Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2004Mad411
P.K. Misra, J.1. The substantive prayer in the writ petition is to issue writ of certiorarifed mandamus for quashing the proceedings Rco.3/02/c2 dated 27.3.2003 and directing the first respondent to issue 'C' Form licence to the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, read with Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1957.2. Petitioner is the Managing Partner of Sri Manjunatha Talkis. An application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner before the first respondent for location of permanent cinema theatre. Initially, the first respondent issued No Objection Certificate for a period of three years for a semi-permanent theatre. However, subsequently NOC was granted for permanent theatre and the building plan had been accordingly approved. The petitioner, however, had not completed the building within the stipulated period. Subsequently on 4.1.1995, the petitioner filed a representation before the Collector indicating that substantial portion of the building has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(4)CTC355; (2004)4MLJ291
T.V. Masilamani, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred against the awards passed by the Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Court), Chengalpattu in L.A.O.P. Nos. 102 to 106 of 1990 dated 29.7.1993.2. The extent of land measuring 11.15 acres (4.51.5 hectares) in Kunnathur village, Chengapattu Taluk had been acquired for the purpose of providing residential staff quarters of Department of Atomic Energy, Kalpakkam at Chengalpattu Taluk under Schedule II of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 4(1) notification was issued on 22.6.1988 on that behalf. Though the land owners claimed Rs. 500/- per cent by way of compensation in respect of the acquired lands, after enquiry under award proceedings No. 1/90 dated 19.7.1990, the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar fixed the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 40/- per cent with 30% solatium and 12% on the market value for the period from 23.7.1988 to 19.7.1990. The total compensation amount awarded was Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)IIILLJ674Mad
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 14028 of 2002, wherein a direction was given to respondents 2 to 6 therein, including the appellants, to implement the award of the Industrial Tribunal passed in Complaint No. 17 of 1999.2. The workers concerned in this writ appeal, whose interest is represented by the union, were working in Macneill and Magor Ltd. The electrical division of the said company was separated and formed as a separate unit, naming as Kilburn Electricals Ltd., the first appellant herein. The Managing Director of the said company is Sri Srinivasan, the second appellant. Sri Srinivasan segregated Macneill and Magor Ltd., into the four different companies, to avail certain concessions and they are the first appellant, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents in this appeal. Some dispute had arisen regarding the transfer of electrical division of Macneill and Magor Limited to Kilburn Electricals Ltd....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)3MLJ401
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the third respondent dated 4-9-2002 in proceedings No.47/335/80/91-TBG dated 4-9-2002, wherein, the third respondent, while ordering reinstatement of the petitioner with effect from the date of joining of the service in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (in short 'ONGC') imposed certain conditions. The petitioner, therefore, seeks for setting aside the said order and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate him with continuity of service with full arrears of salary, allowances and all other attendant benefits including promotion as Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer and Deputy General Manager in the years 1994, 1997 and 2000 respectively with due seniority over his juniors.2. The petitioner joined the services of ONGC as Assistant Executive Engineer on 23-8-1980. He was promoted as Executive Engineer in the year 1985. He was subsequently promoted as Deputy Superintending Engineer in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)3MLJ23
P. Sathasivam,J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge dated 21.12.1998 made in W.P.No.8372 of 1991, quashing the impugned orders dated 28.04.1990 and 10.05.1991 and issuing direction to promote the writ petitioner - S. Shesachari as Assistant Registrar with effect from 28.04.1990, Anna University has filed the above writ appeal.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner - first respondent herein challenged the proceedings of the University dated 28.04.1990 and 10.05.1991, appointing the second and third respondents as Assistant Registrars respectively; after praying for quashing of those orders, as a consequential relief, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the University to promote him to the post of Assistant Registrar with effect from 28.04.1990. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that the impugned orders are in violation of the Special Service Rules for the administrative posts, which prescribe qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2005)194CTR(Mad)343; [2005]272ITR327(Mad)
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. The assessee is the absolute owner of the property bearing Door No. 15, Whites Road, Madras. It gifted a portion of the said land comprising of 5500 sq. ft. with the building thereon to one Shri. Rajasekar under a gift deed dated 7.2.1985. The said document was however registered long thereafter that was on 30.09.1987. The assessee filed the return for the assessment year 1988-89, admitting taxable gift of Rs. 2,70,000/-. The Assessing Officer referred the question of valuation of this gifted property to the Departmental Valuation Officer and on the basis of the report, he adopted the value of the gifted property at Rs. 10,77,240/-. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), contending that the gift was effected by a deed dated 7.2.1985 and that the donee was put in possession of the property on the very same day and as such, the value of the gifted property should be brought to tax in the assessment year 1985-86. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2004Mad512
D. Murugesan, J.1. By a common order made in W.A.Nos.1987 to 1993 of 2003, we have set aside the grant made in favour of the grantees, viz., the contesting respondents in W.A.Nos.1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1993 of 2003. We have dismissed W.A.No.1992 of 2003 challenging the grant in respect of the grantee, viz., the contesting respondent. The grantees, whose grants were set aside by our order, have filed Review Application Nos.43 to 48 of 2004. The appellant in W.A.No.1992 of 2003 has filed Review Application No.70 of 2004.2. The first respondent in W.A.Nos.1987 and 1990 of 2003 has filed Review Application Nos.43 and 46 of 2004 respectively. Mr. R. Natesan, learned counsel appearing for the review applicants would submit that certain periods taken by the appellants were not taken into consideration, while computing the period of 30 days. In the event, those periods are also computed, the revision petitions filed by the appellants before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal woul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)3MLJ171
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The landlord, who lost his case before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversing the order of eviction of the tenant from the petition non-residential premises made by the Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and for denial of title without bona fide.2. The revision petitioner/landlord as petitioner filed the Rent Control Original Petition stating that he is the owner of the petition shop in which the respondent is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.175/-. It is further stated that from February 1989 to May 1993, the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent. To the notice caused by the petitioner, the respondent replied that he is in possession of the petition shop as owner in part performance of the alleged agreement of sale and to which, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2004]271ITR286(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J. 1. Appellants are partnership concerns deriving income as dealer in timber and tiles. The dispute relates to assessment years 1986-87 to 1991-92. The appellants had initially filed return for the different assessment years showing certain income. Subsequently, in course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1991-92 along with notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Assessing Officer had issued questionnaire calling for certain details. Reply was filed on 2-3-1992. Thereafter the appellants filed revised returns for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1991-92 and paid tax accordingly. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax while accepting the income declared in the revised returns, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellants filed reply dated 27.4.1993 submitting that the additional income had been disclosed voluntarily to get benefit under Section 273A of the Act as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2005]126CompCas225(Mad); [2006]66SCL373(Mad)
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. A sum of Rs. 1,05,70,000/- in the form of Indian Currency was deposited by the petitioner in various instalments pursuant to the notice issued by the respondents under Section 33(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 20.7.1996. The last of such instalment was received by the Department on 2.1.1997. An order dated 7.1.1997 was communicated to the petitioner extending the time limit for retention of the documents/objects seized from the petitioner and in this order, the petitioner's name and the deposits made to the tune of Rs. 1,05,70,000/- is mentioned. A show cause notice under Section 51 of the Act was issued on 16.7.1997. These are the crucial dates for the purpose of this case. 2. On 17.7.1996, a team of officers of the Enforcement Directorate proceeded to the premises of M/s. Pyramid Enterprises, which resulted in seizure of Indian currency and other allegedly incriminating documents. The residential p...
Tag this Judgment!