Chennai Court August 2003 Judgments
Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ867Mad
ORDER1. The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the award of the first respondent, dated April 10, 1996, made in I.D. No. 391 of 1994.2. The petitioner-company had two units at Tirupur, namely, 'A' Mill Spinning and 'B' Mill Weaving and the Company has been declared as a Sick Industrial Company. According to the petitioner, the second respondent was engaged as a building cooly in the building department depending on the availability of the work and the usual practice prevailing in the mill is that the building cooly will he deputed to do all miscellaneous jobs depending upon the exigencies of the work. The petitioner has further stated that the second respondent was deputed for doing security work in the co-operative stores of the mill on February 16, 1994 and February 17, 1994. It is further stated that on February 16, 1994, at about 12.35 P.M. in the night, when the Assistant Security Officer went on has usual round, he found the second respondent sleepi...
Tag this Judgment!Fuller India Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Mad)142; [2004]269ITR365(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. By consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. Without assigning any reason whatsoever except filling up the address of the petitioner the Department has decided to reassess the assessment of the year 1998-99. This sort of issuance of the notice and keeping alive the proceedings forever without disclosing any reason has been deprecated by this Court in every case of this nature. But, in spite of that, the impugned notice has been issued which is a clear example on the part of the respondent of the non-application of mind. If the Department wants to reassess, it has to state the reason for coming to the conclusion of reassessing the already concluded assessment. Clause (2) of Section 148 of the IT Act very specifically provides that before issuing any notice under this section, the officer concerned must report his reasonings for doing so. But unfortunately, the officer, who purported to exercise the power u...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Paints and Allied Products Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cce and Supdt. of C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(91)ECC405
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. By consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner, Tamil Nadu Paints and Allied Products Limited, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai, has approached this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to recalculate the duty payable by them for the period January to February 1990-1991, after taking cognizance of the SSI exemption available under Notification 175/86 as amended.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.4. There is no dispute that in the light of the decision reported in (Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board v. CCR Madurai), stated that the first respondent is the authority concerned to consider the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to re-calculate the duty payable by the petitioner for the period January to February 1990-1991 after taking cognizance of the SSI exemption available to them under...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnammal Vs. Subburaman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC385; (2003)3MLJ191
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J. 1. This Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Manaparai in I.A.No. 147/2003 in O.S.No. 196/2002, dated 25.2,2003, refusing to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 9.12.2002.2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No. 196/2002 for declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit property and for permanent injunction. The suit was posted on 9.12.2002 for filing written statement. Since nobody appeared for the defendant nor filed written statement on 9.12.2002, the suit was decreed ex parte To set aside the said order, the petitioner filed I.A.No. 147/2003. He has also filed written statement and necessary documents along with the affidavit filed in support of the said Application.3. The said Application was contested by the respondents/plaintiffs.4. The trial Court has not accepted the reason given to set aside the decree and also found that the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Palat Achuthan Vs. the Management, Citi Bank N.A.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ147Mad; (2003)3MLJ464
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. The petitioner who was the erstwhile Vice-President of the respondent/Bank, has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, hereinafter called the Act, and for a consequential direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner claiming to be a B.Com. (Hons.) Graduate and a Chartered Accountant, joined the services of the respondent as the Management Trainee on 23.2.1987. On completing the training, he was appointed as Assistant Manager on 1.6.1987. Subsequently, he was promoted as Manager on 1.6.1989 and thereafter as an Assistant Vice-President on 1.1.1991 and again promoted as Vice-President on 1.6.1991. The petitioner claims that he has earned all promotions due to hard work and excellent contribution t...
Tag this Judgment!E. Somasekaran and E. Kalyanakumar Vs. Kanchana,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ380
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit O.S. No. 798 of 1989 on the file of the Additional District Munsif's Court, Vellore. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants therein for restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the suit property, which consists of a house and vacant site. The suit was filed against two defendants. Subsequently, one Kanchana purchased the property lis pendens in 1992 and an application was filed to implead her as defendant in the suit. The trial Court impleaded her as third defendant. Of course, the plaintiffs did not challenge such impleadment. 2. Now at the stage, when the plaintiffs' evidence was closed and when the Advocate Commissioner has already been examined, the third defendant failed to appear in Court to give evidence, and therefore, her side was closed. She filed I.A. No. 740 of 1999 to reopen the case.3. The third defendant, su...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Officer, Dharmapuri District Co. Op. Sugar Mills Vs. T.N. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ407Mad; (2003)3MLJ503
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The revision petitioner, who is the Special Officer, Dharmapuri District Co-op. Sugar Mills, Palacode, is the defendant in the suit O.S. No. 121 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif, Palacode. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for a mandatory injunction to appoint him on permanent basis on the basis of seniority and also a Government Order, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from appointing anybody-else on permanent basis. 2. The averments in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a N.M.R. employee of the defendant from 1979 and that since his family members including his father have sold 5.28 acres of land to the defendant for the purpose of constructing a sugar factory and as per a Government Order, priority must be given to the family members who have given lands for the construction of the sugar factory. But, the defendant has not made him permanent and hence, the suit.3. The defendant has filed a written statement stating t...
Tag this Judgment!Neptune Inflatables Ltd. by Its Accountant P.Mani Vs. Hydra Rep. by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: I(2006)BC481; [2005]125CompCas164(Mad)
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This is an appeal brought forth by the complainant challenging a judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras in a private complaint filed by the appellant Neptune Inflatables Ltd. , under Sec. 138 read with 141 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The appellant/complainant made the following averments in the complaint:The complainant company entered into business transaction with the accused company. The parties entered into a High Seas Sales Agreement on 6.10.1989 by which the accused agreed to reimburse the amount for the import of 40 Nos. of H.P. engine of Suzuki origin. Out of the same, a sum of Rs. 3, 82, 000/- was due from the accused to the complainant. The accused issued a cheque bearing No. 706362 dated 15.1.90 for Rs. 3, 82, 000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Royapettah, Madras, which was marked as Ex.P2. The complainant did not present the cheque till the end of May 1990, as the accused requested not to presen...
Tag this Judgment!P. Lalitha and S. Mahalakshmi Vs. Kalimuthu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ469
P. Shanmugam, J.Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the appellants. The suit filed by the appellants along with their mother, since dead, was for a decree for partition of their half share in the plaint schedule properties.2. To appreciate the claims of the parties, the following genealogy tree can usefully be looked into :3. The parties are described as per their ranking in the court below.4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff is the widow of Late Maruthi Rao, plaintiffs 2 and 3 are their daughters and the first defendant is the brother of Maruthi Rao. The brothers were members of a Joint Hindu Family. A partition deed between the brothers was entered into on 30.9.1947. However, they allege that this partition deed was fraudulent, besides contending that Maruthi Rao was leading an immoral and wasteful life, incurring Aviavaharika debts not binding on the family and therefore, the debts incurred by their father and the proceedings taken against the properties are not binding on ...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Ramasamy Vs. Dhanalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ709
ORDERA.P. Ramasamy, J.1. The petitioner is the first defendant in the suit. 2. Dhanalakshmi, the respondent herein, the sister of the petitioner, filed the suit for partition of 1/3 share in the suit property. The case was adjourned on various dates, giving time for the petitioner/first defendant to file written statement. Despite that, no written statement was filed. Hence, the suit was decreed ex-parte. After a delay of 342 days, the petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the said delay to set aside the ex-parte decree. The said application was dismissed. Hence, the above civil revision petition.3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the letter sent by the counsel asking the petitioner to go and meet the counsel to file the written statement, was not served on him, as he shifted his residence to some other place and the same returned to the counsel himself and when the petitioner/first defendant approached the lawyer, he was info...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »