Chennai Court September 2003 Judgments
G. Raj, Manager, Syndicate Bank, Nandanam Branch Vs. the Senior Branch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ290Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The writ petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in his office proceedings No. ZOCH/PD/OS/154831/STO 232/2003, dated 6.5.2003 and to quash the same.2. Heard Mr. R.N. Amarnath, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr. Karthick, learned counsel for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., appearing for the respondents.3. The writ petitioner challenges the order fo transfer passed by the 3rd respondent transferring him from Chennai Nandanam Branch/Office to Nagarasampatti by the impugned communication dated 6.5.2003. The petitioner has referred to the earlier order of dismissal from service for certain charges and his filing W.P.17225 of 1991 in which this court set aside the order of dismissal. During the year 1996 the petitioner was posted as a Branch Manager in Civil Lines at Mordadabad Branch between 30.12.1996 to 26.8.2001. From Mordadabad the petitioner was transferred to Nandanam branch whe...
Tag this Judgment!Tan India Limited Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(168)ELT436(Mad)
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. By consent of the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. The case of the petitioner is that, the Tribunal passed its earlier order dated 30-7-1996 wherein it wanted to follow its own order passed in Order No. 994 of 1996, dated 2-7-1996 which order related to the benefit of the Notification No. 36/87, dated 1-3-1987, while the present proceedings related to the benefit that was available to the Cement manufacturers under Notification No. 154/90-C.E., dated 1-11-1990. In those circumstances, when the petitioner approached the Tribunal again with an application for rectification, by the order impugned in the writ-petition dated 11-10-2001 in Misc. Order No. 339 of 2001 the Tribunal, unfortunately, expressed its helplessness in considering the rectification sought for by the petitioner by stating that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal took the view that the Tribunal lack jurisdiction to pass any orders on the ground of 'rectification...
Tag this Judgment!Saroja and ors. Vs. Chennimalai, Sivanmalai, Ramasamy and Marayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC330; (2003)3MLJ492
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The two appeals are directed against the common judgment rendered by the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode in O.S. No. 930 of 1980 and O.S. No. 10 of 1986 dated 2.5.1986. A common question that arises in both the appeals is regarding the validity and genuineness of the will dated 28.9.1979 executed by one Muthusami Pillai. Muthusami Pillai had also executed a will dated 15.3.1972 and if the will dated 28.9.1979 is found to be genuine, the rights of the parties would be governed by the terms contained in the later will, and if the will dated 28.9.1979 is found to be not genuine, then the question will arise whether the rights of the parties would be governed by the will dated 15.3.1972. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 930 of 1980 and the defendants in that suit are also parties in the suit in O.S. No. 10 of 1986 apart from certain other parties. In the trial Court, both the suits were tried together and the evidence was recorded in O.S. No. 930 of 1980. 2....
Tag this Judgment!Management the Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ774Mad
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent dated 12.05.2000 pertaining to P.G.A.82/99 and to quash the same.2. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-The third respondent was working as a General Manager. Against him certain charges were framed and subsequently all the charges were withdrawn after full enquiry. Since he has not received the service benefits, he filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 6699 of 1999. According to the petitioner, by order of this Court all the service benefits due to the third respondent was settled. In the meanwhile, there was a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter called 'the Act') between the petitioner herein and the Union which also includes Officers. In that settlement, there are various agreements under Section 12(3) of the Act with respect to the Payment of Gratuity Act. There i...
Tag this Judgment!Pulavar B.M. Senguttuvan, Vs. the State, Rep. by Deputy Superintendent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ558
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioners who are accused No. 1 to 4 in the case registered by the respondent in his Crime No. 1/2003 have filed the above Criminal Original Petition praying to call for the records relating to the order passed by the respondent under Section 160(1) of Cr.P.C. dated 1.8.2003 and quash the same.2. In the grounds offered by the petitioners they would submit that the impugned order issued compelling the petitioners who are the accused to be witnesses under Section 160(1) of Cr.P.C. is contrary to the Constitutional prohibition under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India; that the notice issued under Section 160(1) of Cr.P.C. is restricted only for a uniform and is a glaring illustration of mala fide exercise of powers on extraneous reasons and with ulterior motives; that the petitioners are always willing to cooperate with the investigation done in accordance with law; that the respondent failed to see that the petitioners are the accused under the provi...
Tag this Judgment!Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. N. Suseela and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC788; 2004ACJ921
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the award in M.C.O.P. No. 303 of 1995 dated 17.9.1996 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court) at Madras. The respondents, who are the wife and mother of the deceased Natarajan filed M.C.O.P. No. 303 of 1995 under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and rule 3 of the Madras Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules contending that at about 11.15 a.m. on 15.1.1995, when the deceased was proceeding as pedestrian on the left side in Valluvar Kottam High Road from north to south, the bus belonging to the Corporation bearing the registration No. TN 01-N 1841 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from behind the deceased and hit him and as a result the deceased died on the spot. The respondents totally claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000.2. The appellant, viz., Pallavan Transport Corporation defended the claim contending that t...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. C. Nataraja Pi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ692Mad
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The appellant- corporation contends mat it was open to the Regional Manager to have appointed the enquiry officer in respect of a person belonging to Class II in the service of the appellant-Corporation even though the penalty that was ultimately imposed on the basis of the report of that enquiry was one of removal from service.2. The appellant-Corporation has framed regulations titled Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Employees' Service Regulations, 1989. Chapter V of that Regulation deals with disciplinary proceedings, penalties and appeal regulations. Regulation 2 in that chapter sets out the authorities to impose penalties and also appellate authorities.3. In respect of persons in Class II, minor punishments may be imposed by the immediate superior officer of that class to whom the delinquent employee is subordinate. If major penalties are to be imposed other than compulsory retirement, removal and dismissal, the authority competent to impose such a...
Tag this Judgment!Somayajulu and Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2003
Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Chennai)184
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1992-93. This appeal is filed against the order of the CIT(A)-III, Madras dt. 19th Aug., 1996 and arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee in this case is a registered firm carrying on the business of stock brokers. The assessee-firm also derived income from lease rentals and dividends. The assessee-firm returned an income of Rs. 31,64,416 for the impugned asst. yr. 1992-93. On filing of the return of income, the assessee-firm was requisitioned to get its accounts audited under Section 142(2A) of the IT Act. The requisition was complied with and a Special Audit Report was submitted. The assessment was completed on the basis of various observations made in the Special Audit Report. Finally, the income was determined at Rs. 2,67,77,870. The AO made about 16 additions to the income returned by the assessee-firm.3. The assessment was taken in first appeal. The CI...
Tag this Judgment!Somayajulu and Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2003
Reported in: (2005)62SCL89NULL
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1992-93. This appeal is filed against the order of the CIT(A)-III, Madras dated 19th August, 1996 and arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee in this case is a registered firm carrying on the business of stock brokers. The assessee-firm also derived income from lease rentals and dividends. The assessee-firm returned an income of Rs. 31,64,416 for the impugned assessment year 1992-93. On filing of the return of income, the assessee-firm was requisitioned to get its accounts audited under Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act. The requisition was complied with and a Special Audit Report was submitted.The assessment was completed on the basis of various observations made in the Special Audit Report. Finally, the income was determined at Rs. 2,67,77,870. The Assessing Officer made about 16 additions to the income returned by the assessee-firm.3. The assessment w...
Tag this Judgment!Chennai Video and Photographers Association and anr. Vs. Union of Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(91)ECC373; [2007]6STT227
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioners are challenging the service tax trade notice, informing the petitioners about the liability to pay tax under the Finance Act, 2001.2. While disposing of the writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 21539 and 21540 of 2001 challenging the same notice, the learned Judge has directed the petitioners therein to approach the Authorities by giving reply before seeking legal remedies.3. Following the said judgment of the learned Judge, it is for the petitioners to give a reply to the service tax trade notice if they feel aggrieved, and if any proceedings is taken by the respondents they may approach the concerned Forum for redressal of their grievance. Giving such liberty, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected WPMPs are closed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »