Chennai Court March 2003 Judgments
Velammal Alias Subbulakshmi Vs. Achayya Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC561
P. Thangavel, J.1. This Appeal has been filed by the defendant as appellant against the judgment and decree dated 12.9.1988 and made in O.S.No.131 of 1985 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur.2. The case of the plaintiff, who is the respondent herein, is as follows:- Late Smt.Nachiarammal is the sister of the plaintiff, Achaya Naicker, who is the brother of A.Krishnasamy Naicker. The defendant Velammal alias Subbulakshmi is the daughter of the above said Krishnasamy Naicker. Nachiarammal was married to Subba Naicker as his second wife and they have no issue. The suit properties are given to Nachiarammal by her husband Subba Naicker under a settlement deed dated 8.4.1967 and Nachiarammal was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The father of the defendant, with a view to grab the properties of Nachiarammal, obtained a registered adoption deed dated 3.9.1980 as if the defendant was adopted from Nachiarammal, under coercion from the above said Nachia...
Tag this Judgment!Rukmani Vs. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Health Departme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: 2003ACJ1748; AIR2003Mad352
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner seeks damages for her unwanted pregnancies, alleging medical negligence on the part of the Doctors working in the second respondent-Hospital, in performing sterilisation operation on her.2. Even though the issue appears to be very simple to state, the point raised is novel and important.3. The material facts as put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows:The petitioner having married in the year 1986 gave birth to a daughter and son by names Ammu and Dharman respectively. The petitioner and her husband are poor agricultural labourers and earn meager wages. Finding it difficult to meet the expenses for their livelihood, they decided to have family planning. Accordingly, they approached the second respondent hospital and sterilisation operation was performed on 10.10.1988. But, surprisingly, the petitioner became pregnant in the year 1992 and gave birth to a third child, a girl by name Malini, and yet again conceived and gav...
Tag this Judgment!J. Nandhini Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) and the Ge ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ463Mad
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Section 41(1) of The Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (the Act). That section reads as under:'41. Notice of Dismissal --- (1) No employer shall dispense with the services of a person employed continuously for a period of not less than six months, except for a reasonable cause and without giving such person at least one month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice, provided however, that such notice shall not be necessary where the services of such person are dispensed with on a charge of misconduct supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an enquiry held for the purpose.'2. It is the common case of the employers before us - the appellants in the writ appeal and the respondent in the writ petition that 'reasonable cause' referred to in the opening part of Section 41(1) of the Act should be construed to mean the basis of the order of termination, and that if the basis for that order is an enabling provision in the contract between the employer...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.S.R. Krishnamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Mad)414; [2003]262ITR393(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessment years are 1985-86 and 1986-87. Two questions have been referred, one of which is common to both the assessment years. That question is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials in holding that gifts made by the producers to the children of the assessee cannot be construed as consideration received by the assessee for the professional service rendered by him and accordingly, in excluding these gifts from the total income of the assessee ?' 2. For the assessment year 1986-87 another question has been referred and that is, 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and had material in holding that out of the total consideration of Rs. 1,45,000 towards lease consideration received by the assessee only a sum of Rs. 29,000 is to be assessed for the assessment year 1986-87 ?' 3. The assessee was a film actor as also a film distribut...
Tag this Judgment!Fisher-xomox Sanmar Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Mad)185; [2004]271ITR393(Mad)
ORDERD. Murugesan, J. 1. Mrs. Pushya Sitharaman, learned counsel, takes notice for the respondent. 2. By consent of both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing and disposal.3. The petitioner is a public company registered under the Companies Act. The company filed its return of income for the asst. yr. 1993-94 on 31st Dec., 1993, which was the due date for filing the return under the Indian IT Act. The return was processed under Section 143(l)(a) of the IT Act on 17th Nov., 1994. After the case was taken up for scrutiny, proceedings were initiated by issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act by order dt. 8th Feb., 1996. Before the assessment was completed, certain particulars were called for by assessing authority from the petitioner vide notice dt. 4th Nov., 1996. For the disposal of the writ petition, the other further details are no...
Tag this Judgment!Fisher-xomox Sanmar Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN247(Mad)
ORDERMrs. Pushya Sitharaman, learned counsel takes notice for the respondent.2. By consent of both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing and disposal.3. The petitioner is a Public Company registered under the Companies Act. The company filed its return of income for the assessment year 1993-94 on 31-12-1993, which was the due date for filing the return under the Indian Income Tax Act. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act on 17-11-1994. After the case was taken up for scrutiny, proceedings were initiated by issuance of a notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by order dated 8-2-1996. Before the assessment was completed, certain particulars were called for by assessing authority from the petitioner vide notice dated 4-11-1996. For the disposal of the writ petition, the other further details are not necessary.4. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!S. Gandhimathi Vs. the Dy. Registrar of Cooperative Society (Milk),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ483Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the impugned proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.NO.592/A1/97-2, dated 18.9.1998, quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds. 2. Heard Mr. Saravanakumar, learned counsel for Mr. Subramaniam for the petitioner, Mrs.Rani Selvan, Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, and Mr. S.Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. With the consent of counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner the petitioner's husband late A.Subramaniam was engaged as a casual labourer in the third respondent-Milk Producers Federation for more than four years along with other casual labourers. All the casual labourers approached the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factorie...
Tag this Judgment!S. Veerakumar Vs. State Bank of India by Its Chairman,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ138Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondents relating to the payment of pension to the petitioner and quash the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in PER PEN 4058 dated 29.10.1998 and of the 2nd respondent in PER/SUR/DS/No.6762, dated 3.1.2000 and further direct the respondents to sanction and pay the petitioner pension due along with arrears from 1.8.1991 with interest and direct the respondents to extend the 1st respondent's Scheme or Medical benefit to retired employees' to the petitioner and to his spouse. 2. With the consent of counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard Mr.J.Radhakrishnan, for Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanniah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner claims that he was a temporary part time employee of the first respondent bank from 15.6.1967 on a consolid...
Tag this Judgment!Thirumalai Gounder, Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad310
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The writ petition is at the stage of notice of motion and it is taken up for final hearing with the consent of counsel appearing on either side.2. The writ petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondents relating to G.O.Ms. No. 490, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 12.11.1996 in issuing Section 4(1) Notification published in the Government Gazette dated 11.12.1996 and G.O.Ms.No:126, Housing and Urban Development, dated 20.4.1998 in issuing a Declaration under section 6 of The Land Acquisition Act published in Government Gazette dated 21.4.1998 in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Survey Nos347/12 and 347/13 in Tiruchengode Village and Taluk, Namakkal District and quash the entire acquisition proceedings.3. The petitioners have joined together and have filed the present writ petition. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of the first petitioner. The petitioners claim that they are ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Ramachandra Adityan Vs. M. Amarnath,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: [2003]114CompCas550(Mad); (2003)3CompLJ224(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, Adv. 1. By consent of the parties, the main revision petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal. 2. CRP.No.464 of 2003 is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Periyakulam dated 18.02.2003 made in I.A.No.131 of 2003 in O.S.No.41 of 2003, in and by which ad-interim injunction was granted till 05.03.2003 and ordered notice to the respondents. In CRP.No.465 of 2003, the very same petitioner challenges the order of the same Court made in I.A.No.141 of 2003 in O.S.No. 41 of 2003 dated 18.02.2003. Here again, the Court below has granted an order of status quo and ordered notice to the respondents. 3. Heard, Mr. C. Harikrishnan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Doraisami, learned senior counsel for the contesting first respondent. 4. It is seen that the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank'), which has its Head Office at Tuticorin, was incorporated under the then Companies Act, 1921 for the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »