Chennai Court March 2004 Judgments
S. Venkataraman Vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC486
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner, who was working as a Superintending Engineer in the respondent-Board, is facing criminal trial in Criminal Case No. 19 of 2001 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 119 read with Section 469 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in connection with the execution of work relating to combined water supply scheme to Doddampalayam and 116 other habitations in Sathiyamangalam Union in Erode District.2. That apart, the petitioner is also facing a disciplinary action initiated against him with respect to the following charges:'Charge: 1 - that he had in connivance with the field officers failed to exercise proper supercheck on the measurements taken by the officials; failed to verify the classification of soils in the reaches of the Distribution system already...
Tag this Judgment!Ravichandran K. Vs. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. Rep. by Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR486]; (2004)IIILLJ152Mad
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. By the proceedings dated December 4, 2000, the petitioner was removed from the services as driver in the respondent Corporation, as he was invalidated on medical grounds and found not suitable for the post of Heavy Passenger Vehicle Driver and he was relieved from duty with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the above writ petition seeking a writ of certiorarfied mandamus to call for the records ] in connection with order of discharge of the petitioner from service bearing Ref. Proc. No. 3211/P.P. Ni. 2/Ma.Po.Ka. 1/2000 dated December 4, 2000 and quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service in a suitable alternate job protecting his pay and service conditions and also pay him all the back wages from the date of reinstatement.2. The above writ petition was admitted by this Court on April 23, 2003.3. Placing reliance on Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Oppo...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishnan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC154
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the common award dated 27.4.2001 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Theni, has preferred the above appeals. Since all the appeals arise from a common award of Claims Tribunal, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment.2. The facts which are required for the disposal of the appeals are briefly stated hereunder:According to claimants, on 21.2.1999, when the lorry bearing registration No. TN 60-4705 belonging to one Dhanalakshmi and insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (appellant herein) driven by its driver by name Gunasekaran in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and regulations in Sivakalai-Srivaikundam Road from east to west and going near the Betmanagaram-Srivaikundam Road, the lorry driver lost his control, due to which the lorry capsized into the paddy field on the south side of the said road, as a result several persons who were travelling as loadmen and c...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannathan S. Vs. Commissioner, Tanjore Municipality and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ806Mad
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Contending that the petitioners were appointed by the first respondent/Municipality as contingent staff in the Thiruvalluvar Theatre at Tanjore, run by the first respondent/Municipality, and that they have completed 240 days of service in twelve calendar months, the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to regularize their services.2. Smt. G. Devi, learned counsel for the first respondent, placing reliance on the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, submits that the petitioners were appointed as contingent staff only for running the Thiruvallure Theatre at Tanjore and therefore, they are not entitled to seek regularisation of service as municipal servants.3. Sri M.S. Palaniswamy, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 substantiating the stand taken by the learned counsel for the first respondent, and placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in:(i) Ramakrishna Kama...
Tag this Judgment!Karaikal Municipality by the Commissioner Vs. Nabissa Ummal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR280(Madras); 2004(2)CTC334; (2004)2MLJ554
1. The above appeal is filed against the order dated 19.12.2000 in C.M.A.No.874 of 1998 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.2. We need not go into the merits of the case, in view of the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of the above appeal.3. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, second appeal is not maintainable, as barred under Section 39(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. To appreciate the said condition, it is beneficial to extract Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which reads as follows:' Section 39: Appealable orders. (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act and from none others to the court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the court passing the order: An order- (i) superseding an arbitration; (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case; (iii) modifying or correcting an award; (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbit...
Tag this Judgment!Travel Agents Association of India (Taai) Vs. Eastman Travel and Tours ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC36; 2004CriLJ2766
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of acquittal for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The impugned order reveals that the complainant was not present on a number of days; petitions under Section 256, Cr. P.C. were filed, and the case was adjourned. Even thereafter, for four consecutive hearings, i.e.: on 2-8-2000, 16-8-2000, 6-9-2000, and 20-9-2000, neither the complainant nor his counsel was present. The matter was adjourned to 2-8-2000 for arguments; on 2-8-2000 as well as on the subsequent dates of hearing on 16-8-2000, 6-9-2000 also there was no representation for the complainant. Finally, the matter was adjourned to 20-9-2000. Even, on that date, there was no representation for the appellant herein. Therefore, the accused was acquitted exercising power under Section 256(1), Cr. P.C.3. Aggrieved against the said order, the present appeal has been filed.4. The learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant submitted that there w...
Tag this Judgment!Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Chennai)427
1. The assessee, M/s Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Chennai, has filed this appeal for the asst yr 2002-03 against the order dt 23rd May, 2003, of the CIT(A)-III, Chennai, raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. The learned CIT erred in upholding the action of the AO by not adjusting the carry forward MAT credit before calculating interest under Sections 234B and 234C. 2. The learned CIT has failed to appreciate the fact that as per Sub-section (4) of Section 115JAA (which is reproduced as below), tax credit shall be allowed to be set off in a year when tax becomes payable on normal computation. 'The tax credit shall be allowed set off in a year when tax becomes payable on the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act other than Section 115J' 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the submission that the logic behind Section 115JAA(3) clearly established that the tax paid under Section 115JA and provided right of set off under Section 115JAA shall be treated as ...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Telecommunications and ors. Vs. K. Natrayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC241; (2004)3MLJ246
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the common order passed by the learned District Munsif, Karur dated 29.04.1999 made in I.A.No.121 and 166 of 1999, the General Manager, Telecommunications, Trichy and others have preferred the above revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The respondent herein - former Member of Parliament has filed a civil suit in O.S.No.107 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif, Karur, praying for declaration, declaring the action of the defendants in disconnecting the suit telephone connections as illegal, arbitrary and also prayed for decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the suit telephone connections. The plaintiff has also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting the suit telephone connections without giving any show cause notice. Pending disposal of the said suit, the petitioner / plaintiff filed I.A.No.121 of 1999, praying for mandatory injunction restraining the respo...
Tag this Judgment!T. Gunaseelan Vs. M. Thamilselvi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC729; (2004)2MLJ620
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Madurai Taluk dated 10.6.2002 made in I.A. No. 71 of 2002 in O.S. No.225 of 1999 in and by which the learned District Munsif, Madurai Taluk, dismissed the said petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking permission to amend the plaint as described in the said petition.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent.3. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it is stated that pending suit, the defendant had forcibly dispossessed the petitioner/plaintiff from the suit property. Aggrieved by the act of the respondent/defendant, the petitioner has filed I.A. No.136 of 2000 to put the petitioner in possession of the property by Court of law. The said petition was allowed on 4.12.2000. It is also his claim that as per order in I.A. No.136 of 2000, the petitioner was put into possession of the suit property. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalakshmi Traders Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Chennai)342
1. These are appeals of the assessee challenging the common order of the CIT(A) dt. 2nd Aug., 2002, as erroneous. Facts of the cases, issues involved, rival submissions thereon as well as the assessee herein besides the order impugned happening to be one and the same for these two assessment years, these proceedings are consolidated together for the sake of convenience by this common order.2.1 The learned counsel for the assessee submitted in common that : The assessee is a firm carrying on business in purchase and sale of iron and steel items and in exports on specific enquiries. The original assessments were completed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The main issue involved in the appeal before the CIT(A) was whether the assessments for the years in question were validly reopened and made under Section 143(3)/147 after taking due note of the preceding sequence of events on record. Both the appeals being identical except for difference in figures in some places the appeal for asst...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »