Chennai Court August 2003 Judgments
M.K. Dange Vs. Chairman-cum-managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Cor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ544
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. Though W.P.M.P.Nos.20758 to 20760 of 2002 are listed, by consent of the respective learned counsel, the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal.2. The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 7.12.93 passed by the General Manager(F&A;), Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., the third respondent, as confirmed by the order dated 30.5.2001 passed by the Chief Manager(P&A;), Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., the second respondent. The main grounds of attack on the orders of suspension as put forth by Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows. (1) The order of suspension was dated 7.12.93. The prolonged suspension is bad in the eye of law, as the petitioner is kept under suspension for over a period of nearly 10 years, without there being any disciplinary proceedings conducted nor the criminal proceedings initiated had come to an end. (2) The respondents are not empowered to place the petitioner und...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Pandyan Travels, Represented by K. Devendran Vs. Commissioner of C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)677; 2004(91)ECC369; 2003LC654(Madras); 2004(163)ELT409(Mad); [2004]268ITR391(Mad); 2006[3]STR151; [2007]7STT159
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of both parties main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. Questioning the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax Cell, Chennai II, Chennai-35, made in C.No.IV/16/368/2001-STC dated 18-10-2002, directing the petitioner to register and pay service tax, Sri Pandyan Travels has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:-The petitioner is a contract carriage operator, operating contract carriages, permits of which are issued by the State Transport Authority, Chennai. When the respondent wanted to impose service tax in respect of the petitioner, they filed a writ petition before this Court and the same was disposed of by a Division Bench along with several other writ petitions with a direction to the petitioners to raise their objections with the concerned authorities issued notices. It is further stated in the judgment that the authority would de...
Tag this Judgment!T.E. Vallabhan Vs. Mrs. Godha Pushpam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC518
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. No. 4247 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai has filed the above criminal original petition praying to set aside the order dated 8.1.2003 made in Crl. M.P. No. 2716 of 2002 in the above C.C. and to allow him to be represented by his counsel under Section 205 Cr.P.C. and permit the counsel to receive copies on his behalf.2. The petitioner would submit that he is arrayed as the accused in the said case for an alleged offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and that he is presently doing his advanced studies in Medicine in the United States of America after completing his MBBS at Hyderabad in India and the case has been registered on the complaint lodged by his wife with the All Women Police Station; that if the petitioner were to appear before the Court, he has to discontinue his higher studies in medicine and it is very difficult to get leave since the petitioner does not have an...
Tag this Judgment!Kasthuri, Sukanyalakshmi, Subathradevi, Saroja and Padmavathy Vs. Bask ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ175
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The petitioners are the defendants. 2. The respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.296 of 1998 in the Court of the District Munsif, Dharapuram. The petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.541 of 2001 under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejecting the plaint of the respondents in view of the bar contained in Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. Rejecting the said contention, the trial Court dismissed the application. Hence, this civil revision petition.3. According to the petitioners, the suit filed by the respondents for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from alienating the suit properties and also from interfering with the respondents' possession is not maintainable. Since the suit was filed on the basis of the agreement of sale dated 17.4.1998 executed between the petitioners and the respondents for a sale consideration of Rs.70 lakhs in respect of the suit properties and the respondents paid Rs.50,000/- to the...
Tag this Judgment!Harikumar Rajah Vs. Ashok R. Thakkar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: [2004]51SCL735(Mad)
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This application is for the grant of leave to sue the defendants,2. The suit prayers, inter alia, are for declaration that the allotment of shares made in favour of the defendants in the year 1979 are null and void; for declaration that the nomination of the defendants 1 to 3 is null and void; for declaration that the nominees of the plaintiff are duly elected in the annual general body meeting held on 20-6-1998; for declaration that E.G.M. held on 25-11-1998 is null and void; for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the properties of the company.3. The registered office of the 1 Oth respondent is at Noombal Village and the defendants 1 to 4 are its directors. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the cause of action for the suit had arisen within the jurisdiction of this court and all the defendants are leaving or working for gain or having their offices within the territorial jurisdiction of this court....
Tag this Judgment!Ramco Super Leathers Ltd. and anr. Vs. Associates India Financial Serv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ARBLR241(Madras); (2004)1CompLJ171(Mad)
R. Banumathi, J.Application No. 925 of 20021. This application is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from in any way bringing the property of the second plaintiff to sale in public auction, and selling the same by private auction in any manner.Application No. 26 of 20032. The application is filed by defendant to refer the applicant and the respondents to Arbitration proceedings under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. For convenience, parties are referred as in their rank in the suit.3. The first plaintiff Ramco Super Leathers Ltd. had borrowed a loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000 (Rs. one crore) under loan agreement dated 22.06.2001 [repayable in twelve equal monthly instalments. The second plaintiff/RSL Property Development Ltd., a sister concern of the first plaintiff, was the guarantor. As a guarantor, the second plaintiff offered security of immovable property shown as schedule immovable pr...
Tag this Judgment!Peegees Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Mad)287
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the standing counsel for the Revenue.2. The order which is impugned in this batch of writ petitions has been passed by the CIT. No exception can be taken to the said orders, since admittedly the appeals are pending before the CIT(A). Therefore, there is no justification at all to stay the proceedings. This is not a fit case to continue the order of interim stay, since the appeals are pending and, therefore, no revision can be entertained at all during the pendency of the appeals.3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the point that is being canvassed in the appeals is also covered by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court. If that be so, it is well open to the petitioner/assessee to agitate the points in the appeals pending before the CIT(A),4. The balance of convenience is not in favour of the petitioner. Already the revisions have been rejected as not maintainable by recalling the earl...
Tag this Judgment!C. Arulsamy and S. Ubagaram Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Distri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC670
M. Thanikachalam, J.Third parties/Ayacutdars of Meyanur and Sannendal Eri, are the appellants.2. Respondents (8) & (9) as the representatives of Sennendal and Mayanur Eri, have filed the suit against Respondents (1) to (7), for declaration that they are entitled for unobstructed, undiminished, mamool and customary supply of water from the Pambar River to their Kanmois, and for consequential relief of permanent injunction, from interfering in any manner, either by construction across the river Pambaru in Survey No. 19 or otherwise, contending that the source of supply for their Kanmais is the rain water and surplus water from Pambaru River, which is enjoyed by them from time immemorial, which is also recorded in the revenue registers, that without any notice, the defendants 1 to 3, motivated by somebody, threatening to put up construction across the river Pambaru at Survey No. 19, thereby they are making an attempt to obstruct the mamool and customary supply of water from Pambaru affect...
Tag this Judgment!V. Sadasiva Chetty (Huf) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2003
Reported in: [2003]264ITR527(Mad)
A. PACKIARAJ J. 1. This revision has been filed against the order passed in Crl. M. P. No. 5432 of 2001, in C. C. No. 688 of 1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Salem, dismissing the petition for discharge filed by the petitioner herein against whom a complaint has been given by the Income-tax Officer, Circle I, Salem, for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 196, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 276C(1) and 277 read with Sections 278C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed an application before this court for quashing the said proceedings on the same ground, but this court had dismissed the said application, viz., Crl. M. P. No. 8460 of 1985, stating that the said application was premature and the petitioner is entitled to raise all these points when charges are likely to be framed. It is well known that this case being a warrant procedure, charges would be framed only after some witnesses have been examined. ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshana Cotton Mills Ltd., (Rep. by Its M.D.) Vs. Government of Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ145Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of all parties and considering the limited issue raised, main writ petitions themselves are taken up for disposal. Aggrieved by the order of the third respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority), Coimbatore, dated June 4, 2001, bearing No. Na.Ka.5/5363 of 2001 (IA. 1/2001) and dated June 4, 2001, bearing No. Na.Ka.A.5/5360/2001 (I.A.No. 4/2001); and dated June 4, 2001, bearing Na.Ka.A.5/5246 of 2001 (I.A.2/2001), respectively, directing them to deposit the subsistence allowance as ordered by the Assistant Commissioner, Labour under Rule 5-A of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Rules, 1981, the petitioner-management has filed the above writ petitions to quash the same on various grounds.2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 as well as the learned counsel for the other respondent-workmen.3. For convenience I shall refer the facts in the first c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »