Chennai Court December 2004 Judgments
S. Palani Samy Vs. the Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Khadi and V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC286; [2005(105)FLR872]
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. Mr. Divakaran, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondent.2. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of suspension dated 15-07-2004 passed by the respondent in his office proceedings Rc. No. 27473/E3(2)/2004-2 and quash the same.3. The petitioner was posted as Superintendent/ Village Industries Co-operative Officer in the office of the Assistant Director, Khadi and Village Industries Board, Tirupur from 29-08-2003; that the land to an extent of 02 acres comprised in T.S. No. 363/1 and 364/1 belong to the Tirupur Timber and Blacksmithy Workers Industries co-operative society, Tirupur; that one K.M. Chidambaram Pillai and Sons filed a suit O.S. No. 925 of 1985 before the Sub-court, Trichy against the society for recovery of amount of Rs. 3,32,068/-; that the suit was decreed exparte on 20-09-1989; that the plaintiff filed E.P. No. 59 of 2000 before the Su...
Tag this Judgment!D. Kumar Vs. V. Gayathri Devi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC599; [2005(105)FLR678]
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The applicant in W.C. No. 71 of 1994 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-I, Madras-6, against the dismissal of his petition for compensation, has filed this appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (herein referred to as 'the Act').2. The brief facts are as follows:The appellant herein filed a claim under Section 10(1) of the Act against proprietrix by name V. Gyathri Devi first respondent herein, the Secretary, Lotus Colony Flat Owners' Association-2nd respondent herein and Perumal Maistry-third respondent herein claiming compensation for the injuries said to have been sustained by him in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment on 19.5.1993. According to him, he was a mason and was employed through the 3rd respondent by 1st and 2nd respondents to do masonry and repair work at the Housing Board Ownership Flats situated at Lotus Colony, Nandanam, Madras-35. On 19.5.1993 at about 3.00 p.m., when the applicant an...
Tag this Judgment!D. Kumar Vs. V. Gayathri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: II(2006)ACC216
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The applicant in W.C. No. 71 of 1994 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-I, Madras-6, against the dismissal of his petition for compensation, has filed this appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (herein referred to as 'the Act').2. The brief facts are as follows:The appellant herein filed a claim under Section 10(1) of the Act against proprietrix by name V. Gyathri Devi first respondent herein, the Secretary, Lotus Colony Flat Owners' Association-2nd respondents herein and Perumal Maistry-third respondent herein claiming compensation for the injuries said to have been sustained by him in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment on 19th May, 1993. According to him, he was a mason and was employed through the 3rd respondent by 1st and 2nd respondents to do masonry and repair work at the Housing Board Ownership Flats situated at Lotus Colony, Nandanam, Madras-35. On 19th May, 1993 at about 3.00 p.m., when the a...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Balaji Traders, Rep. by Its Managing Partner, Sri Gadagottu Raghun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC267; (2005)2MLJ26
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in C.S.No. 1052 of 1990, who has laid the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,84,660.32, is the appellant.2. The brief facts leading to the dismissal of the suit arc as follows:(a) The plaintiff firm is carrying on business in cotton. It had insured its stock of cotton of all varieties with the first respondent/first defendant under two' policies, bearing numbers 051000/01/1/07078 for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000 and 051000/01/1/070795 for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 on 3.6.1986 and 10.6.1986 respectively. The properties were insured against fire, under which the first respondent/first defendant is entitled to compensate the damage, if any suffered by the plaintiff, by fire.(b) On 28.6.1986, at about 3.00 a.m., there was a fire in the godown of the plaintiff firm, where stocks were stored, which was put off by the fire brigade subsequently. In the meantime, the entire godown and stock were destroyed by the fire, which was inspected by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Madura Coats, Rep by Its Director, Sri Anil Dias Vs. the Deputy Commis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Mad)138; [2005]273ITR32(Mad)
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner seeks for a writ of declaration declaring Circular No. F. No. 200/79/2000-ITA.1, dated 23.1.2001 issued by the second respondent as invalid.2. Petitioner is a Public Limited Company mainly engaged in the manufacture and sale of sewing threads and industrial fabrics. For the previous year ended 31st March 1996, the petitioner filed return of income on 29.11.1996 admitting a loss of Rs. 26,47,02,780/-. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act on 13.5.1997. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 27.11.1997 calling upon on the petitioner to furnish various details for the purpose of completing the assessment. After the details were furnished, assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.3.1999.3. Subsequently, the first respondent had issued a notice on 22.3.2003 for reopening the completed assessment under section 148 of the Act. One of the grounds for reopening is the allowability...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. P. Sundaram a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR942]; (2005)ILLJ1065Mad; (2005)1MLJ247
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated February 2, 1998, dismissing the Writ Petition No. 19615 of 1997 filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated February 12, 1997 passed by the second respondent, refusing to approve the order of dismissal of the first respondent herein on the reason that the conditions contemplated under Proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act viz., (i) the order of dismissal should be accompanied with one month wages; and (ii) an application shall be made by the employer to the authority before which the proceedings are pending, for approval of the action taken by the employer, were not complied with.2. The order dated February 12, 1997 of the second respondent was challenged by the appellant herein in W.P.No. 19615 of 1997 on the ground that there were sufficient reasons for the delay in sending the petition to the competent authority for approval. However, the Industrial Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Palanisami Vs. R. Gomathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC585; (2005)1MLJ565
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The petitioner third party in R.E.A. No. 646/94 having failed in his attempt to set aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 72 r/w 90, C.P.C. concurrently, before the Courts below has preferred this C.R.P.2. The same petitioner third party, in R.E.A. No. 412 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, having failed in his attempt, concurrently before the Courts below, to declare the attachment dated 19.8.1993 on the petition mentioned property; is illegal, void, not binding on the petitioner, has preferred this C.M.S.A., challenging the orders of the Courts below.3. The first respondent in both the cases as plaintiff, has filed the suit O.S. No. 19/93 on the file of the Sub Court, Salem, for recovery of certain amount against the second respondent/defendant. The second respondent/ defendant remained ex parte, resulting a decree in O.S. No. 19/93 as prayed for. In pursuance of the decree obtained by the first respondent, she filed an execution petition a...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Additives Ltd. Vs. Indian Additives Employees' Union (Regd. No. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC1; (2005)ILLJ900Mad
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal is preferred against the interim order dated 5.10.2004 passed by the learned single judge in the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein. By the impugned order, the learned single judge has modified the order of interim stay and directed the listing of the writ petition for final hearing. Aggrieved, the second respondent in the writ petition has preferred this appeal. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is directed to be tagged along with the appeal for final hearing and disposal.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. It appears that the first respondent Union has filed the writ petition against the appellant, alleging violation of the provisions of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the I.D. Act') while altering the service conditions of its members. It is well-settled principle that when the dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the ...
Tag this Judgment!D. Ganesa Gurukkal and ors. Vs. Sri Dharbaranyeswaraswamy Devasthanam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC420; (2005)1MLJ370
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The Plaintiffs, before the Courts below, having filed the suit for certain reliefs, failed in their efforts concurrently and the result is the Second Appeal.2. The plaintiffs who are functioning as Archakas in the defendant/respondent Temple, have filed the suit for declaration, that they are entitled to half share in the fees levied by the Temple, for any form of worship, service, ritual ceremony rendered in the Institution for the benefit of the worshipers, after deducting the expenses, with the consequential relief of a mandatory injunction, directing the Management of the defendant, Temple to fix the share of the plaintiffs at 50% of the total fee levied, on the grounds that their predecessors interest have been officiating as hereditary 'Pooja Sthanikamadars' and 'Archakas' from time immemorial which was inherited by them, being the lineal descent, that the right of the plaintiffs as Archakas and Sthanikamadars of the renowned Temple is a hereditary rig...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Spance Vs. D.S. Kanagarajan and T.A. Dhayavathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC494; (2005)1MLJ540
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. The plaintiff, unable to get a decree for declaration of his title to the suit property and for a permanent injunction, concurrently, before the Courts below, has preferred this Second Appeal.2. The suit property originally belonged to one D.K. Srinivasa Chettiar, the father of the first defendant ancestrally. It seems, he had sold the suit property to the plaintiff's paternal uncle by name, N.A. Perianna Chettiar on 22.5.1960, for the valuable consideration stated therein. Perianna Chettiar and his brother, Subramania Chettiar's sons have partitioned their family properties in the year 1958 under a family arrangement. Thereafter, alone Perianna Chettiar had purchased the suit property, in which others have no interest. Since Perianna Chettiar had no male issues and the plaintiff was looking after the affairs of the family and helping Perianna Chettiar, Perianna Chettiar gave the suit property to the plaintiff, in or about the year 1970 and from the said date onw...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »