Chennai Court February 2004 Judgments
A.N. Srinivasaka Nadar and Sons Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Owning Southe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ593
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The applicant in O.A.I.No.245/1993 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras Bench is the appellant in the above appeal. The applicant filed an application under Section 13(1)(a)(i) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 claiming compensation of Rs.2,095/= from the respondent-Southern Railways. It is the case of the petitioner that 141 bags of gram were sent from Bina to Royapuram under railway risk under the railway receipt, Ex.B1. On arrival of the goods at the destination, out of 141 bags, only 138 bags were delivered, resulting in short delivery of three bags, in respect of which the respondent, the destination railway authorities issued Gate Pass Ex.A1 stating on its reverse that 'unloaded and delivered 138 bags gram only' and a further endorsement that 'one bag of gunny torn and loose RF 71 kgs against 100 kgs of sound one'. The petitioner made a claim for short delivery of three bags and shortage of 29 kgs under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 198...
Tag this Judgment!K. Subramanian Vs. S. Balashanmugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC17
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in OS.No. 8/1998, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. He had already been examined as RW.1 in IA. No. 295/2003 and his evidence was closed. But, however, he filed an application to recall him as RW.1 for further examination and the said petition came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this civil revision petition.Heard the learned Advocate for the revision petitioner.2. None represents the respondent. In fact, the matter came up for hearing on 12.2.2004 and on that day also, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. The respondent was also called absent and set exparte and it was ordered to be posted today. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. 3. The suit has been filed by one Sami Subramaniam Chetty and subsequent to the filing of the suit, he died on 11.1.1999 and a petition has been filed by S.Balashanmugam, ...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Rane Brake Linings Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC515; [2004(102)FLR491]; (2004)IIILLJ314Mad; (2004)3MLJ13
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not ready. Heard the learned senior counsel for the second respondent.2.1. Aggrieved by an order of termination dated 22.11.1995, the second respondent has made a complaint under Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in Complaint No.1 of 1996 before the first respondent-Tribunal alleging that the impugned order of termination is in violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act.2.2 By G.O.(D) No.97 Labour and Employment Department dated 27.1.1992, the Government by exercising the powers conferred under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act, referred certain industrial disputes that arose between the workman and management of Rane Brake Linings Limited, Madras, for adjudication, which includes a dispute, 'whether the demand for payment of wages, allowances and bonus to the following workmen as paid to other permanent workmen from the date of their first workman is justified and to what relief ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Pistons Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Mad)282
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The assessee had filed his return showing an income of Rs. 16,33,760 and the same was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act and an intimation, accepting the income returned, was sent by the Revenue. Thereafter, the said intimation was rectified by the AO by adding a sum of Rs. 5,93,514 shown as provision for bad and doubtful debts, charged in the P&L; a/c, while arriving at the taxable income, on the basis that the same was not noticed while sending the intimation under Section 143(1)(a), after giving opportunity to the assessee. The CIT(A)-V. Madras, directed the AO to delete the said addition of Rs. 5,93,514. The Department, being aggrieved by the said order, has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, Chennai, which allowed the appeal.2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent.3. The following questions of law have been framed for consideration.'(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarnath Brijlal Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Owning Southern Railwa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ462
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Applicant in O.A.I/1091/92 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras Bench is the appellant in the above appeal. For convenience, we shall refer the case of the parties as arrayed before the Claims Tribunal. The applicant purchased and received a consignment of 140 bags of Gram from Baran to Madurai through the respondent-Southern Railway under Invoice No. 179 dated 5-2-92, RR No. 520549. According to him, at the time of taking delivery of the consignment at the destination station i.e., Madurai, all the bags were damaged by insects and weevil action, contents found with holes and powder pouring out from the holes, black insects flying. The Railway officials gave open delivery of all the bags and assessed the damages at 50 per cent i.e., 13,860 kgs and issued a joint survey report on 30-5-92. The value of the damage is Rs.49,342/-. According to the applicant, the damage to the consignment was only due to the gross negligence and misconduct on the part of the R...
Tag this Judgment!Niit Limited Vs. Ashish Deb and Excel Advanced Systems Pvt. Ltd. Rep., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR133(Madras); (2004)2MLJ134
K. Govindarajan, J. 1. The above Appeal is filed against the order dated 20.3.1997, passed by the learned single Judge in rejecting the Application filed in A. No. 3758/1996.2. The respondents filed a suit in C.S.No.1007/1994 on the file of this Court to declare that the licence agreement dated 25.4.1991, as amended, is unenforceable, illegal, invalid and void, and to direct the defendant to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 10,92,710/- towards the losses sustained by the plaintiff on account of the constructive fraud played by the defendant through illegal agreements and means and also for a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 4,40,000/- towards compensatory damages suffered by the plaintiffs on account of the tortious acts committed by the defendant. Pending Appeal, the appellant/defendant filed Application No.3758/1996 under Sec. 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter called 'the Act', to stay further proceedings of the suit in C.S.No.1007/1994 and to refer a dispute f...
Tag this Judgment!P. Thangavelu Vs. Mangayarkarasi, Represented by Her Power of Attorney ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ369
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioner is the cultivating tenant and the revision petition is filed challenging the correctness of the order of the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Cuddalore dated 2.12.1999. 2. The respondent herein through her power of attorney agent T.Sivachockalingam filed petition under Section 3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, claiming that the revision petitioner as cultivating tenant failed to pay rent for the faslis 1403 to 1405 and that the revision petitioner is to be evicted from the lands mentioned hereunder cultivated by him and owned by the respondent herein:- Taluk village Survey No. Extent Kattukannarkoil Oplanchamedu R.S.2/4 1.18 Cents WetKattukannarkoil Oplanchamedu R.S.10/2 0.78 Cents WetKattukannarkoil Oplanchamedu R.S.10/6 0.06 Cents WetKattukannarkoil Oplanchamedu R.S.47/1b 0.89 Cents WetKattukannarkoil Oplanchamedu Total 2.91 Cents Wet The petition was taken on file on 2.9.1996 which...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ramasamy Naidu Vidyalayam/The Educational Agency, Owning Sri Ramas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ438
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the third respondent dated 31.1.2002 made in I.A.Nos.1217 and 1218 of 2001 in C.M.A.No.29 of 2001, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records of the third respondent pertaining to the order dated 31.1.2002 made in I.A.Nos.1217 and 1218 of 2001 in C.M.A.No.29 of 2001, to quash the same and to consequently direct the third respondent to proceed with the appeal without insisting on the deposit sums under Section 44(4) of the Tamilnadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (for brevity 'the Act').2. In brief, the order dated 31.1.2001 of the petitioner/Management dismissing the first respondent was set aside by the second respondent, by order dated 12.11.2001, for want of prior approval of the competent authority as contemplated under Section 22(1) of the Act. Challenging the order of the second respondent dated 12.11.2001, the petitioner had p...
Tag this Judgment!Bishop Diocesan Office, Kanyakumari Diocese Vs. A. Johnson and Two ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC274; (2004)2MLJ280
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Johnson, the First Respondent herein filed the suit seeking declaration that the resolution dated 23.12.1996 removing him from the membership of C.S.I. Church, Chengode, is illegal and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants/appellant and respondents 2 and 3 herein from taking any action against him on the basis of the said resolution.2. After trial, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, the first respondent herein. Even in the appeal filed by the defendants 1 and 2, the said judgment and decree of the trial Court were confirmed. Hence, the second appeal.3. According to the plaintiff, the first respondent herein, he is one of the members of the Church, viz., Chenkodi Pastorate Church within the Kanniyakumari C.S.I. Diocese. The plaintiff was appointed as Honourary Manager of the Diocesan Book Depot on 8.8.1988. The first defendant Bishop is the ex-officio member of the Book Depot. Since the plaintiff supported the Secretary of t...
Tag this Judgment!G.M. Kandasamy and Two ors. Vs. Palaniammal (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC496
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The above Appeals arise out of the suit filed in O.S.Nos. 1290/1979, 340/1980 and 341/1980. 2. O.S.No. 1290/1979 filed by the plaintiffs 1 to 7, namely, Easwaramoorthy, Parvathy, Kamalaveni, Ganapathi Gounder, Kandaswamy, Mylswami and Chellammal @ Selvarathinam, against one Muruga Gounder, Rajarathinam and Jothimani seeking for partition of the suit properties described in item No. 1 and for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant-Muruga Gounder from using or otherwise diverting the water in the well in item No. 1 of the property so as to irrigate item No. 2 of the property and for a mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to remove the underground pipes laid near the well in item No. 1 of the property within a time to be fixed by the Court, failing compliance by the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs have to be permitted jointly or severally to remove the underground pipes at the cost of the 1st defendant.3. Item No. 1 of the property is descr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »