Chennai Court October 2002 Judgments
Govindarajulu Vs. the Chairman, Neyveli Lignite Corporation,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ129
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to declare his date of birth as 16.8.1935 and for a direction to the defendants to effect the corrections in their official records. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that he was the only son to his parents and he was born in the month of August, 1935. The plaintiff lost his father when he was nine months old and his mother was illiterate. At the time when the plaintiff was admitted in the school, his date of birth was wrongly given by his mother as 8.10.1932 and the same was not correct. The plaintiff completed his school final in the year 1956 and in the certificate issued by the second defendant, his date of birth was wrongly entered as 8.10.1932. The plaintiff joined in the first defendant-Corporation on 26.5.1961 and there also, he has given his date of birth as 8.10.1932. It is stated that on 3.10.1988, he has obtained a certified extract of birth from the Taluk office, Villupuram and ...
Tag this Judgment!Shanthi Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ467Mad
P.K. Misra, J.1. Petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the manufacture of hosiery items. The petitioner furnished an investigation pro-forma dated 17.3.1989 to the Enforcement Officer of the respondent seeking coverage under the Act. The petitioner deposited the amount of contribution in a separate account in State Bank of India and intimated the Enforcement Officer accordingly. However, the Employer's Code Number was not furnished. Subsequently the petitioner filed W.P. No. 10178 of 1991 seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to furnish the code number. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, a separate code number was furnished to the petitioner vide order dated 31.3.1993 and the petitioner was informed that the Act would be applicable to the petitioner with effect from 31.1.1989. After allotment of code number, the petitioner has been depositing the amount with the respondent in the furnished code. ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Murugan, Vs. Manickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ56
ORDER1.The petitioners are the plaintiffs in OS.No.144/1996, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Polur.2.The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of their title to the 'B'-Schedule property and to direct the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the same and for permanent injunction. 3.The plaintiffs claim 'A'-Schedule property under a registered Will dated 25.7.1997. At the time of the execution of the Will, the plaintiffs 3 and 4 alone were born and the plaintiffs 1 and 2 were born subsequently. The father of the plaintiffs was the defacto guardian for the minors. As per the terms of the Will, the plaintiffs are entitled to equal share in the 'A'-Schedule property. The father and defacto guardian of the minors, without any necessity, nor for the benefit of the minors, had alienated the 'B'-Schedule property to the defendant and the said sale is not valid and binding upon the plaintiffs. 4.The defendant filed a written statement, denying the Will relied upon by the...
Tag this Judgment!K. Krishnaveni Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ36
ORDER1. The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, has stated that she was residing within the limits of Pallavaram Police Station. Her husband Kasi was working as Sub Inspector of Police, Special Security Group in Tamil Nadu Police Service. On 1.2.1995, the petitioner's daughter Kanimozhi was kidnapped by one Babu and Palani, while she was returning from School. She was illegally confined and repeatedly raped by those persons, viz. Babu and Palani. On the complaint given by the petitioner to the Inspector of Police, Pallavaram Police Station (R7), a case was registered in Cr. No. 199/1995, for the offence under Section 366(A) IPC. The accused Palani was arrested and the petitioner's daughter was retrieved on 3.2.1995. Babu was not arrested. The 6th respondent, Sakthi Chandrasekaran, was employed as the Sub Inspector of Police, Pallavaram Police Station, between 15.11.1993 to 17.10.1995. The 7th respondent, Gunasekaran was the Inspector of Police, Pallavaram Pol...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Nepc India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: [2003]41SCL493(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 433(e), read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The petitioner is a public sector undertaking. The respondent is M/s. NEPC India Limited, formerly known as NEPC Micon Limited. It is the case of the petitioner that NEPC India Limited has its registered office at No. 36, Wallajah Road, Chennai 600 002. The petitioner has given the details of the authorised capital and paid up capital and also the main objects of the NEPC India Limited. In the petition it is stated that NEPC India Limited and M/s. Skyline NEPC Limited are sister concerns belonging to the NEPC Group of Companies and NEPC Airlines in which name NEPC India Limited operates is a division of NEPC India Limited and Skyline NEPC Limited runs its airlines in the name of Skyline NEPC. The petitioner had entered into an aviation fuel supply contract on 23-7-1996 at Chennai with NEPC India Limited and the petitioner had ag...
Tag this Judgment!Simpson and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: [2003]264ITR95(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. We have dismissed the Tax Case Petition No. 832 of 1997 (Simpson and Co. Ltd. v. CWT : [2000]241ITR620(Mad) ) on the ground that no question of law arose out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the questions sought for are purely questions of fact. The assessment year involved is 1988-89 and the order was passed on June 25, 1998.2. It is brought to the notice of this court now that in T. C Ps. Nos. 374 to 377 of 1996 by an order dated August 7, 1997, this court has directed the Tribunal to state the case and refer a similar question of law in respect of the very same assessee. It is also brought to the notice of this court in T. C. Ps. Nos. 285 and 286 of 1997 by an order dated November 12, 1997 ; in T. C Ps. Nos. 408 and 409 of 1997 by an order dated March 31, 1998, and in T. C. Ps. Nos. 77 and 78 of 1999 by an order dated October 29, 1997 in which one of us (NVBJ) was a party, has directed the Tribunal to state a case and refer similar que...
Tag this Judgment!L. Justine and anr. Vs. the Registrar of Coop. Societies and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ284Mad; 2002(4)CTC385
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, CJ.1. This batch consisting of thousands of cases (some writ appeals but mostly writ petitions) raise an important point of regularisation of illegal employment in several cooperative societies across the State of Tamil Nadu.2. Hitherto, the cooperative societies and land development banks were being governed by the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, and the Tamil Nadu Land Development Banks Act, 1934, respectively. Repealing the above two, was enacted the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. It received the assent of the President on 15.7.1983 but was brought into force only on framing the Rules titled, The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988' with effect from 13.4.1988. The above Act and the Rules are hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' and the 'Rules' respectively. It is needless to mention that the societies and the land development banks, hitherto registered under the repealed Acts of 1961 and 1934, are deemed to be the cooperativ...
Tag this Judgment!Kannika Vs. Krishnasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ225
ORDER1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the tenant as revision petitioner against the common judgment and decrees dated 25.1.1999 and made in M.A.Nos.19 to 21 of 1995 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge(Appellate Authority) at Pondicherry, confirming the common order and decretal orders dated 14.11.1997 in R.C.O.P.Nos.19 to 21 of 1995 on the file of the Rent Control (Principal District Munsif) Court, Pondicherry.2. The respondent herein, who was the petitioner before the Rent Control Court, Pondicherry, is the owner of the premises described in the Rent Control Original Petitions filed for eviction against the revision petitioner, who is admittedly tenant of the demised premises on a monthly rent of Rs.1,800/- on the grounds of committing wilful default in payment of rent, subletting and own use and occupation. Eviction was sought for on the ground of wilful default for not paying rent from June, 1994 to November, 1994. Eviction was sought for on the ground ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Deputy Commissioner (Ct) Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: [2004]134STC174(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal dated 8.7.98 in T.C.No.17/85 (T.C.(R) No.6/97). 2. The assessment year involved is 1980-81. The first respondent is a dealer. The dispute that arose during the course of the assessment proceedings, before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour I Assessment Circle was regarding the taxability of the turnover of the first respondent representing the sale of letter heads, ledgers, bill books, etc. According to the Assessing Officer, the sale of the said articles from 1.4.1980 to 2.7.1980 should be taxed at the multipoint rate at 4%, and the sale from 3.7.1980 to 31.3.1981 should be taxed at 8%, applying Entry 144 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to Act. The contention raised on behalf of the assessee was that the entire transaction was not liable to be taxed, as the transaction arose from the works contra...
Tag this Judgment!Chandran Vs. Padmanaban
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1010
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, in C.C. No. 361 of 1997 dated 16.02.2001, whereby the Trial Court, on account of the absence of the appellant/complainant on 16.02.2001 when the case was posted before it, not only acquitted the accused, but also dismissed the whole complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Tracing the history of the above appeal, it comes to be known that the appellant has filed the complaint against the respondent herein before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, on the ground of dishonouring of cheque of the Indian Bank, Kulasekarapattinam Branch, issued by the respondent for a sum of Rs. One lakh, for insufficiency of funds, hence praying for relief in accordance with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. However, from the order passed by the Court below dated 16.02.2001, it is seen that for non-appe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »