Chennai Court November 2004 Judgments
M.S. Ahamed Mohideen and anr. Vs. Salson
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)42; IV(2005)BC440; 2005CriLJ1353
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to call for the records relating to C. C. Nos. 6609 to 6612 of 2003 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town at Chennai-1.2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are accused No. 1 and 3 in the above cases and it is the second accused who issued the cheques in favour of the respondent on behalf of the firm in which admittedly, the petitioners are partners.3. The petitioners contention is that they were not assigned with such responsibilities to decide regarding the issuance of the cheques and therefore, kept away from such assignments and hence, according to law, they cannot be prosecuted.4. Today, when the above Criminal Original Petitions, all relating to one and the same parties but on issuance of different cheques which bounced, four cases have been made out by the respondent. It is the admitted case of the petitioners that they are the partners. The Court has every...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Banoo E. Cowasji (Late) Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: [2005]276ITR595(Mad)
A. M. SAPRE J.The judgment of the court was delivered byThis is an income-tax reference made at the instance of the assessee under section 256(l) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Tribunal in R. A. Nos. 205 to 208/Ind of 1990 which arises out of an order dated 27-7-1990, passed in I. T. A. Nos. 1077 to 1080/Ind of 1985 to answer the following question of law by this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and the material on record the said Tribunal was correct in law in reversing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 12-8-1985, and restoring the order of the Income Tax Officer dated 21-9-1984, under section 154 ?'At the outset we may mention that despite notices sent by this court including even SPC to the assessee none has appeared for the assessee in this reference on any date of hearing. In fact, even on the last date of hearing despite SPC having been sent, none appeared to make any submissions on behalf of the assessee. In this view of the matter, w...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Vs. G. Kuppa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC742; 2006ACJ1253
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The erstwhile Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation, Villupuram, aggrieved by the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, dated 28.11.1995 made in M.C.O.P. No. 761 of 1993, has filed the above appeal.2. In respect of death of one Gunavathi in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 25.8.1993, her husband, sons and daughter preferred a claim of Rs. 1,50,000. In support of the claim, K. Gnanadas, the claimant No. 6, son of the deceased was examined as PW 1 and one Tamilarasan, who witnessed the occurrence has been examined as PW 2 and also marked Exhs. P1 to P4. On the side of the Corporation, their driver was examined as RW 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on consideration of the materials placed, after holding that the driver of the Corporation alone was responsible, passed an award of Rs. 1,10,000 with interest at 12 per cent from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the order, the present appeal has been filed b...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its Regional Manager and Sen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ72
D. Murugesan, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 22.09.2004. The brief facts regarding the present controversy are summarized as under:2. The appellant is the New India Assurance Company Limited, hereinafter referred to as 'appellant-company'. The first respondent was issued with a community certificate dated 08.03.1979 by the Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, certifying him to belong to 'Kammara community', which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe under the 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Lists) Modification Order, 1956'. Based on the community certificate, he applied for the post of 'Typist' in the appellant-company as against the vacancies earmarked for ST candidates.3. On being satisfied with the certificate as to the community of the first respondent he was appointed as typist on 06.06.1979 and was posted at Dindigul. Thereafter he was posted as 'Assistant' on conversion of the post and transferred from Dindigul to Madurai in ...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Muthuramalingam, State Propaganda Committee Member Vs. the Deputy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC545; (2005)1MLJ1
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner is a member of the State Propaganda Committee of the Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam, a non-political party. The main object of the said organisation is to abolish the caste system in the country. The other objects are to eradicate caste abolition, superstitious belief as well as untouchability.2. The petitioner, by his application dated 1.11.2004, sought permission of the second respondent to conduct a public meeting on 16.11.2004 to propagate the principles of the petitioner Kazhagam at Panthaladi Kilpuram, Mannargudi. However, by proceedings dated 15.11.2004, the first respondent refused permission to the petitioner Kazhagam to conduct a public meeting at Panthaladi Kilpuram, Mannargudi on 16.11.2004, on the ground that it would affect the law and order in the locality, as there are direct clashes between the members of the petitioner Kazhagam and other organisations in connection with the arrest of Sankaracharyar in an alleged murder case...
Tag this Judgment!T. Thangarasu Vs. the Superintendent of Police and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad127; 2004(5)CTC550
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. When a request was made by the petitioner, who is a Town Secretary of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Cuddalore, to conduct a public meeting on 11.10.2004 at 6.00 pm at Manjakuppam Ground, Cuddalore, on behalf of the United Progressive Alliance Parties to ventilate the alleged vindictive and undemocratic and foisting false cases against the leaders and cadres of the opposition parties, the same was rejected by the second respondent herein in his proceedings dated 8.10.2004. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings made in Na.Ka. No. 142/S.D.O.P Camp/2004 dated 8.10.2004 and the consequential order made in Na. Ka. No. 143/S.D.O.P Camp/2004 dated 8.10.2004 passed by the second respondent, quash the same and direct the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct a public meeting at Manjakuppam ground, Cuddalore on 17.10.2004.2. Heard M...
Tag this Judgment!Niskalp Investments and Trading Company Limited a Company Incorporated ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC504
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner is the fourth defendant in the suit in O.S.No.5370 of 2004 laid by the first respondent herein on the file of the XVth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for a) For a declaration that agreement cum declaration cum undertaking dated 21.11.1997 executed by the second defendant purported to be on behalf of the first defendant is null and void, ultra vires of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the first defendant company not beneficial to the first defendant company and is not binding on the plaintiff and the first defendant company.b) Consequent permanent injunction restraining the fourth defendant from claiming any money or any right from the first defendant on the basis of agreement cum declaration cum undertaking dated 21.11.1997.c) Consequent permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding further in the arbitration proceedings based upon the agreement cum declaration cum undertaking dated 21.11.1997.2. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Kalaimani and Thangaraju Vs. Chinnapaiyan Alias Perumal Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC617; (2005)1MLJ54
R. Banumathi, J.1. This Appeal is at the instance of the unsuccessful Defendants in O.S. No. 5 of 1987 on the file of Sub-Court, Vridhachalam. Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree of the Money Suit dated 10.04.1989, the Defendants have preferred this Appeal.2. For convenience, parties would be referred to as they were arrayed in O.S. No. 5 of 1987 on the file of Sub-Court, Vridhachalam.3. The Plaintiff filed the Suit on Promissory Note. The Defendants are Father and Son. Case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants have borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and executed the Suit Promissory Note on 11/09/1984 at Manmalai Village, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In spite of repeated demands, issuance of Legal Notice dated 07.04.1986, the Defendants have not repaid the amount. The Defendants have only sent the Reply dated 17.04.1986, containing false allegations to defraud the claim of the Plaintiff. Hence, the Suit.4. Denying the execution of the Promiss...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugam S. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ315Mad; (2005)1MLJ223
Thanikachalam, J. 1. The employee, who was dismissed from service unceremoniously (as claimed), is the appellant.2. The facts beyond the pale of controversy:(a) The appellant/writ-petitioner was appointed as Branch Assistant on June 15, 1967 in the office of the second respondent Co-operative Store. Thereafter, he was transferred to Tirupathur Branch as Branch Manager, where he worked till June 30, 1974 and thereafter, transferred to the Head Office at Vellore.(b) The second respondent felt that during the tenure of the petitioner as Branch Manager, he had committed certain irregularities, including causing deficit in the stock, resulting issue of a charge memo, dated March 11, 1975, for which an explanation, dated March 27, 1975, has been submitted. The explanation offered by the appellant/writ-petitioner failed to satisfy the employer/ management and the result was his suspension on August 21, 1975. After the suspension, it seems, no domestic enquiry has been conducted, but a charge ...
Tag this Judgment!Rohit Sharma Vs. the Controller of Examinations and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC744
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Ref. No. PU/CE/E14/03-04 dated 29.9.2004 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to evaluate the papers of the petitioner with reference to all the examinations and declare the results therefor.2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner joined the third respondent medical college in the year 2002-2003. He was a rank holder and he secured 92.6% of marks in the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education Examinations, 1999 and school topper in Pine Hall School, Dehradun. The petitioner has written second year M.B.B.S. Examination on 24.5.2004 to 3.6.2004 in the third respondent premises and his registration Number was 226375066. On 1.6.2004, when he was writing microbiology Paper II Examination for a duration of two hours, he attended two essays and two or three short questions, the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »