Chennai Court January 2004 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.
Smt. Sumathi Devi, W/O. Shri. T. Mangilalji Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad231; 2004(2)CTC48
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the premises bearing Door No.39, Nattu Pillaiyar Koil St., Chennai - 600 001 in R.S.No.6663, Block No.56, V.O.C.Nagar, within the Sub-registration office of Sowcarpet, Chennai - 600 001. 2. The second respondent by proceedings dated 28.08.1990, pointing out the deviations in the construction put up by the petitioner, issued the demolition notice under Section 56 read with Section 85 of Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, requiring the petitioner to comply with the planning permission granted under Section 49 of the Act. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 49 of the Act, seeking building permission and for regularisation of the deviated construction of the building. However, the second respondent by proceedings dated 05.10.1993 rejected the application of the petitioner holding that the first floor construction is in deviation to the earlier approved plan and Second Floor...
Kuresh A. Kapadia Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary Ho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ630
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. In these batch of writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the acquisition of their lands by the respondents, which are sought to be acquired pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity 'the Act') in G.O.Ms.No.433, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 14.5.1990, passed by the first respondent, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part-II, Section 2, supplement on 23.5.1990 for a housing scheme called Sholinganallur Neighborhood scheme Phase-III.2. It is not in dispute that the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 14.5.1990, was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 23.5.1990, in two tamil dailies, viz., Dinakaran on 4.6.1990 and Morosely on 5.6.1990. The local publication of the said notification was also made on 19.6.1990.3. Pursuant to the said notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, concededly, the petitioners were served with a notice for an enqu...
Management of Jeetstex Engineering Ltd. and Kanagaraj A. Vs. Presiding ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ908Mad
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The management and the employee are aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.D. No. 564 of 1991 and hence the two writ petitions.2. Charges were framed against the employee, who was working as a supervisor. The allegations made are that the employee was in the habit of using abusive language with regard to the management and in spite of warnings, the employee spoke disrespectfully to the Chairman. In the domestic enquiry, the charges were held to be proved. On consideration of the findings of the enquiry officer, orders were passed, discharging the services of the employee, against that a dispute was raised. The Labour Court held on facts that the charges had been proved and therefore upheld the punishment of discharge. However, it also awarded Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the management has filed W.P. No. 12453 of 1996 and aggrieved by the Labour Court upholding the order of discharge, the employee has filed W.P....
Central Bank of India Vs. P.K. Agencies Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: [2005]64SCL577(Mad)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.Facts:1. In this appeal, the judgment and decree dated March 26, 1991, passed in Suit No. 297 of 1987 under Chapter XIII-A of the Original Side Rules (OS Rules) is under challenge. It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs was deposited with the bank by the plaintiff for being transmitted to a foreigner's account which was kept in fixed deposit and in respect of which the plaintiff had executed a document of lien. Ultimately, the Reserve Bank of India refused permission to transmit the amount to the foreigner's account. In the circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to refund of the said amount, which the defendant bank, being the appellant herein, could not retain. In the circumstances, an application under Chapter XHI-A of the OS Rules was taken out by the plaintiff/respondent for a decree on admission through a summary procedure provided therein. The learned Judge, on the oral prayer of the plaintiff, had called for records from the Reserve Bank of India, which we...
The Management, Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation Limited Vs. S. Mu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC78; (2004)IIILLJ1006Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai dated 5-12-95 made in W.C. No. 81 of 1994, the Management-Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.2. The respondent herein, driver of the appellant Transport Corporation in respect of the injuries sustained on 24-7-92 in the course of his employment prayed for a compensation of Rs. 4,31,300/-. In support of his claim, the applicant himself was examined as P.W.1 and Dr. B. Jayakumar as P.W.2, besides marking 4 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-4. On the side of the Transport Corporation, they examined one Dr. A. Karunanidhi as R.W.1 and also marked 4 documents as Exs. R.1 and R.2. The Deputy Commissioner, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, after holding that the applicant was a workman under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, sustained injuries in the course of his employment, directed the Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 86,260/-. Challenging...
Daniel Vs. A.R. Safiullah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ91; 2004(29)PTC62(Mad)
V. Kanakaraj, J.1. Application No. 4458 of 2003 has been filed praying to transfer O.S. No. 1 of 2002 and all its connected applications from the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Pudukottai to this Court, as provided both under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000 and also under Section 24(5) of the C.P.C.2. Application No. 4459 of 2003 has been filed praying to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 1 of 2002 and all its connected applications pending on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Pudukottai, pending disposal of the above transfer application.3. Application No. 4980 of 2003 has been filed by the respondent in the main transfer application praying to vacate the stay granted in A. No. 4459 of 2003, dated 17.10.2003.4. In the affidavit filed in support of the above main transfer application, the applicant who is the defendant in the suit would submit that the respondent herein has filed a suit under Order 7, Rule 1 of CPC read with Sections 27, 1...
Salem District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: [2005]274ITR150(Mad)
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The questions referred to in this case are :'(i) Whether, on the facts the Tribunal is right in law in holding that investment allowance could be allowed only if the claim is made in the year of installation of machinery ?(ii) Whether the Tribunal is right in its interpretation of the provisions of Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in coming to the conclusion that until the investment allowance is quantified and determined by the Assessing Officer, there cannot be any question of carry forward of the allowance ?(iii) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in rendering a contrary decision when a Bench of the Tribunal has already rendered the provisions of Section 32A of the Income-tax Act that both the right to carry forward and claim investment allowance and the duty to create the corresponding reserves are deferred to the future years ?'2. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the production of milk products. The assessee claimed to deduct inve...
The Management of Mahalakshmi Builders Vs. A. Govindaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2004
Reported in: I(2004)ACC611; 2004(1)CTC563; [2004(101)FLR384]; (2004)1MLJ637
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The Management of M/s Mahalakshmi Builders, Mylapore, Madras-4, aggrieved' by the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-I, Madras-6 dated 25.4.1995 made in W.C.No. 204/1994 has filed the above appeal, mainly questioning the grant of penalty of 50% of the compensation due to the applicant-respondent herein under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.2. Heard both sides.3. Even at the outset the learned counsel for the appellant/Management fairly states that they are not questioning the quantum of compensation (Rs. 28,536 arrived by the Tribunal). In other words, according to the appellant, the challenge in this appeal relates to the direction for payment of penalty to the extent of 50% of compensation. In the light of the limited issue, there is no need to refer to the factual matrix as discussed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation. However, it is relevant to refer that after determining the compensation of Rs. 28,536/-, the...
Madurai Kamarajar University Palkalai Kalaga Anaithu Vidhuthi Ooliyarg ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ620Mad
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner, a Sangam of the Employees of the Madurai Kamarajar University, seeks for a mandamus to direct the respondents to implement the Resolution of the Syndicate dated November 16, 1999 and May 12, 2000 and to regularise the services of the petitioner within the time to be fixed by this Court.2. The petitioner contends that the Association consists of 119 members, who are working in various hostels and canteens run by the respondent University in its campus. The Association is a Registered Association. The members are working as Clerks, Attenders, Watchmen, Cooks, Servers etc. in the hostels and canteens run by the respondent University. Most of them have completed nearly 20 to 25 years of continuous service in the respondent University. The members of the Association in their individual capacity have been frequently requesting the University to regularise their services. On October 14, 1986, the Syndicate of the respondent University resolved t...
S. Shenbagaraj Vs. Additional Commissioner of Industries and Commerce ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC505; (2004)IIILLJ624Mad
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the first respondent dated 26.7.2000 in file No. 85169/ICS/98 confirming the order of dismissal dated 27.6.1998 passed by the third respondent.2. The petitioner who joined as an Assistant in the second respondent bank on 15.6.1981 was subsequently promoted as Sub Accountant and Inspector and later as Branch Manager of the second respondent bank at Coimbatore in the year 1991. He was transferred to Trichy as Senior Branch Manager and worked as such till May 1996. He was issued with a charge memo dated 12.3.1997 in which, as many as 28 charges were levelled against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 7.4.1997 denying all the charges. Pending disciplinary action, the petitioner was also kept under suspension with effect from 2.12.1996. As the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not convincing, the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. The said...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »