Chennai Court April 2003 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.
G.S. Krishnan and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Contro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ487
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. All the writ petitioners are, admittedly, ex-servicemen who after their discharge from defence service joined in the Central Electro Chemical Research Institute (CECRI), Karaikudi, except in the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 7772 of 1998, who during his service in the Central Electro Chemical Research Institute (CECRI), Karaikudi was transferred to Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI), Chennai. Concededly, both the Central Electro Chemical Research Institute (CECRI) and Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI) are a constituent unit of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, and the fact remains that some of the writ petitioners have retired on superannuation and some of them continue to be in service.2. Even though the petitioners were paid Dearness Relief on pension, as per their service in the defence, the said Dearness Relief on pension was subsequently recovered quoting Rule 55A(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Pe...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alagendran Finance Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)102; [2003]264ITR269(Mad)
C. Nagappan, J.1. Both the appeals are filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and they are directed against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, in I.T.A.Nos.370 and 560/MDS/1996, for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, dated 28.01.1999.2. The appeals have been admitted to consider the following question of law.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to 100% depreciation of centering sheets as per the provision to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act on the ground that they are individual plants/ machineries?'3. The respondent-assessee is a company, which is carrying on the business of leasing out its assets. It has purchased centering sheets during the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 and claimed the costs of the centering sheets as deduction by way of 100% depreciation under the first proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act on the g...
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ160Mad
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The charge against the respondent workman found by the Labour Court to have been proved is that on 18.07.1987 around 2.00 a.m. the workman had, along with a Durwan, gone to the stockyard of the employer, had demanded entry, and on being refused by two other Durwans who were on duty, had abused and threatened them. The Labour Court held that the penalty of dismissal which the employer had imposed by the order dated 02.01.1988 was disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Exercising it's powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court by it's order dated 30.03.1993 reduced the penalty to loss of increment for one year without cumulative effect, and directed reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. That order of the Labour Court has been sustained by the learned single Judge. The back wages, however, has been reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. The workman is not aggrieved by the reduction in the quantum of back-wages. 2. The domest...
M. Krishnamoorthy, S/O. Manakhi Vs. P.M. Neelamegham, S/O.Malayappa Ac ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3820
C. Nagappan, J.1. Criminal Revision Case No. 1142 of 2002 is filed against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate, Trichy, dated 9.5.2002, in Na.Ka.No. A1/2190/2002.2. Writ Appeal No. 2605 of 2002 is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 22008 of 2002, dated 21.06.2002.3. Since the subject matter of both the cases relate to each other, with the consent of parties, they were heard together and a common judgment is delivered. 4. Briefly the facts are as under. The petitioner and the first respondent in the Criminal Revision Case belong to Kammala Community and Sri Kalika Parameswari alias Sri Kamatchi Amman Vahayara Devasthanam is managed by the community residing within the limits of Municipalities of Trichy and Sri Rangam as per the scheme decree, dated 28.8.1928, in O.S. No. 2 of 1927 on the file of District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The Petitioner and the first respondent in the Revision Case were elected along with three tru...
G. Shanmugham Vs. C.K. Seethalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ717
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.3.1987, in E.P. No. 2107 of 1992 in O.S. No. 5295 of 1980 passed by the IX Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai against the third defendant-judgment debtor, this revision petition has been filed.2. The respondent-plaintiff pursuant to the decree dated 4.2.1985 in O.S. No. 5295 of 1980, applied for the execution of the decree in E.P. No. 2107 of 1992 and sought for an arrest of third defendant namely, G. Shanmugham for the realisation of the amount and the same was resisted by the defendant. In the counter filed by the third defendant it is stated that the decree holder had received the amounts from the other defendants and therefore, the decree had already been satisfied. Without prejudice to the said contention, he has also stated that he has not sufficient means to pay the decree amount and therefore, the execution petition for arrest is not maintainable.3. Before the Executing Court, one Swaminathan was examined on behalf of...
The Madras Port Trust, Represented by Its Chairman Vs. V. Ramalingam,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ382
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Review Application No. 68 of 2001 in W.A. No. 1251 of 2000, which emanated from W.P. No. 11938 of 1993. The judgment will also cover C.M.P. No. 13438 of 2001, which is an application for grant of leave to file a review application in Review Application SR No. 54979 of 2001 against the same aforementioned Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.1251 of 2001. Since the subject is common this judgment will also dispose of W.P. Nos. 4573 and 4774 of 2003. Few facts will be necessary for understanding the controversy involved.2. A writ petition came to be filed being W.P. No. 11938 of 1993 by the present respondents 1 to 4 and one Muthu, who were employed in the Madras Port Trust, petitioner herein. They all are the engineers, having the qualification of diploma in engineering. Initially the petition was for a relief of a Mandamus or a Direction to the Madras Port Trust to carry out the necessary amendments to the regulations framed and the...
Leela Shankar @ Shankar Vs. the State, Rep. by the Deputy Superintende ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ701
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. Both the above petitions have been filed praying to call for the records in the committal order dated 28.2.2003 and the order made in Cr.M.P.974 of 2003 in P.R.C. No. 55 of 2002 pending on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and quash the same as illegal.2. The averments of the petitions are that the petitioner was arrested on 06.04.2002 for an alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(B) and 302 IPC; that the petitioner is in continuous detention and charge sheet was laid on 10.01.2003; that the committal court prepared copies and furnished the same to the petitioner on 21.01.2003 and on perusal of the materials, the petitioner found that the copies are not legible, readable and further several material documents were missing and above all, several material documents were in English, which language is unknown to the petitioner; that after perusing the material papers, he could not understand anything and hence he was not able to formulat...
R. Arulsigamani and anr. Vs. Pauldurai Alias Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR34(Madras); (2003)2MLJ404
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. In this revision, the petitioners questioned the correctness of the order dated 16.04.2002 made in I.A. No. 200 of 1993 in O.S. No. 39 of 1993 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirunelveli.2. In order to resolve the issue, the brief facts of the case are as follows :The petitioners together with defendants No. 1, 4 and 5 formed a partnership firm in the name and style of 'Kumari Minerals', which engaged in mining and dealing in Mineral called garnet sand. The firm obtained mining lease in G.O.Ms. No. 700, Industries Department, dated 15.05.1974 for the purpose of mining, originally for a period of twenty years and subsequently the period has been renewed. Originally, the firm Kumari Minerals was started on 12.02.1973 with two partners viz., defendants 1 and 2 and the firm was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Kanyakumari. The very purpose of formation of partnership is the condition contained in mineral concession rules to ...
S. Balasubramanian Alias S. Babu Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: 2005CriLJ385
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This petition has been filed praying to permit R. Ramarathanam, who is the Power of Attorney of S. Balasubramanian alias S. Babu, to appear on behalf of the said S. Balasubramanian alias S. Babu before this Court in L.P. No. 32/B1/CSR/2002 on the file of the Court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.2. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the petitioner would submit that he is the Power of Attorney and Legal Adviser of S. Balasubramaniyam @ S. Babu, who is A. 2 in C. C. No. 5661 of 2002 pending on the file of the Court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai; that he is appearing on behalf of the said S. Balasubramaniyam @ S. Babu in O. S. No. 2109/1995, O. S. No. 5389/1997, O. S. No. 3599/1999 and E. P. No. 205/2000 in the city Civil Court and also before this Court; that A. 2 is one of the Partners in M/s. Suriya Chandra Lorry Service, which is a registered firm and all the partners have engaged him as their Legal Adviser and Po...
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Power of Attor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC139; 2005ACJ1156; 2003(4)CTC517
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The defendants in O.S.No. 150 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore are the appellants in this appeal. The respondents herein filed the suit as indigent persons for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for the loss caused to them on account of the death of one Kuppuswamy-husband of the first respondent and father of the other respondents. 2. Their case was as follows: Kuppuswamy was engaged in the manufacture of pots and selling the same. He used to earn Rs. 250 to Rs. 300 per week. On 13.12.1986, at about 4.30 a.m., Kuppuswamy got electrocuted in front of his house at Manaveli on Vandipalayam road. The electrocution was because of the sagging of the high tension electric wire in front of his house. When he came out of the house, he came into contact with the high tension wire which caused his instantaneous death. The sagging of the wire was purely due to the negligence of the Electricity Department. The Department had not taken ne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »