Chennai Court April 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.
K.V. Purushothma Naidu Vs. the District Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC261
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. Writ petitioner challenges the acquisition proceedings on several grounds:(1) The acquisition has been based on satisfaction of the Government and not the Collector.(2) Before issuing Form III notice under Section 4(1), it should be notified in the District Gazette, but in this case, it has not been done. The notice in Form III has been issued and signed by the Special , Tahsildar on 4.3.1996. Form III as printed shows that it should indicate the date on which the notification under Section 4(1) had been published in the District Gazette. Whereas, in the instant case, these portions are left blank and indeed, it could not be otherwise because the publication was effected only on 7.3.1996.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the notice under Rule 3(ii) is not in conformity with Section 4(1). What Section 4(1) demands or requires is the satisfaction of the Collector. Whereas, there is nothing in the notice issued under Section 4(1) which ind...
T. Meer Ismail Ali Vs. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Through Its C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC120; (2004)4MLJ238
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings of the respondent Board dated 18.07.2000 and 14.12.2000, in and by which the respondent rejected the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on the footing that his application was belated in point of time and in the light of Permanent B.P.Ms. (FB) No.46, Full Board dated 13.10.1995, the application should have been filed within three years from the date of the death of the father. 2. The petitioner's father was employed in the Electricity Board as Accounting Supervisor in the Aruppukkottai Revenue Unit of Kamarajar Electricity Distribution Circle, now known as Virudhunagar Distribution Circle. He met with a sudden death on 13.04.1993 due to cardiac arrest while in service, leaving behind his wife, three daughters and the petitioner. When the petitioner made an application earlier for compassionate appointment on 05.08.1997, the same was rejected by the respondent-Board stating that he had no...
K.N. Vijayalakshmi Vs. R.S. Sivakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad76
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. Tr.CMP.No.16403 of 2003 has been filed by the wife to withdraw HMOP.No.173 of 2003, from the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore and transfer the same to the I Additional Family Court at Chennai. 2. Tr.CMP.No.19040 of 2003 has been filed by the husband to withdraw MC.No.293 of 2003 from the file of the I Additional Family Court, Chennai, to try along with HMOP.No.173 of 2003, pending on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore. 3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be arrayed as they are arrayed in Tr.CMP.No.16403 of 2003. The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, has stated that she was married to the respondent on 14.05.2000, according to Hindu Rites and Customs. The petitioner stated that she was ill-treated and subjected to physical and mental cruelty and she also came to know that the respondent is living in adultery with another woman. The petitioner's effort to separate them ended in vain and the respondent sta...
Srinath Prasad Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3635
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This is the second petition for suspension of execution of sentence pending appeal. Earlier petition in Cri. M.P. No. 312 of 2004 was dismissed on 6-2-2004. The petitioner/A1 along with his parents were charged for offences under Sections 498-A and 308, I.P.C. The trial Court by Judgment dated 19-1-2004, acquitted A2 and A3 of all the charges but found A1 guilty of both the charges. A1 was sentenced to 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs for the offence under Section 498-A.2. When the appellant filed a petition for suspension of sentence earlier, P.W. 1 the father-in-law of the appellant filed an intervening petition in Cri. M.P. No. 505 of 2004. Order was passed after hearing both the appellant and the intervener. Even in this petition, the intervener wants to intervene on the strength of the earlier petition. No fresh petition filed by the intervener.3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the intervener has no right to inter...
Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: [2005]274ITR452(Mad)
A.S. Venkatachalamorthy, J.1. The tax case appeals have been filed against the common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. Nos. 1189 and 1190 of 1992, pertaining to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89.2. The appellant, viz., the Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, Padalam, is engaged in the business of manufacture of sugar. While computing the total income for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89, the Assessing Officer allowed the assessee's claim for setting off the relief under Section 80J, brought forward from the assessment years 1979-80 to 1984-85. For the assessment year 1987-88, the assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on February 28, 1990, and for the assessment year 1988-89 on October 24, 1990. The Commissioner of Income-tax, who examined the matter, noticed that the initial assessment year for which the assessee had become entitled to the deduction under Section 80J was the assessment year 19...
The Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (Admn.) Department Vs. Senthamarai Kan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ668
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.3.1982 of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem made in O.S.No. 86 of 1979 laid by the plaintiff/first respondent herein to set aside the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department/appellant herein dated 23.3.1978 made in A.P.No. 63 of 1977 confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department dated 21.1.1977 made in O.A. No. 86 of 1974.2.1. In nutshell, the plaintiff/first respondent herein raised a dispute before the Deputy Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in O.A.No. 86 of 1974 under Section 63(b) of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for brevity 'the Act') claiming that he is a hereditary trustee of the Sri Lakshminarayana temple situated at Samudram Village, Sankari Taluk.2.2. According to the plaintiff/first respondent herein, the said t...
P. Subramanian Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad494; 2004(5)CTC718; (2004)2MLJ588
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The petitioner in O.P.No.75/94 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruchirapalli, hereinafter called 'the District Forum', is the revision petitioner.2. The petitioner had filed a claim petition before the District Forum for the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,20,439.50, against the Insurance Company/respondent, for the damages to his vehicle, sustained in the accident, which took place on 29.9.1993, on the ground that the Insurance Company had not performed its obligation, whereas it had committed deficiency in service.3. The respondent/Insurance Company opposed the application contending, that on the date of the accident, the petitioner did not possess a valid and effective driving license, to drive the Tourist Taxi and in this view, they are entitled to repudiate the claim of the petitioner.4. The District Forum, considering the rival claim of the parties, as well as the position of the law, took the view that the rejection of the cl...
R. Varadarajan, Vs. the Director of Town and Country Planning and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad173
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. Sowripalayam Rural Co-operative Housing Society formed a Housing Colony Scheme at Coimbatore known as G.R.G. Chandragandhi Nagar. The lay out was approved by all the concerned authorities and the Society sold the plots to its members as house sites. The lay out thus approved, contain certain areas which had been earmarked for common usage which cannot be converted into different user without the approval of the local body and planning authorities. A portion of the lay out was earmarked as Children's play ground. The controversy in these proceedings relate to the conversion of the said site into housing sites. The writ petitioners are the individuals who have purchased the said four housing sites. They are aggrieved by the non ratification of the change of user of the plots which were purchased by them. Hence, they have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 to ratify the change of user of the plots allotted to the petitio...
Sakkimangalam Ellampallam Vaaikkal Paasana Vivasayigal Sangam Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC459; (2004)3MLJ62
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Both these writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner.2. While W.P.No.22123 of 2003 is preferred against the proceedings of the second respondent dated 9.5.2003 refusing to grant permission to the petitioner Sangam for removing gravel from kanmoi comprised in S.No.89/1, Sakkimangalam Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District, W.P.No.19258 of 2003 is directed against the grant of permission for removal of gravel in favour of the third respondent.3. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to as per their rank in W.P.No.19258 of 2003.4. Mr. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, invited my attention to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent Collector dated 9.5.2003, whereunder he had refused to exercise the power conferred under Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') while considering the request made by the petitioner Sangam seeking permission ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijay Granites P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(172)ELT149(Mad); [2004]267ITR606(Mad); [2006]146STC688(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. The following questions have been referred to under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the High Court :-'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the finding of the CIT (Appeals) that the assessee was eligible for deduction under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) reversing the order of the assessing officer that the cranes were to be treated as transport vehicles and not plant and machinery eligible for deduction under Section 32A ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) reversing the order of the Assessing Officer that the assessee company was not eligible for deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The facts...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »