Chennai Court August 2003 Judgments
Sankar Sealing Systems P. Ltd. Vs. JaIn Motor Trading Co. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad127; 2004(1)ARBLR496(Madras)
ORDERR. Banumathi, J. 1. A. No. 5296/2002 : This application is to direct the respondents/defendants to furnish security for the suit claim of Rs. 13,41,165.75 with interest and subsequent costs and in the event of failure, to pass an order of Attachment before Judgment of the movables shown in the Judges, summons.A. No. 918 of 2003 : This Application is filed to set aside the order passed in A. No. 5296 of 2002 directing the respondents/ defendants to furnish the security.A. No. 927 of 2003 : This application is filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act to refer the claim to Arbitration.All these applications are heard together and disposed of by this common order. For Convenience, parties are referred to as in their rank in the suit.2. Plaintiffs claim of money for recovery of Rs. 13,41,165.75 is based on the Goods/Gaskets sold and supplied at Delhi Defendants' principal office and at their various branches of Jodhpur, Ludhiana etc. On the said transaction, after ...
Tag this Judgment!Chatrapathy Shanmugham Vs. S. Rangarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(29)PTC702(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The suit is one for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the copy right of the play 'Naai Vaal' and for permanent injunction.2. The plaint averments are that the plaintiff is the original author of a play titled 'Naai Vaal', which is his original creation. The script of the play was approved by the Commissioner of Police, Madras, in his Ref. No. Na. Ka. 2714/132376/82-83, dated 4-1-1984 and the play was staged at 'Swami Sankaradas Kalai Arangam, Madras on the asupices of Annai Sathya Nataka Manram, presented by Vetrivel Kalaikuzhu on 8-3-1984. The plaintiff claims that he is the absolute owner of the copyright of the said story and the script. The 1st defendant has produced a Cinematograph film titled 'Ore Oru Gramathile', in Tamil, directed by the 3rd defendant. It is stated that the said film is a clear violation of the copyright of the plaintiff's play. The story of the said film is purported to have been written by the 2nd defendant and the...
Tag this Judgment!Marg Constructions Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)81TTJ(Chennai)440
1. These are appeals filed by the assessee against various orders of the authorities for the financial years 1997-98 to 1999-2000. The appeals that have been filed by the assessee are against the imposition of penalty for failure to deduct tax at source levied under Section 271C of the Act, penalty for failure to answer questions etc. with reference to not furnishing in due time and of the returns, statements, particulars mentioned in Section 206, interest under Section 201 & 201(1A) for various financial years.2. The facts of the matter are that the ITO, TDS-7, Chennai initiated proceedings against the assessee under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) for the various years 1997-98 to 1999-2000. The AO in his order had noted the reply made by the assessee. The reply stated that the company was passing through a very difficult period and it has been so for the last five years and consequently the staff strength has been reduced over the years. The financial position of the company became ...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. G. Pandi and the Presiding Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ1150Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli made in I.A. No. 23 of 2003 in I.D. No. 105 of 2002 (Old I.D. No. 230 of 1987) dated 03.04.2003, the Management of Madura Coats Ltd., has filed the above writ petition.2. Heard, Mr. Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner - Management and Mr. T.S. Raja Mohan, learned counsel for first respondent - workman.3. It is seen that by order dated 11.07.1984 of the petitioner, the first respondent - workman was dismissed from service on the allegation of committing theft. Aggrieved against the same, the first respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 230 of 1987 on the file of Labour Court, Madurai and by order dated 22.08.1988, the Labour Court, Madurai held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner-Management was vitiated in accordance with Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Management has let in oral and documentary evidence in support of the charges. Finally, a...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswathy Vs. Meenakshy and Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ430
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The second defendant in O.S. No. 103 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Pondicherry is the appellant herein. The first respondent who is the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract of sale and for permanent injunction. The parties are described as per their rankings in the suit. 2. Following are the plaint averments:The first defendant is the owner of the suit property and he entered into an agreement of sale on 10.7.1984 with the plaintiff agreeing to convey the suit property for a sum of Rs.15,500/-. The first defendant also received a sum of Rs.12,500/- towards part of sale consideration from the plaintiff at the time of execution of the suit agreement. The plaintiff's mother-in-law viz. Rukmani is the sister of the first defendant. Rukmani and her husband were living in the suit property for the past 20 years. The plaintiff after her marriage had come to reside in the suit property along with her husband and mother-in...
Tag this Judgment!R. Devadass Vs. the Subordinate Judge,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad249
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. As against the return of the applications of the revision petitioner made by the Executing Court in making an obstruction in delivery of possession, these revision petitions have been preferred under Article 227 of The Constitution of India. 2. There were two such applications filed by the revision petitioner on 13.3.2002 and in both of which, orders of return were made requiring him to quote the law under which he has preferred those applications and also to show as to why he has not issued notice to the other side. Aggrieved by that, these revision petitions have been filed. 3. There was an agreement of sale in between the respondents 2 and 3, by name Sakthivel and Rojasundaram, who has got three sons - the revision petitioner - Devadass, Pandian and Karunakaran. That agreement was dated 16.7.1987 in respect of an extent of 4.53 acres of land situated at Madhavaram. Based on the sale agreement, a suit for specific performance was filed in O.S. No. 372 of ...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Venkatesan, Vs. C. Vijayalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC59; [2003]117CompCas744(Mad)
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Despite notice, there is no representation on the side of the respondent. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available.2. The petitioners who were arrayed as A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 respectively in a private complaint lodged by the respondent and taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Erode in C.C. No. 257/2000 under Sec. 138 read with Sec. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, have sought for quashing of the said proceedings.3. A perusal of the copy of the complaint placed in the hands of the Court would reveal that the first accused is a financial institution called R.B.F. Nidhi Ltd., through its Chairman and Director, while the other accused Nos. 2 to 10 are shown as Directors of the said company; that the complainant along with her husband deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 4.9.98 under Pensioners Fixed Deposit Scheme in the branch office of the accused, situated in Erode; that depo...
Tag this Judgment!C. Guruvaboyan Vs. the Director of Survey and Settlement and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ245
ORDER1. This judgment will dispose of the aforesaid ten writ petitions as the subject is common. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners are working in the Survey and Land Department in the posts of Firka Surveyors or Sub Inspectors of Survey. They challenge the common order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), dismissing the original applications filed by them. In those original applications, the petitioners had challenged three proceedings which had the effect of depriving them of their original seniority and showing them as juniors which could result in their reversions as also could adversely affect their monetary benefits. The petitioners in effect challenged the order dated 22-9-1995 issued by the Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai in which, the said authority crystallized the principles of fixing the seniority, the order and the seniority list dated 19-1-1996 wherein, the Assistant Director, in pursuance of the aforementioned ord...
Tag this Judgment!Nagarajan M. and ors. Vs. Registrar, High Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ759Mad; (2003)3MLJ479
ORDERM. Thanika Chalam, J.1. The petitioners in all the three writ petitions have been ordered to be compulsorily retired from service by the first respondent. Questioning the said orders, these petitions are filed to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners in service.2. The facts which are necessary to dispose of these writ petitions are briefly as follows:(a) The petitioner in W. P. No. 10588 of 1996 was working as a Junior Assistant, District Court, Coimbatore. Thiru Muthusamy, the petitioner in W.P.No. 10589 of 1996 was working as a Process Server along with Thiru V. Sedhu, the petitioner in W.P.No. 17931 of 1996, who was also working as a Process Server, District Court, Coimbatore. One Narayanansamy and Nallavarathan, were also working as Amins in the same Court.(b) One Indrani has filed a petition against Theanraj in R.C.O.P.No. 343 of 1994, for eviction under Section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Rajbabu Vs. Tax Recovery Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Mad)182; [2004]270ITR256(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. With the consent of counsel for either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final orders.2. The petitioner, Rajbabu, questioned the order of attachment of immovable property bearing Door No. 39, General Patters Road, Chennai 2, which was issued as if the petitioner has failed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,84,000 payable by him in Certificate No. TRC No. 557 to 564/02-03, dt. 31st Dec., 2002. When the petitioner has approached the authorities saying that he is not liable to pay the sum as demanded in the impugned notice, the respondent-authority came out with a letter dt. 27th Feb., 2003 that the tax demanded in a sum of Rs. 13,24,000 from the petitioner is only protective in nature and the Department would not enforce the same until the matter is finalised by the AO. However, the letter proceeds that request of the petitioner for lifting of attachment on immovable properties jointly owned by him and his sister would be considered after getting legal a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »