Chennai Court November 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.
Sellappa Gounder Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the District Coll ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC348; (2004)4MLJ726
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 139 of 2003 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Tiruchengode. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 795 of 2003, praying to appoint a Commissioner to find out the age of coconut trees which allegedly planted by the petitioner in the poromboke land adjoining to his land.2. The plaintiff is the owner of the property in Survey No. 134/1 in the suit village and the adjoining area is in survey No. 137/3. Admittedly it is a poromboke land. The case of the plaintiff is that he had planted 20 coconut trees and has applied for 2C Patta. Since no order was passed and since the plaintiff apprehended that 2(C) patta would be given to somebody else; in order to establish that it is he who planted the coconut trees, he has filed the above interlocutory application for appointment of a Commissioner and the said application was dismissed on the ground that while planting the trees in t...
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-i Vs. the United Nilg ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)336; [2005]273ITR470(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The respondent is a Company deriving income from Tea. The assessment was made against the Company for the assessment year 1989-90. The main objection to the assessment order is with regard to the restriction of the claim under Section 32AB by the amount of interest and dividend incomes on the ground that such receipts are not profits of the eligible business. This point was not accepted by the Appellate Authority and the assessment order was confirmed. Consequently, the respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted this point and upheld the claim of the assessee in regard to the deduction under Section 32AB and directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate the deduction by including the interest, dividend incomes. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-I, Coimbatore.2. According to the counsel for the appellant, the interest and dividend income credited in the Profit and ...
Srivari Paper Syndicate Represented by Its Managing Partner A. Sriniva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ65
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The civil revision petition has been filed challenging the Order of granting leave on the ground that the Order passed is illegal and it is contrary to the second provisio to O.37 R.3(5) CPC - where the amount claimed by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant to be due from him, leave to defend the suit shall not be granted. In this case, the defendant has admitted the amount claimed by the plaintiff based on invoices. Therefore, the leave ought not to have been granted by the trial Court. In as much as the leave has been granted, which is contrary to the second proviso, the Order has to be set aside.2. No representation for the respondent.3. According to O. 37 R. 3(5) CPC, a leave shall not be granted when the amount claimed in the suit is admitted by the respondent/defendant. But, in this case, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that in the communication dated 15.5.1999, the respondent has admitted that he has to pay a sum of Rs. 6,5...
K.R. Ramalingam, Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ172
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the second respondent in his proceedings dated 6.8.1993, 27.8.1993, 30.8.1993, 5.10.1993, 29.10.1993 and quash the same and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Selection Grade Assistant Manager on time bound scale with effects from 10.4.1993 with back wages.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, petitioner would submit that he was working as Branch Manager in Gudiyatham Depot from 1992-1993; that during that period 9 charge memos. were issued by the General Manager and explanations were called for and the same was submitted, but no domestic enquiry was conducted; that the General Manager without giving an opportunity and without conducting enquiry passed an order (1) dated 6.8.1993 stoppage of increment for 6 months without cumulative effect; (2) dated 27.8.1993 stoppage of increment for 3 m...
Sriram Educational Trust Rep. by Its Chairman Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ716
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. This Writ Appeal listed today for admission and we heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5.2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 22-07-2004 made in W.P. No. 2225 of 2000 by learned single of this Court K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant herein for Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in respect of G.O. Ms. No. 495 dated 16-09-1999 passed by the first respondent rejecting the demand of the appellant/Trust to entrust 4 acres of lands along with 12.25 acres of land comprised in Survey No. 141/2B, Perumalpattu Village, Thiruvallur District. 3. Larger extent of lands comprised in Survey No. 141/2B. The land to an extent of 4 acres in the said Survey No. 141/2B was originally assigned to one Chellappa, an Ex-service man by an Order of the Tahsild...
Raja Murali Advertising Consultancy, Partnership Firm, Rep. by Partner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad112; 2004(5)CTC679; (2004)4MLJ672
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appellant, advertising consultancy, has filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 20924 of 2000 challenging the proceedings of the second respondent herein namely, the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai dated 22.11.2000, where under Mr. Ethirajan/writ petitioner, was directed to remove two hoardings situated at Y.M.C.A., Nandanam having size of 100' X 25' on the ground that the appellant/writ petitioner failed to prove (i) that the said hoardings were in existence on or before 23.7.1998 and the petitioner filed application for regularisation of the same on or before 2.12.1998 to the Corporation of Chennai; (ii) that they obtained stay order from the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court; and (iii) that the respective hoardings had been erected either with the licence/ permission/lease, as the case may be, granted by the authorities concerned. The said writ petition was resisted by the second respondent/Corporation for the reasons that were stated in th...
The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Commissioner and Secretary In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad215; (2004)4MLJ699
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appellants are the respondents 2 to 4 in W.P . No. 14621 of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'respondents 2 to 4'), filed by the first respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the 'writ petitioner') to quash the order of the first respondent made in G.O.(D) No. 264, Industries (MMD2) Department, dated 23.9.1997, refusing to renew the mining license to the petitioner to quarry Bauxite for a further period of twenty years in their patta land of a extent of 10 acres situated in Survey No. 936/413/3 of Kotagiri Village, Kotagiri Taluk, the Nilgiris District.2. Under similar facts and circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 16.9.1999 made in W.A . No. 44 of 1995 directed the Government to consider the application for renewal, of course after imposing such conditions as may be necessary to subserve the interest of geology and ecology in the area, as the impugned patta lands are located in the hill area.3. Following the said judgment date...
The Superintending Engineer (Civil) Hydro Project, T.N.E.B., Vs. S. Si ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR945]; (2005)IILLJ1127Mad; (2005)1MLJ67
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') are the respondents in W.P. No. 17778 of 1993 filed by the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee') challenging the order dated 21.6.1993, whereunder the Board proposed to recover a sum of Rs. 26,628.30 towards the loss sustained by the Board, due to the neglect of work found to have been committed by the employee in a disciplinary action initiated against him pursuant to the charge memo dated 18.7.1989.2. Concededly, two charges were framed against the employee in the departmental enquiry, viz.,(i) that he committed a misconduct of neglect of work attracting Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Standing Order 19(ix) with respect to the workmen engaged in Clerical department of the Board, as he failed to verify the stock of explosives in the stores till 20.4.1989; and(ii) that he committed a misconduct of having stolen explosives, viz., (a) Superdyne - 600 Kgs; and (b) Electric Detonators - 4500 N...
The District Forest Officer, Sathyamangalam Division Vs. M. Irulappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC714; (2004)4MLJ638
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appellant is the respondent in the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as 'the Forest Department') filed by the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the writ petitioner'), challenging the power of the Forest Department to confiscate the vehicle of the writ petitioner under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Concededly, action was initiated against the writ petitioner for having attempted to hunt in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the same was compounded by the Forest Department themselves invoking the power conferred under Section 54 of the Act. However, the Forest Department did not release the vehicle used for the said contravention of the provisions of the Act, but confiscated the same by an order dated 1.2.2000, which is impugned in W.P. No. 8813 of 2000.3. According to the Forest Department, the vehicle, vessels, weapon, trap or tool which are used for committing an offence are ...
The Management of Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR443]; (2005)IILLJ312Mad; (2005)1MLJ656
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 18.9.2000 made in W.P. No. 11948 of 1993 allowing the writ petition in part filed by the second respondent/union, who have challenged the award dated 24.12.1991 passed by the first respondent/Labour Court.2.1. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. The writ petitioner/employees (hereinafter referred to 'employees') had raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No. 15 of 1988 challenging the punishment imposed on 53 employees by the respondent/Management (hereinafter referred to as 'Management') with regard to an illegal strike conducted by the employees' union on 17.4.1972 pursuant to a strike notice dated 14.4.1972. 2.2. In the award passed by the Labour Court, the strike was held illegal, as the same was made in violation of Sections 22(1)(b), 22(1)(d) and 23(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the punishment imposed on the 53 employees, namely, non ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »