaration of the plaintiff's title and for possession of the suit property.3. According to the plaintiff, they have purchased an extent of 11 grounds and 160 sq. ft. which includes the suit property, under Exs.A-1 and A-2, and the defendants predecessors-in-title were the tenants with respect to the land in question, and on that basis the plaintiff filed the said suit.4. The defendants contested the suit contending inter alia that the plaintiff- mission are not having any right in the suit property, and they have not purchased the suit property itself, and so they cannot sustain the suit for declaration and recovery of possession.5. The trial Court accepted the case of the defendants and dismissed the suit. Hence the plaintiff filed appeal in A.S.No. 689 of 1985 on the...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalingam Vs. Inspector of Police Nib Cid
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(81)ECC44
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Mahalingam, the appellant herein had been convicted under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act by the Special Court for N.D.P.S. Cases, Madurai for possession of 370 m.g. of heroine and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs, 1,00,000, in default to undergo R.I. for two years by the judgment dt. 29.9.1993. Against the said conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. According to the prosecution the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 2 on 10.5.1992 while checking up the NDPS offenders along with his party in Madurai Town Hall area, he found the appellant and on suspicion, he conducted search on him. After getting his willingness for the search, even in the obsence of Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, it was found that he was having a match box containing a paper with heroine powder. Then the same was seized by him under Ex. P1, attested by the witness P.W. 1 Head Constable.3. Thereafter the accused was arrested. After his arr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »