Chennai Court July 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
P.A. Niranzena (Minor) Rep. by Her Father and Guardian D. Panneerselva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ150
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Director, Government Examinations, Chennai 6 - first respondent herein informing the petitioner that there is no change in the marks even after revaluation in the Biology subject, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition through her father and guardian to quash the same and for consequential direction to the first respondent to issue revised enhanced mark list to her.3. According to the petitioner, she appeared for the +2 examination conducted by the first respondent during March, 2002 and her Registration Number is 880208 and she has secured 1141 marks out of 1200 marks. She belongs to Backward Community - Agamudiyar. She also appeared for the Tamil Nadu Professional Course Entrance Examination, 2002 conducted by Anna University for Medical as well as Engineering and her Registration Number is 1532265 and has secured the foll...
S. Dhakshinamurthy Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ32Mad
P.K. Misra, J.1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.2.1998 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, as confirmed by order dated 10-11-1998 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), the appellate authority under the said Act, rejecting the application of the present petitioner for payment of gratuity.2. Undisputedly, the present respondent No.3 is a Trade Mark holder and manufacturer of Beedies. The petitioner claims that the third respondent had engaged home workers through different contractors. It is further claimed that the petitioner was employed as a home worker under the third respondent from 1971. Subsequently, on completion of 58 years, the petitioner submitted letter of resignation before the third respondent and thereafter filed application before the second respondent claiming Rs.27,260/-. Before the second respondent, the third respondent had filed objection raisin...
Arumugam S. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ392Mad
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Petitioner was a workman who was charged with misconduct having slapped a co-worker while on the night shift on December 25, 1989. He was dismissed after an enquiry had been held. The dismissal was on February 3, 1990.2. The matter having been taken to the Labour Court under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court found that the enquiry had not been conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and it permitted the management to adduce evidence before it in support of the charges. Three witnesses were examined. The first witness for the management was the victim of the petitioner, one of the other witnesses M. W.2 was a co-worker, and the third was also a co-worker.3. At Para. 9 of this award, the LabourCourt referred to their evidence. It is useful toset out the same:'M. W. 1 Kannan has stated about the action of the petitioner in using indecent words against him and slapping on his right cheek. M.W. 2 Balasubramania...
Tvl. Kannan Art Calenders, Sivakasi Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC498(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The present appeal under Sec. 37 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (in short 'the TNGST Act') challenges the order of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-III (SMR), dated 18-10-1994, whereby the Joint Commissioner, under his suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 34 of the TNGST Act, had upset the order passed by the Appellant Assistant Commissioner (CT), Virudhunagar and restored the earlier order passed by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Sivakasi thereby, the turnover of Rs.2,51,392/- and Rs.98,440/- was restored and the tax thereon with a surcharge levy was ordered to be levied under the TNGST Act and Central Sales Tax Act (in short 'the CST Act'). The following facts will highlight the controversy involved:2. Assessee Tvl. Kannan Art Calenders, Sivakasi was originally assessed under the CST Act for the year 1988-89 by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax-IV, Sivakasi on a taxable turnover of Rs.7,011/-. Subsequently, it was found t...
Famtex Exports Pvt. Ltd., Madras Exports Processing Zone, Tambaram, Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR826]; (2002)IIILLJ986Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. This Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records and quash the G.O.(D) No. 462, dated 14-06-2002 on the file of the first respondent. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956 and he is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting readymade garments having its factory situate at Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram; that presently there are about 573 employees who are engaged in the respondent Company; that the service conditions of the employees in the petitioner Company are covered by settlement entered into from time to time. 3. The petitioner would further submit that on a sudden rescission in Textile Industry the petitioner had to suffer financial loss and it became worse on account of the employees adopting go slow tactics; that the petitioner put the employees on notice to...
The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC577(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Judgment by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is challenged herein. The assessing officer, viz. The Commercial Tax Officer determined the total and taxable turnover of the assessee at Rs.10,52,944.33 and Rs.10,23,873.03 respectively. In appeal, a question was raised as regards the turnover of Rs.38,100/-, which was relating to the cost of making dies and tools for use in manufacture of component parts for customers in other States. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had sustained this turnover and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. In the second appeal, the Tribunal, however, took the view that there would be no question of any tax liability more particularly under the Central Sales Tax Act particularly because the dies which are manufactured would never leave the premises and would never travel outside the State. In that view, there will be no question of such dyes and tools being covered under Sec. 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Tri...
Lakshmi Vilas Bank Employees Union, Represented by Its General Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ735Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras dated 17-11-94 made in I.D.No. 33 of 86, Lakshmivilas Bank Employees Union through its General Secretary has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to pay Special Allowance to 11 workmen covered by the dispute from the dates of continuance till it is withdrawn in the manner known to law together with interest at 18 per cent per annum. 2. The case of the petitioner Union is briefly stated hereunder: The second respondent Bank is a scheduled bank governed by the provisions of the Banking Companies Regulation Act. In the year 1971, the second respondent established a Data Processing Section at Madras. The said section was kept under the control of the Accounts Department and it had a sanctioned strength of 15 including 5 Machine Operators and 7 Punch Card Operators besides other executives. For the purpose of executing the work, the Machine Operators w...
R. Meenakshi Ammal Vs. Velusamy,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad35; (2002)3MLJ305
Prabha Sridevan, J. 1. The appellant and the first respondent are brother and sister. The first respondent claims to have been given in adoption to his maternal aunt. The appellant's case is that there was no such adoption. This in brief is the crux of the dispute. 2. The history of the case starts with one Seenia Pillai who had two daughters, Kanneyee Ammal and Pechi Ammal. Kanneyee Ammal was married to Karuppiah Pillai and Pechi Ammal was married to Subba Pillai alias Palaniya Pillai. Pechi Ammal had no issues. Kanneyee Ammal had two children who are the appellant and the first respondent. Karuppiah Pillai died in 1936; Kanneyee Ammal died in 1937. The first respondent claims that the adoption took place sometime in 1935 or 1936. Subba Pillai died in 1952 and Pechi Ammal died on 09-02-1977. It is clear from the materials on record that the first respondent was brought up by the aunt Pechi Ammal and naturally so, since he was about 7 years old when his parents died and the appellant w...
Sundaram Vs. Manickam and Saminathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ383
1. The appellant's case that he was the owner of the suit property and entitled to a decree for injunction was concurrently rejected.2. The suit property is an extent of 23 1/2 cents in Survey No.159/3, Anumanthapuram Village. According to the appellant he, the respondents and one Kaliyamurthy are brothers. They divided the properties among themselves orally in 1960. We are not concerned with Kaliyamurthy in this case. The property comprised in Survey No.159/3 was one of the properties so divided. The appellant took the western half, and the second respondent took the eastern half and both of them were given joint patta and have been paying the taxes. The appellant has been raising crops in his portion. Prior to the suit, the prices in the land in and around the place rose because the Ariyalur Government Cement Factory came up in the nearby area. The respondents with mala fide motive attempted to interfere with the appellant's possession and therefore the suit was filed.3. The first re...
Cit Vs. Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN173(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. The question referred to us at the instance of the revenue is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding that the same was without jurisdiction ?'2. In spite of the service of notice, the assessee has remained absent. Therefore, we have to proceed ex parte against the assessee.3. The following facts will highlight the controversy :The assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer came to be revised under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore, after giving a prior notice under section 263. It had so happened that there was an appeal filed against the aforementioned assessment order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who had allowed that appeal insofar as three issues were concerned, they bein...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »