Chennai Court February 2004 Judgments
Janaki Ammal, Vs. Saminathan (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ14
ORDERT.V. Masilamani, J. 1. This revision petition is filed against the fair and final order passed by the Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam) in R.C.A.No.8 of 1991 dated 18.9.1995.2. The revision petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased landlord Manicka Nadar, who initiated the proceedings before the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Kumbakonam for eviction of the 1st respondent/tenant (since deceased) from the demised premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for running the dhal business run by his wife, the 1st petitioner herein in a rented premises belonging to Sri Rajagopalasamy Temple at Kumbakonam. Having analysed the evidence adduced on either side and upon hearing the arguments of both the counsel, the learned Rent Controller passed an order of eviction holding that the requirement of the petition premises by the landlord for own occupation is bona fide. The 1st respondent/tenant (since deceased) preferred the appeal bef...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank Vs. the Presiding Officer, I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ623Mad
D. Murugesan, J.1. The All India Indian Overseas Bank Employees Union raised an Industrial Dispute in as to the service conditions of Jewel Appraisers working in Indian Overseas Bank. The Central Government by order dated 19.2.1990, referred the said dispute to the Tribunal for the following adjudication by the tribunal:-'Whether the demand of All India Overseas Bank Employees Union to treat the jewel appraisers engaged by their bank as part time workmen of the bank is justified? If so, to what relief if any are they entitled?2. The said dispute was raised basically on the following averments: The appellant bank employed about 767 jewel appraisers mainly in the rural branches in the State of Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and few branches of the Bank in Bihar and Orissa States. The appellant bank advances agricultural jewel loans to its constituent and to few members of the staff. These jewel appraisers are employed for particular branches of the appellant b...
Tag this Judgment!T. Vellaiyan Vs. the Registrar, State Human Rights Commission,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad80
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Admittedly, the petitioner and the second respondent are brothers and they divided their property under the partition deed dated 22.7.1998.2.1. The second respondent, claiming a right in the electric service connection enjoyed by the petitioner herein under S.C.No.8 in the bore well situated in Survey No.21/4, Arinatham Village, Ulundurpet Taluk, within the jurisdiction of the third respondent herein, has preferred a petition before the first respondent/State Human Rights Commission and the same was registered as SHRC Case No.4974/2001/KSJ.2.2. Pending the above petition, the second respondent also sought for an interim direction for transfer of the electricity service connection, namely S.C.No.8 from the name of the writ petitioner to the name of the second respondent herein. 2.3. The first respondent/Commission, by order dated 4.2.2002, as modified by order dated 20.2.2002, granted interim direction as sought for by the second respondent. Hence, the petition...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. Annavasal Panchayat Union, Rep. by Its Chairma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC347; (2004)3MLJ22
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner prays for a Mandamus to forbear the respondents, their men and agents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of land in S.No. 62/2 measuring an extent of 0.07.0 Hectares in Narthamalai Village, Kulathur Taluk.2. The following facts are sufficient for disposal of the Writ Petition:A total extent of 0.03.0 Hectares of land in Survey No. 62/4 was owned by the petitioner and 0.07.0 Hectares of land in Survey No. 62/2 was owned by the deceased father of the petitioner. The site is stated to be acquired for construction of Kalyana Mandapam for Arulmighu Muthumariamman Temple in the said village. According to the petitioner, the said land has not been utilized by the respondents and hence, he has prayed for the above relief.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land was not being utilized for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired. Therefore, by Order dated 28.1.2004, this Court direct...
Tag this Judgment!Karupasamy and anr. Vs. State by Superintendent, Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2935; 2004(2)CTC507; 2004(94)ECC306
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This is an appeal filed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 21 and 28 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 135A of the Customs Act.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:On 24.7.1992, on the basis of an information received by P.W.1, he made a search at Melmarudhur; that during such search, the contraband of unit was seized from the accused; that the entire operation was done on the previous intimation given by the authorities concerned; that the contraband was said to have been seized from the haystack of one Ekali, who is the father of A1; that the contraband contained 81/2 kgs. of brown sugar; that the same was seized; that a case was registered and investigation was taken up; that A1 and A2 were arrested; that when examined, A1 gave a confession stating that he has concealed the contraband in the haystack, which was given to him by A...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Coimbatore District Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Sto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ595Mad
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner/the management of the Coimbatore District Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd., seeks to quash the award of the first respondent/Labour Court in I.D. No. 403 of 1994. By the said award, the second respondent was directed to be reinstated in service without back-wages.2. The second respondent was working in the Coffee Grinding Section and he was suspended for various irregularities of misappropriation of the society's funds to the tune of Rs. 1,05,846.75.3. The following charges were framed against the second respondent:'(1) that, he Sri R. Jaganathan, clerk has joined together with G.V. Rangarajan and V.M. Natarajan and misappropriated a total sum of Rs. 1,06,104.33 being the value of Rs. 15,66,576 numbers of 100 gram BGP printed paper covers showing that as purchased without having actually made any purchase at all.(2) that, he has not maintained any stock register for BGP paper bags and this had enabled him (R. ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Majeed Vs. Pappa @ Madurambal and Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad457
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree rendered in a suit filed for specific performance which was dismissed and the plaintiff who lost his case before the trial Court is the appellant herein.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that on 9.7.1983 the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale (Ex.A-1) with the first defendant, who is the first respondent herein, for the purchase of suit property for a total consideration of Rs. 66,500/- and on the date of agreement, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards advance of the sale consideration. Under the terms of the agreement, the deed of sale has to be executed within a period of 30 days. On 16.7.1983 the plaintiff has paid a further advance amount of Rs. 5,000/- and it is his case that on the same date, namely, 16.7.1983, the period of agreement was extended for a further period of two months. The plaintiff has stated that after 16.7.1983 he requested t...
Tag this Judgment!The Madurai Manager Old Motor Spare Parts Dealers' Association, rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC759
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The matter is posted for being mentioned at the request of the learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation and the learned Government Advocate for reporting compliance of the directions of this Courts dated 2.2.2005 made in the above writ petition.2. It is reported by the learned counsel for respondent/Corporation as well as the learned Government Pleader that the respondent/Corporation have taken all effective steps, discharging public duty, to remove the encroachments on public pathways, public streets, public roads and in all other places, as directed in the order dated 2.2.2005.3. We record our appreciation for all the efforts taken by the authorities of the respondent/Corporation as well as other authorities, such as Revenue and Police Department, who have assisted the Corporation in complying the directions of this Courts dated 2.2.2005.4. It is also brought to our notice that the respondent-Corporation as well as the Revenue and Police Departments, a...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Raya R. Govindarajan, Prop. Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: (2007)288ITR150(Chennai)
1. This appeal of the assessee relates to the block assessment year 1991-92 to 2001-02. The only issue arises for consideration is whether there can be a levy of surcharge over and above the rate of tax prescribed under Section 113 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Shri Sridhar, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a search in the assessee's premises on 8.2.2001. The assessment proceeding was completed for the block assessment year 1991-92 to 2001-02 under Section 158BC on 27.2.2003 determining the total undisclosed income at Rs. 22,31,200/-. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) levied income tax on the above determined undisclosed income at 60%. Apart from this, the A.O. also levied 17% as surcharge payable over and above the 60% tax. The assessee is now challenging only the levy of surcharge over and above the Income tax.3. Shri Sridhar, the learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that Section 113 of the I.T. Act provides rate of tax at 60% in respect of the...
Tag this Judgment!K. Dhanalakshmi Vs. State By: Inspector of Factories
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3282
1. Appellant is the Accused in C.C.No.10 of 1996 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram. By the judgment dated 30.12.1996, Accused was convicted under Sec. 6 and Sec. 92 of Factories Act, 1948 r/w Rule 3 of 1950, Sec. 6(1) and Sec. 92 of Factories Act, 1948 r/w Rule 4 of 1950 and Sec. 7(1) and Sec. 92 of Factories Act, 1948 r/w Rule 12 of 1950 and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- on each count; total fine amount of Rs.15,000/-.2. The Respondent / Complainant is the Factories Inspector, Villupuram. The Appellant / Accused - Dhanalakshmi is the owner and the occupier of Sri Siva Blue Metals, where stone crushing work is being carried on. On 20.06.1996 - 3.30 p.m., Factories Inspector, Villupuram inspected Sri Siva Blue Metals. At that time, he had noted six men and five women working. The stone crushing work was being done, installing the machinery of 40 H.P. At the time of inspection, Factories Inspector noted the following violations:-Sec. 7(1) r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »