Chennai Court January 2002 Judgments
Prema Veeraraghavan Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, K-10 Koyambe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT(Cri)533
ORDER1. The order dated 2.11.2001 passed by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, returning the buffaloes in favour of the second respondent, who claimed to be the owner of the same, is challenged in this revision by Prema Veeraraghavan, Expert Consultant, Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA), the first informant, the petitioner herein.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present revision are as follows:-(a) The petitioner is an Expert Consultant, CPCSEA, Government of India, on the subject of regulating experimentation on animals. On 24.10.2001, on getting information that a lorry packed with 18 buffaloes was on transit from Red Hills area, the petitioner spotted the said lorry near Koyambedu and she got shocked to notice that all the 18 buffaloes were stacked over the other and tied with a rope in a row through their nostrils and packed in an inhuman manner in the lorry. (b) Immediately, the petitioner lodged a complaint with ...
Tag this Judgment!Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., Salem, Rep. by Mr. S.K. Misra, Whole Time ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ774
ORDER1. Petitioners have filed the above writ petitions seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the second respondent dated 7-2-1997 and 21-3-1997 in Roc. No.226/Mines-A/97, 97-1 respectively and quash the said proceedings seeking to collect local cess or local cess surcharge or interest for the period from 1975 to 4-4-1991 and consequently forbearing the respondents in any manner taking any fresh action to levy local cess and local cess surcharge or any other sum retrospectively or in any other manner interfering with the mining operations of the petitioners treating the said demands as arrears of land revenue.2. On a perusal of the records and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that Section 115 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 levied, in every Panchayat Development Block, a local cess @ 0.45 ps. on every rupee of land revenue payable to the Government in respect of any land for every...
Tag this Judgment!V. Udayakumar, Vs. I. Navaneethammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ519
S. Jagadeesan,J. 1. The legal heirs of the defendant in O.S.No.116 of 1981 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry are theappellants herein. 2. The predecessor in title of the respondents herein laid thesaid suit for specific performance on the basis of the agreement enteredinto between one Subramaniam, S/O Natesa Pillai - the plaintiff with oneRajeswari - the predecessor in interest of the appellants herein on20.11.1978. On the date of the agreement, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paidas an advance to the defendant in the suit. Subsequent to the suitagreement, the said Subramaniam, the son of the plaintiff died and hence,the plaintiff filed the suit to enforce the agreement seeking specificperformance. 3. In the written statement, a plea was raised that the time isessence of the contract and there is no privity of contract between theplaintiff - the father of the said Subramaniam - the agreement holder andthe defendant and as such, the suit agreement cannot be enf...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, Sathyamangalam Municipality, Sathyamangalam Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ995Mad
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J. 1. These writ petitions have been filed praying for Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in P.G.A.Nos.21/95 and 10/95 respectively dated 31.8.95 on the file of the Appellate Authority the first respondent herein confirming the order dated 21.11.94 made in P.G.Petition no.337/94 on the file of the Controlling Authority, the 2nd respondent herein and to quash the same. 2. The brief facts culled out from the affidavits filed by the petitioner are: The third respondent herein was employed as a sweeper under the petitioner municipality and attained the age of superannuation on 28.2.1991. As per G.O.Ms.No.600, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 14.9.89 all employees of municipalities are now deemed to be Government employees and accordingly after retirement, the respondent is being paid pension of Rs.375/- every month apart from the benefits payable under the Death/Retirement Gratuity Scheme. In spite of the third respondent deriving the...
Tag this Judgment!G. Thilagam, Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem and the Sp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR518]; (2002)1MLJ473
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The petitioners have come forward with this writ petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to I.D. Nos. 180 to 188 of 1992 and to quash the common award dated 24-03-1994 passed by the first respondent and to direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioners herein with continuity of backwages and other benefits.2. The case of the petitioners are that the 2nd respondent/Management had 23 retail outlet for which the entire packing and distribution systems were done at the head office of the 2nd respondent herein. Ponni Supermarket is one of the retail outlets of the 2nd respondent. The petitioners were employed in the 2nd respondent/Management for a period of 7, 12, 8, 5, 10, 3, 7, 9 and 9 years respectively for a meagre wages of Rs.5/- per day and were working continuously as the nature of work assigned to them was permanent. On 12-04-1989, the Inspector of Labour appointed under the minimum Wages Act inspected the 2nd...
Tag this Judgment!G.M.M. Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. Labour Court (Second Additional Judge), Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR511]; (2002)1MLJ477
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. WP No. 2323 of 1996 has been filed by the Management praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the award dated 01-09-1995 in I.D. No. 83 of 1993 on the file of the II Additional Judge, Labour Court, Madras and to quash the same.2. WP No. 12610 of 1996 has been filed by the Workman praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the award dated 01-09-1995 made in I.D. No. 83 of 1993 passed by the II Additional Judge, Labour Court, Madras in so far as petitioner's backwages and other attendant benefits are concerned and to direct the Management to pay the backwages and other attendant benefits to the petitioner from the date of termination of service till the date of reinstatement.3. Both the Management and the workman have filed the above writ petitions against the order passed by the second Additional Labour Court in I.D. No. 83 of 1993. For the sake of convenience, the writ petitioner in WP No. 23...
Tag this Judgment!S. Raghu Vs. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3601
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to return the documents seized by the respondents on 14-03-1995.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is an exporter of ready made garments, besides he is doing business of indenting agent of various garment exporter of South India and due to his efforts, number of exporters in India got export orders from foreign buyers thereby he has made contribution of earning foreign exchange to the country. The enforcement officers, Madras has searched his business premises on 14-03-1995 and seized under Mahazar documents, foreign currencies and his passport under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act. US dollars and Sterlings seized from the petitioners have nothing to do with the foreign exchange violation which are nothing but the balance amount of foreign exchange released to the petitioner before he made his visit...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Kongarar Spinners Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR111]; (2002)IILLJ61Mad; (2002)1MLJ404
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking for Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in its award in I.D.No.255 of 1992, dated August 28, 1995 and to quash same.2. The short fact involved in the writ petition is that the 2nd respondent was employed in the petitioner mill as Piecer in the spinning department. In respect of bonus issues the workers went on a strike with effect from September 27, 1990. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent was one of those workers who not only participated in the strike but also prevented other workers from attending to their work. On September 27, 1990, during evening hours one workman by name Kaliappan while returning home after his official work was threatened by the 2nd respondent not to attend mill next day. However, Kaliappan came to the mill as usual on the next day morning i.e., on September 28, 1990 along with one office staff Palanisamy, quality control clerk, Pandmanabhan and he w...
Tag this Judgment!New Ambadi Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Mad)640; [2002]256ITR64(Mad)
The petitioner-company had filed a return for the assessment year 1989-90, under the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1955, showing a net income of Rs. 65,23,215 from its plantation area. The Income Tax Officer II, Nagercoil, disallowed certain expenses claimed by the petitioner and computed the net agricultural income at Rs. 98,53,345. Against that disallowance, an appeal was filed to the Assistant Commissioner who allowed the appeal in part. On further appeal, the Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed certain expenses and remanded the matter with respect to some other items. The following are the expenses which were disallowed by the Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal :Rs. P(a)Salary to watchers 2,34,388.74(b)Building upkeep wages paid 1,00,811.00(c)Cattlemen wages 39,071.88(d)Security expenses for dogs 30,561.08(e)Midday meal expenses 93,934.89(f)Mess expenses 17,929.52(g)Interest payments to bank 1,35,330.00(h)do.15,081.07(i)Hire purchase interest 15,420.41(j)Print...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Kandasamy Vs. Corporation of Madras, Represented by Its Commissio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad318; (2002)1MLJ599
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Since common issue is involved in both these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by the following common order. In W.P.No. 7957 of 94, the petitioner challenges the proceedings of the first respondent dated 15-4-93 in W.D.C.No. D5/10747/89, enhancing the building licence fee etc. As a consequential relief, the petitioner also prays for direction to the first respondent to issue building permit for the construction at 115, Nelson Manickam Road, Madras without insisting upon payment of building licence fee etc.2. In W.P.No. 8106/94, Tamil Nadu Flat Promoters Association challenges the proceedings of the first respondent dated 7-4-94 in W.D.C.No. TP/658/94, enhancing the building licence fee, security deposit fee etc. They also prayed for direction to the respondents from giving effect to the said impugned circular and from levying any security deposit from the members of the petitioner Association as condition precedent for the grant of planning permission...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »