Chennai Court March 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.
T. Kumaravelu Vs. the Chief Executive Officer/Collector of Cuddalore D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad377; (2004)2MLJ415
ORDER 1. In pursuance of Government directions, to set up a Committee to revise the existing accounting procedures of Panchayat and Panchayat Union level and to suggest the accounting procedure for District Panchayat level, the Director of Rural Development has constituted a committee to suggest revision of existing accounting procedure of Village panchayat, Panchayat Union and District Panchayats in the context of three tier system of rural local bodies formed after the recent Panchayat Elections. The committee, after detailed discussions and consultations with both officials and non-officials, has finalized its report on the 'Rationalisation of Village Panchayat Accounts' along with a set of thirty one Village Panchayat Forms, to be maintained at the Village Panchayat Forms, to be maintained at the Village Panchayat Office. 2. The Government after careful consideration have decided to accept the above said report of the Committee. The accounting procedure in Annexure 1, and the Villa...
Chudalayandi Pillai T. Vs. Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ209Mad; (2004)2MLJ278
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Chudalayandi Piliai, the petitioner herein was removed by the order dated April 9, 1983 by the Director of Town and Country Planning, the second respondent herein. He filed the appeal before the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department and the same was confirmed by the order dated September 3, 1985. Challenging the same, he. filed the petition before the Tribunal and the petition has been taken up by the Tribunal, which in turn held that out of three charges, two charges were proved and in view of the nature of the proved charges, modified the, punishment of removal which was disproportionate, by ordering reinstatement without any back wages. Having not satisfied with this, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court.2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Directorate of Town and Country Planning on October 14, 1970. He was promoted as Assistant on December 12, 1975. In the year 1981, he was sent o...
N. Ganesapandi Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC702
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The petitioner was working as a clerk in the second respondent Bank from 9.4.1990. On 9.11.1992 he applied to the Management to promote him as Secretary when a vacancy arises in that post. According to the petitioner, his representation was not considered and another person was appointed who did not possess the requisite qualification. Therefore, he raised an industrial dispute. The petitioner had laid his claim to be considered for promotion on the ground that he had worked in another Cooperative Society viz., Kannirasapuram Milk Producers Co-operative Society and therefore, that should be taken note of. In the document marked as Ex.M2 before the Labour Court which is the application of the petitioner, Xerox copy of the certificate dated 28.12.1988 was enclosed. This is given under the seal of the President of Kannirasapuram Milk Producers Cooperative Society one P. Subramanian. He had certified that from 1.6.1985 to 27.12.1987 the petitioner had worked as a...
C. Sabapathy Vs. Indian Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: [2005]125CompCas698(Mad)
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioner is the third judgment-debtor/third defendant. The respondent/the decree holder, Indian Bank, filed E. P. No. 80 of 1995 on April 12, 1995, to realise the amount as per decree dated June 23, 1984, against defendants Nos. 2, 5 and 7. Since the bank was unable to realise the amount, it has filed E. A. No. 458 of 1998 seeking to amend the execution petition by impleading the third defendant/third judgment-debtor, viz., the revision petitioner herein as respondent in the said execution petition. The executing court came to the conclusion that the decree holder filed the E. A. to implead the third judgment-debtor as respondent in time, and so allowed the said application on November 21, 2000. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner herein, who is the third judgment-debtor/third defendant has filed this revision petition.2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/third judgment-debtor has contended that inasmuch as the suit is ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aicam Engineering P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: [2005]274ITR521(Mad)
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The applicant/assessee is engaged in the business of erection of plants, testing and commissioning of boilers, etc. For the assessment year 1986-87, the Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim of investment allowance to the extent of Rs. 6,98,666 on the ground that the assessee had not manufactured an Article or thing, as per section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and he was involved only in erection of plants and commissioning of boilers. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the ground that the assessee's similar claim for the earlier two years was allowed, held that the assessee would be entitled for investment allowance according to law. The Department took up the matter before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which also held that the assessee is entitled to the investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. The reference before this court is at the instance of the Revenue seeking opinion on the following two questions :'1. Whe...
State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC105; [2005]142STC420(Mad)
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner is same in both the writ petitions, who seeks for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent in T.C.R. Nos. 10 of 2000 and 1886 of 1997 dated 6th September, 2000 and quash the same. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, the above writ petitions can be disposed of by this common order.2. Briefly it is the case of the petitioner that it is a Public Sector Undertaking and registered under the Companies Act and a canalising Agency, appointed by the Government of India for the import of newsprint required by the News Paper Publishers. The Consumers of the newsprint apply to the Registrar of Newspapers of India, under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for allocation of newsprint, specifying their requirements and the Registrar makes allocations of newsprint. On the basis of that the petitioner, who has a bulk licence, places the order for import of Russian ne...
Viswanathan and A. Andal Vs. Savarimouthurayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC81; (2004)4MLJ229
N. Kannadasan, J. 1. Defendants 3 and 4 who are the purchasers from Oubegaranadin (1st defendant), the father of the plaintiffs filed the above Appeals having aggrieved by the common judgment and decree of the learned single Judge in A.S. No. 1052/1986 and 355/1987 and Cross Objection in A.S. No. 1052/1986.2. The property originally belonged to Maria Soosai Mudaliar who is the father of the 1st defendant, Oubegaranadin. Under Ex.B2, the said Mariyasoosai Mudaliar donated 'A' schedule property in favour of his grandsons, namely, plaintiffs, reserving the life interest for the first defendant and Simon, his another son. On 23.10.1953, Mariasoosai Mudaliar died. Thereafter the 1st defendant and his brother Simon divided the properties by a partition deed dated 9.4.1959 marked as Ex.A4. Pursuant to Ex.A1 Parivarthanai deed, the entire 'B' schedule house property came to the 1st defendant. Thereafter under Ex.A5 dated 15.3.1971, a partition was effected between the 1st defendant and his wif...
Uma Maheswari Vs. Dr. V. Mathivanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad484
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the wife. This revision is directed against the dismissal of the C. M. A. No. 41 of 2000 as not maintainable by .the learned Principal District Judge. Nagapattinam as per the judgment dated 26-9-2000. ,2. The respondent herein is the husband of the revision petitioner and he filed H. M. 0. P. No. 11 of 1999 against his wife, viz., the revision petitioner herein to declare the marriage held between them as null and void under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The revision petitioner filed I. A. No. 148 of 1999 claiming interim maintenance as contemplated under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.3. The trial Court considering the case of either parties that since the respondent herein is working as lecturer in Annamalai University and since it is stated by the respondent herein that he is earning about Rs. 5.000/-. directed the respondent herein to pay interim maintenance to the revision petit...
Fidelity Industries Ltd. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: [2006]129CompCas561(Mad); 2006(1)CTC374
S. Ashok Kumar, J.1. These revisions have been filed against the order of the Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai, made in Crl. M. P. No. 90 of 2003 in C. C. No. 12 of 2003 and Crl. M. P. No. 84 of 2003 in C.C. No. 2 of 2003.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner herein is the fourth and first accused respectively in the prosecution filed by the respondent who has filed charge sheets for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in one case and under Section 120B read with Sections 409, 420, 467 and 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the other case against the petitioner-company and others. The prosecution case is that the other accused have entered into a criminal consp...
K. Manoharan, Chief Manager (Finance and Administration) Central Insti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ140
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. By consent of counsel for both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of transfer dated 31-12-2003 passed by the first respondent, transferring the petitioner from the post of Chief Manager (Finance & Administration) of Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology, (CIPET is a registered institute under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers) Corporate Office, Chennai to CIPET Centre, Amritsar as Chief Manager (Project).3. The case of the petitioner is that he has applied for the post of Deputy Director (P&A;), but the selection process could not be completed by the authority, who was holding additional charge of the post of Director General of CIPET for want of time. The person holding the office of the first respondent was appointed as Director General in October 2001, but he did not proceed to fill up the post of Deputy Director since he did not like the petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »