Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)3MLJ176; 2005(30)PTC385(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the appellant against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.A.Nos.553 and 554 of 2000 and Application Nos.2558 to 2560 of 2000 in C.S.No.397 of 2000 dated 14.8.2000. By the said common order, the learned Judge vacated the interim injunction already granted and dismissed O.A. Nos. 553 and 554 of 2000 and allowed the two applications filed by the respondents to vacate the interim injunction in Application Nos.2559 and 2560 of 2000. Learned Judge also allowed the application No.2558 of 2000 filed to revoke the leave granted to the appellant/plaintiff. Hence, there are three appeals filed against the order in O.A. Nos. 553 and 554 of 2000 and Application No.2558 of 2000.2. The appellant herein filed the suit on the file of this Court in C.S.No.397 of 2000. Along with the suit, two applications in O.A.Nos.553 and 554 of 2000 were filed for the relief of interim injunction restraining the respondents f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)3MLJ66
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The revision petitioner, unable to sustain the order of eviction passed against the respondent, under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, hereinafter called 'the Act', has filed this revision petition.2. The respondent, by name Thiru Manuneedhicholan was working as Deputy Director (Inspection), Office of the Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs at Chennai. On his request, when he was the Assistant Registrar, the quarters bearing door No.F-6 Type-IV, Bazullah Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017, was allotted to him, as per the order dated 4.3.1992. On 27.9.1996, the respondent was transferred out of Chennai and in view of the same, the license granted to the respondent, for the occupation of the premises was terminated, as per the rules, on 27.11.1996. Thereafter, on his representation, that his children are studying and he is entitled to retain the quarters, till the academic year, the respondent was permitted to retain th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2004Mad465
N.V. Balasubramanian,J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment of learned Single Judge rendered in A.S.No.44 of 1983 dated 17.3.1998. Learned Single Judge by the judgment allowed the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.5154 of 1974 on the file of City Civil Court, Chennai dated 15.7.1982. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the plaintiffs in the suit have preferred this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as shown in the plaint. 2. It would be convenient to refer to an earlier judicial proceeding in which the suit property [Door No.31, Sami Chetty Street, Komlaswarpet bearing O.S.No.148, R.S.No.1168, C.C.No.440 within the sub-registration district of West Madras and registration district of Madras, measuring an extent of about 1 ground 946 sq.ft.) was the subject matter of the suit. We also refer to the genealogy of one Chidambara Naicker as parties in the present suit as well as in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(3)CTC168
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal in I.A. No. 333 of 2003 in O.S. No. 125 of 2003 dated 30.6.2003.2. Learned Subordinate Judge, by the order which is under challenge, has granted the interim injunction till the disposal of the suit restraining the appellants in the appeal, who are the defendants in the suit, their men and agents from interfering with the management and administration of the first plaintiff trust and its institutions by virtue of the purported deed of amendment registered under Document No. 532/2002 on the file of Sub Registrar, Komarapalayam dated 4.9.2002. The appellants herein are the defendants in the suit and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit and the parties are hereinafter referred to as shown in the plaint.3. The first plaintiff is a charitable Trust and the second plaintiff is its life time trustee and Managing Trustee-cum-Chairman. It is convenient to refe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2004(102)FLR972]; (2004)IIILLJ505Mad; (2004)3MLJ101
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai, hereinafter called 'the Tribunal', in refusing to take the complaint on file under Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter called the Act and returning the same, as not maintainable. 2. The complainant/revision petitioner, Mr. P.R. Sampath Giri Vasan, joined in the service of the bank on 4.5.1992. It appears, without regularising the service of the petitioner and others, the respondent bank terminated the service of the petitioner and others. Therefore, on the representation of the General Secretary, Bank of India Staff Union, a reference was made by the Government, which was taken as I.D. No. 6/2001, wherein the adjudication relates to:'Whether the action of the Bank of India is justified in not regularizing and instead, terminating the services of 1. Sri. R. Venkatesan, 2. Sri G. Mohan, 3. Sri K. Sampathkumar, 4. Sri P.R. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(3)CTC270; (2004)2MLJ708
N. Kannadasan, J.1. The above writ appeals are filed as against the common order dated 31.01.2003 in Writ Petition Nos.382 to 394 of 2001, wherein the learned Judge has allowed the writ petitions. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions are set out hereunder:-The writ petitioners and their ancestors were in occupation of small pieces of land in Kadathur Village, Pappi Reddi Patti Taluk, Dharmapuri District for more than 40 years and the said lands are classified as 'Natham' lands or otherwise called as 'Grama Natham' lands. The petitioners have submitted necessary applications for issuance of pattas and the Tahsildar, Natham Scheme, Harur Taluk, conducted an enquiry and recommended the names of the petitioners for the grant of pattas. The then District Collector, Dharmapuri District has passed an order granting pattas as early as in the year 1992 and necessary entries were also carried out in the revenue records. However, subsequently, the authorities intended to evict...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2005Mad61; 2004(3)CTC489; (2004)3MLJ56
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This second appeal has been brought forth from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, made in A.S.No.53/92, wherein the judgment of the trial Court dismissing a suit for recovery of possession, lease amount and mesne profits was reversed.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for the said reliefs with the following averments in the plaint:The defendant took on lease the building and the site door No.1A (Now 1-B) in R.S.No.260, Natham. He executed a registered rent deed in favour of the plaintiff's father Sundaresam Pillai on 1.4.1978. The lease was for a period of three years from 1.4.1978 to 31.3.1981. The monthly rental was Rs.50/-. Sundaresam Pillai executed a Will on 18.10.1975, bequeathing the property in favour of the plaintiff. Sundaresam Pillai died. The defendant was never regular in the payment of rental. The defendant was in arrears from 1.4.1980. In view of the wilful default, the plaintiff issued a notice on 26.12.1980 to the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)192CTR(Mad)371; [2004]270ITR97(Mad); (2004)3MLJ499
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The assessee is an individual and owned a house-site, measuring 4012 sq. ft. in S. No.B-35, Thillai Nagar, Trichy. In 1981, he agreed to sell the said land for a consideration of Rs.55,000/- to Iyyappa Family Trust (Trust created by the assessee's father-in-law for the benefit of assessee's two children). In fact, according to him, even in 1978, the property was delivered to the Trust. The Trust passed a Resolution on 31.3.1984, resolving to deliver the machinery and furniture belonging to it at book value to the assessee and the same is to be adjusted against the sale consideration of the said plot. The assessee's claim is that the sale consideration was received on 31.3.1984 itself by way of book adjustment. On 10.04.1984, another agreement was entered into between the assessee and the Trust recording payment of full consideration and agreeing that the assessee would effect registration of the sale deed whenever required by the Trust and at any rate bef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2004]137STC590(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. Petitioner is a Transport Corporation. These writ petitions are directed against the revisional order in TCR.Nos.1486 to 1491 of 1997 dated 29.6.2000 decided by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal relating to assessment years 1980-81 to 1984-85 and 1986-87. First 4 years relate to reassessments under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and the last one relates to original assessment.2. It was contended by the petitioner that it was not a 'dealer' and at any rate for the sales of discarded parts or old used buses, no tax should have been levied as such sales constituted 'second sales'. 3. The main question to be decided is whether the petitioner is a 'dealer' ?4. It is necessary to notice the relevant provisions as they stood in the relevant time.As per Section 2(g) 'dealer' means any person who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods, directly or otherwise, whether for cash, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(3)CTC199; (2004)3MLJ29
ORDERS.K. Krishnan, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court, the appellants under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent have come forward with this appeal.2. The factual background of this appeal, in a nutshell, is as follows:Defendants in O.S.No.1 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengleput, are the appellants. Plaintiff/respondent filed a said suit for partition of the suit properties into two equal shares and for allotment of one half share on the ground that he is the only son of the first defendant. After partition in the year 1975, the first defendant wanted to marry again and since the same was disputed by the plaintiff as well as his mother Dhanalakshmi, they have been living separately. Taking advantage of the same, the first defendant's brothers and their sons were attempting to sell the suit properties belonged to the first defendant and therefore, the plaintiff urged the first defendant for partition of the suit properties. On 13.1...
Tag this Judgment!