Chennai Court February 2004 Judgments
J.S. Kamath Vs. Gift Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Chennai)43
2. The assessee and his brother, Mr. J.R. Kamath, jointly purchased an immovable property in plot No; 68 in Sriram Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., at Coimbatore. The assessee has also put up a construction along with his brother in the abovesaid land. On 22nd Oct., 1990, the assessee executed a deed of maintenance in favour of his daughter, Ms. S. Sharmila and thereby the assessee transferred his half share in the property along with the building to his daughter in lieu of her maintenance. The AO treated this transfer as a gift by the assessee in favour of his daughter and levied gift-tax. On appeal by the assessee, the first appellate authority confirmed the order of the AO. However, the first appellate authority found that the property was not valued by the AO as per Schedule II of the GT Act. Therefore, he modified the valuation and fixed the value at Rs, 1,30,940 instead of Rs. 3,00,000 adopted by the AO. The assessee filed the second appeal against this order of the fir...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Director, Esi Corporation Vs. Chemfab Alkalis Limited (Pu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC326; (2004)IILLJ577Mad
S.R. Singharavelu, J. 1. The substantial questions of law that arise for consideration is this appeal are as follows :'i. Whether the reliance of the lower Court on Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act as regards the statutory obligation of the employer to seek coverage can be sustained in law? ii. Whether the interpretation placed by the lower Court on Section 77-b of the said Act can be sustained in law ?; iii. Whether the finding of the lower Court as regards the assessment of the concerned authority can be sustained in law ? iv. Whether the finding of the lower Court as regards the notification applicable to the area in question can be sustained in law ?'2. The Regional Director, E.S.I.Corporation, Madras-34 has preferred this appeal as against the order dated 20.12.1995 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge (Employees' State Insurance Court), Pondicherry. 3. The respondent herein filed an application under the said Act to set aside the order dated 1...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Sundaram Vs. Ar.as. and P.V.P.V. Rep. by Its Managing Partner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad339; 2004(3)CTC342; (2004)2MLJ251
K. Govindarajan,J. 1. The plaintiff having failed in his attempt to get an order directing the respondents to furnish security to the extent of the suit claim of Rs. 70,30,000/-, failing which to pass an order of attachment before judgment of the immovable properties mentioned in the schedule to the Judge's summons, has filed the above Appeal.2. The plaintiff filed a suit in C.S.No. 477/2002 seeking a decree against the defendants on the basis of three promissory notes executed by the 3rd defendant/Shankar as a partner of the 1st defendant-firm. The 2nd defendant also executed guarantee letter for each promissory notes. As stated in the plaint, a cheque was issued in the name of the partnership firm by the plaintiff. Since the amount was not paid, the plaintiff filed the said suit. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed Application No. 2736/ 2002, seeking the relief as stated supra. In the Judge's summons, two properties were mentioned for the purpose of attachment. In the counter filed by ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Jegannathan Vs. the Assistant General Manager Sbi, Region Ii, Regio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ1075Mad
1. Aggrieved by an award dated 1.4.2002 made in I.D.No.105 of 2001 on the file of the third respondent, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal), confirming the order of dismissal of the petitioner from the post of clerk in State Bank of India, represented by the first and second respondents herein, with effect from 3.1.1998, the petitioner had preferred the above writ petition seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the award dated 01.04.2002 passed in I.D.No.105 of 2001 by the third respondent herein and quash the same and further directing the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner with entire backwages along with all other attendant benefits.2. In a nut shell, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in terms of paragraph 521 of the Shastri Award for certain alleged misconduct, which according to the respondents 1 and 2, are grave in nature; an enquiry was ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Thangarajan Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religion and Charitable ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC174
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Tanjore in C.M.A.No. 7/2000 confirming the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur in O.P.No. 128/95.2. The revision petitioner was working as the Executive Officer, between 21.3.1982 and 8.3.1993 at Arulmighu Brahmapureeswarar Temple, Punnaiyur. For the purpose of the temple festival on 28.3.1993, the Government had not provided fund in time, which they used to provide as Dastic Allowance, despite the request made by the Executive Officer of the temple. The Executive Officer and the governing body of the temple viz., Trustees, had decided to obtain a loan of Rs. 10,000 from the deposit amount made by the temple in the bank. In pursuance of the decision taken by the governing body of the temple, informing the authorities concerned and in anticipation of the approval, the Executive Officer/revision petitioner, obtained a loan of Rs. 10,000 on 23.3.1983 and celebrated ...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnasamy Naidu and ors. Vs. K.S. Sengoda Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad370
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. This second appeal is brought forth from the judgment of thelearned Principal District Judge, Salem, made in A.S. No. 67 of 1992 by the defendants 2 and 4 to 17 in a suit for declaration that the suit property belonged to the suit mentioned temples and for permanent in junction, whose defence was rejected by both the Courts below.2. The following facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties :The public temples, called Mariamman Temple at Sengodampalayam and Vinayagar Temple at Kailasapalayam, were constructed by the ancestors of the plaintiffs. One Seeranga Gounder as Dharmakartha, was administering the temples for 50 years. Thereafter, one Sengoda Gounder was administering the same for 10 years. The first plaintiff acted as Dharmakartha from 1966 till 1980. The suit property belonged to the said temples. They were registered in the names of the temples. The suit property was utilised for the purpose of conducting various poojas. The defendants 1 to 5, who b...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Ras theatre Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ511Mad
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner seeks to quash the award of the Labour Court, Satem, in I.D.No. 83 of 1992, dated May 21, 1996.2. The second respondent an employee with the writ-petitioner as an operator in the cinema theatre was dismissed from service on certain charges which include assault on a co-worker and abusive language against the co-worker. In the enquiry the petitioner was found guilty of the charges.3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised industrial disputes and after the failure report by the Conciliation Officer, the Labour Court took up the dispute and after consideration of the evidence, the Labour Court has held that the charges were not proved and consequently, the writ-petitioner management was directed to reinstate the petitioner. Hence the above writ petition by the management.4. Though I have heard the learned counsel for the management, on the merits of the charges and the proof of the charges against the petitioner, the management is entit...
Tag this Judgment!P. Zainulabideen Vs. Kmh Sahul Hameed @ Abu Abdulah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1937; 2004(2)CTC677
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C No.138 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Trichy, and to quash the same.2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was an Organiser of Tamizhaga Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK), a political party in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner is the author of many religious books on Islam, and he is delivering religious discourses on Islam and he is also writing in magazines. On 14.2.1998, a serial bomb blast took place in Coimbatore. The petitioner was enquired during investigation, and he made a statement to the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the statement was furnished to him. In fact, he did not make such statement to the police. When the petitioner came to know of this, he and other Office Bearers appointed a Committee to enquire and to submit a report. The Committee also submitted a report in which it was stated that such a statement was n...
Tag this Judgment!K. Periyanayagam Vs. J.K. Savithri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC50
ORDERS.K. Krishnan, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.No. 14 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai dated 31.7.2000 confirming the Order and decree passed in R.C.O.P.No.389 of 1985 on the file of the Additional District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Madurai Town, dated 10.12.1991.2. The tenant, who is the revision petitioner, being occupied a front room of Door Nos. 233, and 233-b, wherein the respondents, who are owners of the said door numbers are residing, for rent, to run Ayurvedic clinic, at Rs. 130 per moth, thereafter, the same was increased to Rs. 200 per month. The petitioner was not proper in paying the rent. On 11.5.1985 the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 400 and thereafter, he did not make any payment. On the date of filing the petition, he was of the balance of Rs. 2540. After the receipt of the notice dated 20.6.1985, he paid Rs. 300, however, he has to pay Rs. 2240. Since, the space for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. V. Sundararasu Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ557
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the third respondent pertaining to his order bearing R.C.No.8969/R1/2002, dated 12.6.2002 and to quash the same.2.1. The events leading to the filing of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Registrar in the second respondent/University on 7.12.2000 for period of three years from the date of assuming charge of the said post or till he attains the age of 58 years, whichever is earlier; and his appointment is governed by the Act, Statutes, Regulations and Rules of the second respondent/University.2.2. By proceedings dated 12.6.2002 of the third respondent, which is impugned in this writ petition, the petitioner was transferred from the post of Registrar of the second respondent/University to the post of Controller of Examinations and in consequence, the fourth respondent, who was holding the post of Controller of Examinations was posted as the Registr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »