Chennai Court October 2004 Judgments
M. Saravanachelvam Vs. the Commissioner, R.S. Mangalam Panchayat Union ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ523
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner seeks for a writ of Declaration declaring all the proceedings pursuant to the tender notification Na.Ka.A2/1290/03 dated proceedings pursuant to the tender notification Na.Ka.A2/1290/03 dated 27.5.2003 of the first respondent as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. 2. The petitioner submits that he is a registered Class-I Contractor in Ramanathapuram District. He was granted certificate on 17.8.2001 enabling him to take up all public works in the Panchayat Unions in the District upto and above Rs. 25 lakhs. He was, therefore, eligible to participate in the tenders floated by all Panchayat Unions in Ramanathapuram District. The petitioner further alleges that the third respondent is a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the ruling party. He is also the husband of the elected Chairman of the Panchayat Union. Though he does not have any role to play in the affairs of the Panchayat Union, taking advantage of his political affiliation and...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Naidu Vs. Sethuraman,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad108
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The second defendant in O.S. No.572 of 1980 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Thirukovilur, is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This revision is directed against the order in E.P. No. 342 of 1995 dated 31.7.2001 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Thirukovilur, filed under Order 21 Rule XXXII C.P.C., as per which the defendant, viz., revision petitioner, was ordered to be arrested for having committed contempt of Court. 2. The respondents 1 to 3, along with their mother Pattammal, filed O.S.No.572 of 1980 for declaration, and permanent injunction and alternatively for possession in respect of the suit properties claiming that the suit properties were purchased by their father Ramasamy Iyer, benami in the name of his mother Sornambal as per sale deeds Exs.A.1 and A.2 marked during the trial of the said suit. The suit was resisted by the first defendant, paternal aunt of the plaintiffs 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Balan and Vs. Srinivasalu,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad216; (2004)4MLJ617
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The defendants 4 and 5 are the appellants herein.2. Srinivasalu, the first respondent herein filed the suit for specific performance against other respondents and the appellants. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, the first respondent herein. Challenging the same, first defendant, the second respondent herein filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which in turn confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the finding against the defendants 4 and 5 claiming themselves to be the bona fide purchasers, they have filed this second appeal.3. The case of the plaintiff/first respondent is as follows:'The defendants 1 to 3 executed a sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff on 12.2.1993 agreeing to sell the suit property for the sale consideration of Rs. 22,000/- and an advance of Rs. 5,000/- was paid by the plaintiff. Three months time was given. The plaintiff sent notices on different dates to t...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalambal Vs. Anjali Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC338; (2004)4MLJ503
ORDERT.V. Masilamani, J.1. The landlady/petitioner before the Rent Controller, Karaikal and appellant before the Appellate Authority has filed this revision petition questioning the legality of the judgment rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Pondichery at Karaikal.2. The parties to the proceedings may be referred to hereunder as they were arrayed before the Rent Controller. 3. The petitioner/landlady filed the petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Tamil Nadu Act No.18 of 1960') for eviction of the respondent/tenant on the ground that the building is required bona fide for demolition and reconstruction.4. The respondent resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the requirement of the building is not bona fide for the reason that the landlady having failed in her attempt to evict the tenant from the petition premises by filing applications in R.C.O...
Tag this Judgment!Nivaram Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Director Sardarmal M. Chordia Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2006(203)ELT8(Mad)
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in Appeal No. E/320/96-Md (Order No. 1795/97) dated 09.07.1997 and quash the same and consequently restore the order passed by the second respondent in A. No. 178/95-M (Order in Appeal No. 233/95-M) dated 16.11.1995.2. The above petition arises under the Central Excise Act. The petitioner is the manufactureR of various types of medicines including life saving drugs and the preparations are strictly in accordance with the provisions of Drug Control Act and on the verification of the authorities at all times.3. Today, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that at the time of removal of the goods, two notifications are issued by the Central Government recognizing certain cadre as Small Scale Industry (SSI) benefits; that upto Rs. 2/- crores, they need not pay any duty for...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Mad)339; [2005]272ITR652(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. In this appeal, the following substantial questions of law were raised for determination:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that excise duty does not form part of the total turnover for the purpose of calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in not considering the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in : [1973]87ITR542(SC) in the case of Chowrangee Sales Bureau P. Ltd. V. C.I.T., and in the case of Synclair Murray And Co. P. Ltd. V C.I.T. reported in : [1974]97ITR615(SC) ?2.1 Question No. (1): Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that excise duty does not form part of the total turnover for the purpose of calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act?2.2. The Bombay High Court in the decision repo...
Tag this Judgment!K. Muthu Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR751]; (2005)IILLJ483Mad; (2005)1MLJ143
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in I.D . No. 163 of 1995 dated 12.12.1995 and quash the same.2. On 1.10.2004, when the above matter has been taken up for consideration, no representation was offered on the part of the petitioner in spite of the learned counsel for the second respondent is present and ready to argue the matter and hence this Court is left with no choice but to reserve the orders in the above writ petition for appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, after hearing the learned counsel for the second respondent and on perusal of the materials placed on record.3. In the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he joined the Spinning Department of the second respondent/Management on 10.7.1987; that he joined the Coimbatore Textile Workers Union, which ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Parvathy and Vs. the Post Master General,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad102; (2004)4MLJ657
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to refund the matured sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- together with interest accrued thereon in the MIS JAR A/c No. 22234 and to award compensation for the inordinate delay in refunding the deposit and mental agony undergone by them.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the above Writ Petition, the first petitioner would submit that she is a senior citizen; that her husband Mr. R.D. Shivappa had deposited a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- on 3.5.1994 in MIS JNR No. 22234 in the Monthly Income Scheme(MIS) at Jawahar Nagger Post Office, the third respondent herein for a period of five years citing the name of the 4th respondent herein as the nominee; that subsequently, he had deleted the fourth respondent as nominee and included the first petitioner in the said account as joint depositor; that her husband passed away on 10.12.1996; that after the demise of ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Chandramohan Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcem ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC746
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J. 1. The Petitioner, who is accused in Cr. No. 985 of 2002 on the file of the respondent, appears to have involved in a prohibition offence, in which the Mahendra Van bearing registration No. TN 49 J 1569 was also involved which was seized. Claiming interim custody of the vehicle, a petition was filed, which was dismissed and later confirmed by the Sessions Judge. Thereafter, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C., this petition has been filed.2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) opposes the return of the vehicle on the ground that investigation is pending.3. The fact that investigation is pending may not be a ground to refuse the return of the vehicle since return of the vehicle to the petitioner will not in any way hinder further investigation. Even if the vehicle is required, on notice, the petitioner may be directed to produce the vehicle, which cannot be denied. On the other hand, without returning vehicle if it is left exposed to ho...
Tag this Judgment!The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Rep. by Its M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad149; (2004)4MLJ545
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The Writ Appeal has been preferred by the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (herein after called 'CMWSSB') as against the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 15-12-2003 in W.P.M.P.No. 33211 of 2003 in W.PNo. 27168 of 2003, in and by which, the learned Single Judge passed orders making the interim stay absolute in respect of confirmation of the re-tender Notification pertaining to the establishing of 300/200/100 MLD Sea Water Desalination Plan at Minjur, Chennai. 2. When the Writ Appeal was posted for admission, having regard to the nature of the issue involved, the main Writ Petition itself was directed to be posted. Thereafter, a connected public interest litigation filed by one of the Advocates in W.P.No. 38684 of 2003 was also linked along with the Writ Appeal. However, when that Writ Petition, namely, W.P.No. 38684 of 203 was taken up for hearing on 7-10-2004, the petitioner therein expressed his desire to withdraw the Wri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »