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.
Management of Konganapuram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ97Mad
D. Murugesan, J. 1. The writ-petitioner is the management of Konganapuram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank. The second respondent herein was appointed to the post of clerk by order, dated July 24, 1992, and she joined the duty on the same day. She was fixed in the basic pay of Rs. 650 per month. In G.O. (2D) No. 68 Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated November 12, 1993, the pay- scale, D.A., H.R.A, etc., of the employees of the Primary Agricultural Banks in Tamil Nadu were refixed. The said benefit was extended with effect from July 1, 1992. The said benefits were restricted only to such of those employees who joined the service on or before July 1, 1992.2. In terms of the said Government Order, a settlement, dated January 22, 1996, under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act was entered into between the petitioner and the employees. In terms of the settlement, pay of the clerks were refixed at Rs. 865-2105. Though the petitioner was appointed on Ju...
Shanmugam Vs. Mir Sultan Mohideen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC321; (2004)3MLJ167
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The appellant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Pondicherry is the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the order of eviction on the ground that the petition non-residential premises is bona fide required for demolition and reconstruction, by the learned Rent Controller as confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority.2. The first respondent herein filed the Rent Control Original Petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 that the petition non-residential premises is required bona fide for demolition and reconstruction stating that it was purchased by his grandfather on 28.3.1941 and on his death, the first respondent's father leased the building to the tenant N. Thiagarajan Pillai to use it as a godown for storing and sale of vegetables. On the death of his father, the tenant attorned his tenancy to the first respondent in 1970 and at the time o...
R. Lingaswami and V. Kanakaraj Vs. D. Kuber
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad397
M. Chockalingam, J.1. The defendants, whose defence plea in a suit based on promissory note was rejected by both the courts below, have brought forth this second appeal.2. The respondent plaintiff filed a suit, seeking for recovery of sum of Rs.25000/- along with interest, alleging that the defendants appellants executed Ex.A.1 promissory note on 17.2.1989 for the borrowal of Rs.25000/- and they agreed to repay the principal and interest at 12%. Despite demands, no repayment was made and the same compelled the plaintiff to file the suit for recovery of money.3. The suit was resisted by the defendants by stating that it was a false claim; that the first defendant was 33 years old and the second defendant was 26 years old; that the Door Nos.130, 131 and 132 in Big Bazaar, Dharapuram Town belonged to the plaintiff; that the defendants purchased the same on 14.2.1989 for a consideration of Rs.1,90,000/-; that there was an oral agreement preceding the sale on 20.1.1989; that on that day, in...
K. Rasaiyya Vs. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Secretary to the Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC187; (2004)3MLJ230
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. By G.O.Ms.No.217, Rural Development (C1) Department, dated 10.10.2003, the first respondent, exercising the powers conferred under Section 212(13) of the Tamil nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (for brevity 'the Act'), removed the petitioner from the post of the Chairman of the Panchayat Union Council, Vathiraiyurupu, Virudhunagar District, based on a no confidence motion held on 18.8.2003 at 3 p.m. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the notification issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.217, Rural Development (C1) Department, dated 10.10.2003 published in the Tamilnadu Gazette No.282, dated 10.10.2003 and quash the same, on the ground that the resolution dated 18.8.2003 passed by the second respondent, as well as the consequential notification issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.217, Rural Development (C1) Department, dated 10.10.2003, are violative of Section 212(13) of the Act, for want of ...
The Municipal Corporation of Coimbatore by Its Commissioner, (Coimbato ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC155; (2004)2MLJ639
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J,1. The appellant herein is the appellant in A.S.No. 342 of 1985 and respondent in A.S.588 of 1986 and defendant in the suit. The respondent herein is the respondent in A.S.No. 342 of 1985 and appellant in A.S.No. 588 of 1986 and the plaintiff in the suit.2. The suit is filed by the plaintiff viz., Kovindasamy Naidu Hospital, which is administered by K. Govidasamy Naidu Medical Trust (hereinafter called as the Trust), which is a public Charitable Trust constituted under the deed of Trust dated 27.3.1974. The Trust was found to serve the public by providing medical relief to the general public, by establishing Hospital, Surgical Homes, Nursing Homes etc. The plaintiff comes within the scope of definition of Section 86(e) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter after called as the Act), by construing it as Charitable Hospital and hence eligible for exemption from payment of the property tax. However, the said benefit was not extended to it by...
Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Represented by Its Managing Direct ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ712
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The second respondent who after having worked for a long number of years as a conductor with the employer - a Government Transport Corporation, which is registered under the Companies Act and is wholly owned by the Government became unfit to continue as a conductor as he could not stand for long hours on account of an accident which occurred during his employment. He was therefore given the post of helper from which post his services were later terminated.2. He challenged the order of termination before the Labour court but without success. The learned single Judge before whom the writ petition filed by him challenging the order of the Labour Court came up, having regard to all the facts of the case allowed the petition, set aside the award of the Labour Court, set aside the order discharging him which order had been passed on 27.01.1994, and directed the employer to reinstate the petitioner before him and give him light duty or such other work sedantary in natu...
K.R.S. Mani Vs. Anugraha Jewellers Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: [2005]126CompCas878(Mad); 2004(3)CTC348; [2004]52SCL488(Mad)
N. Kannadasan, J.1. Appellants are respondents in C.M.A. and the petitioners before the Company Law Board. The respondents 1 and 2 in L,P.A. No. 127 of 2000 and the respondents 10 and 11 in LPA 128 of 2000 are the appellants in the C.M.A. No. 1312 of 1998 and the respondents 1 and 2 before the Company Law Board. The respondents 10 and 11 in L.P.A. No. 127 of 2000 and respondents 1 and 2 in L.P.A. No. 128 of 2000 are the appellants in C.M.A. No. 1391 of 1998. The other respondents are the respondents in the above CMA and the respondents in the Company Petition.2. The appellants herein have filed a petition under Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956, before the Company Law Board, Chennai for prevention of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the Company, viz., M/s. Anugraha Jewellers Limited, Coimbatore. It is alleged that there has been irregularity in the allotment of shares to them that the funds of the company have been siphoned off in the form of loans...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: [2005]274ITR600(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. The following question has been referred to the High Court pursuant to the Order dated December 20, 2000, in T. C. P. No. 204 of 1999 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the provisions of Section 43(6) read with Explanations 2A and 3, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the written down value of the transferred assets of the amalgamating company should be worked out without reducing therefrom the unabsorbed depreciation relating to earlier years ?' 2. The question relates to the assessment year 1972-73. The assessee, M/s. Kothari Industrial Corporation Limited, is a private limited company. During the accounting year relating to the assessment year 1972-73, five public limited companies were amalgamated with the assessee-company. One such company, namely, M/s. Blue Mountain Estates Ltd., had incurred losses. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under sections 147(b) and 143(3) of the Income-...
Aslam K. and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ156Mad
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The ten petitioners in the above writ petition pray for a writ of certiorarfied mandamus to call for the records relating to the common award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated December 30, 1994, in the respective I.D. Numbers, to quash the same to the extent that it denies relief of reinstatement, and to direct the second respondent/union the reinstatement of the petitioners with full back-wages and other attendant benefits.2. The petitioners claim that they were employed as salesmen by the second respondent/union in the year 1984. Though they were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and worked for about five years, without any reason the management orally terminated services of the petitioners on August 16, 1989. There was no charge memo for any enquiry and hence, the petitioners contend that the termination of their services was in gross violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.3. The claim of the petitioners was resist...
V. Krishnamurthy, Proprietor, Meena Advertisers Vs. Airports Authority ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)CTLJ606(Mad); (2004)2MLJ314
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the Notice Inviting Tender for licensing indoor and outdoor advertisement sites at International and Domestic Airports, issued by the first respondent published in Hindu dated 30.01.2004 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to invite separate Tenders for each airport including Chennai, Madurai, Trichy, Coimbatore and Jaipur Airports.2. By consent of counsel for both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner is in the business of advertisement for the past 25 years and his annual turnover is Rs. 2 crores and he is an existing licencee for exhibiting advertisement signs in Jaipur, Madras and Mangalore Airports. The first respondent herein called for Tender separately for each airports for licensing of indoor and outdoor advertisements hitherto. The third respondent herein is a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »