Chennai Court June 2004 Judgments
Sri Srinivasmurthy Mandiram Rep. by Its Executive Trustee, D. Srinivas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad518; 2004(5)CTC644; (2004)3MLJ382
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The revision petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, in not accepting his claim, to strike out the averments in the additional written statement, has preferred this revision petition.2. The revision petitioner as plaintiff had filed a suit against this respondent and two others, for declaration that the defendants are trespassers, that they should be directed to deliver possession of the property, with past as well as future profits, at specified rates, with some other ancillary relief.3. The respondent herein, who is the first defendant in the suit, had filed a written statement more or less admitting the title of the plaintiff, claiming lease hold interest over the site, under which, claiming further protection under City Tenants Protection Act, etc., raising certain other defence also. 4. After the filing of the original written statement, the first defendant/respondent herein had filed a petition, before the trial Court, for the rec...
Tag this Judgment!Senthil Kumar, Represented by Guardian Chockalinga Mudaliar and Sarasw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad403; (2004)3MLJ370
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No. 57 of 85 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, against the dismissal of their suit filed for declaration, delivery of possession, injunction, and for accounting, preferred the above appeal.2. The case of the plaintiffs as set out in their plaint is briefly stated hereunder:The suit properties and other properties originally belonged to Arumugha Mudaliar. His wife is Unnamalai Ammal. They had two daughters and a son by name Mangalam, Saraswathi and Jayasubramanian. Mangalam died about 15 years back. Her son is first defendant, whose son is second defendant. Saraswathi is the second plaintiff, whose son by name Senthilkumar is the first plaintiff. Unnamalai died 20 years back. Arumugha Mudaliar executed a deed of power of attorney in favour of the first defendant on 18-12-82, as he was unable to manage his affairs. Thereafter, it was duly revoked on 17-7-84 by means of a registered deed as Arumugha Mudalair was fit to manage ...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers' Federation Employees Union, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC177; (2004)3MLJ447
ORDER1. The petitioner is Tamil Nadu Co-operative Oil Seeds Growers' Federation Employees Union represented by its General Secretary. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuing a Writ of Certiorari quashing G.O.Ms.No.345 dated 30.11.2001 issued by the Agriculture Department of the State Government and for quashing G.O.No.165 dated 27.2.2002 issued by the State Government in the Labour and Employment Department. Under the first G.O., the Tamil Nadu Government in the Department of Agriculture purported exercise of jurisdiction under Section 182(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Act have directed the Commissioner of Agriculture and Registrar of Oil Seeds Growers Co-operative Societies to take appropriate proceedings under Section 137 of the said Act. This G.O. has been specifically challenged in W.P.No.9051/2002. In the subsequent G.O. dated 27.2.2002 issued by the State Government in the Labour and Employment Department, permission has been granted under section 25N of the Indu...
Tag this Judgment!Tube Investments of India Ltd. Vs. the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC359; (2004)3MLJ367
P. Sathasivam, J.1. M/s. Tube Investments of India Limited, Madras - 1 - claimant in LAOP. No. 58 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee is the appellant in the above appeal.2. An extent of 5.46 acres of land in Survey Nos.885/4B, 886/4 and 886/5 were acquired by the Government for construction of Railway line. For the said purpose, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act) 1894 (in short 'the Act') on 07.10.1975. After completing the formalities, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in Award No. 3/80-81 on 14.02.1981, fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 26/- per cent and awarded total compensation of Rs. 20,651.63. Aggrieved by the said amount, at the instance of the claimant, the matter was referred to Sub-Court, Poonamallee, which resulted in LAOP. No. 58 of 1984. 3. Before the Court below, on behalf of the claimant, D. Janarthanan was examined as CW.1 and also marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Thiru. N. Srinivasan Vs. Tmt. Uma Rani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)464; [2004]270ITR77(Mad)
R. Banumathi, J.C.A.NO.837 OF 1996:-1. Aggrieved against the order of acquittal, the Income Tax Department has preferred this appeal. By the impugned Judgment (dated 27.02.1996) in C.C.116 of 1990, the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee, has acquitted the Accused Uma Rani, wife of Arumugam, under sections 181, 193 IPC r/w 136 Income Tax Act; 276C(1) and 277 Income Tax Act in C.C.No.116 of 1990.C.A.NO.838 of 1996:-2.By the impugned Judgment (dated 27.02.1996), in C.C.117 of 1990 the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee, has acquitted Accused Arumugam and Uma Rani, under sections 181, 193 r/w 136 IPC; 276C(1) and 277 Income Tax Act in C.C.No.117 of 1990.3.The Respondents/Accused in both the appeals are husband and wife. Since common points for consideration are involved, both the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.4.Facts which led to the present appeal could be stated thus:-A search under section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was organised on 28.1.1982...
Tag this Judgment!Anandababu, Vs. Selvaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ85
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 09.10.2003 made in I.A.No.179 of 2001 in O.S.No.120 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Principal Sub-Judge, Tindivanam.2. The subject matter is that the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.120 of 1998 and he filed the suit before the Principal Sub-Court, Tindivanam for specific performance; that the petitioners were not intimated by their counsel about the case being posted for filing written statement; that on 13-06-2000, the suit was decreed exparte; that the petitioners came to know about this only after receiving notice in the E.P.; that the petitioners filed I.A.No. 179 of 2001 before the Court of the Principal Sub-Judge, Tindivanam, praying to condone the delay of 126 days and continue the case; that the petitioners submit that their non-appearance was neither wilful nor wanton, but due to the non-receipt of the communication from the...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Coimbatore District Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ461Mad
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. These petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing the petitions and the affidavits filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Anbarasan advocate for the petitioner in W.P.M.P. No. 5908 of 2004 and for the first respondent in W.V.M.P. No. 607 of 2004, and of Row and Reddy, advocate for the respondents in W.P.M.P. No. 5908 of 2004 and for the respondents 2 to 4 and petitioners in W.V.M.P. No. 607 of 2004, the Court made the following order:Interim stay granted already is modified as follows:2. I heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the writ- petitioner, who very streneously contended that the order impugned in the writ petition is totally against the judgment of the Division Bench in Justine v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai and Ors. case , and the fixation of cadre strength is pending before the Government. In such circumstances, the order impugned in the writ petition cannot be given effect to, unless or ot...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Devagiri Estate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: [2004]271ITR533(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.This revision petition has been filed under section 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras, against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, in A.T.A. No. 41 of 1996 dated 28-8-1997.2. The only point that arises in the revision petition is whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has no power to enhance the assessment suo motu under section 31(5) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').3. The brief facts are that in the assessment made by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer certain expenditure as claimed by the assessee was allowed and certain expenditure was disallowed and as against the disallowance, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that cer...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ramanarayan Mills Ltd. (Rep. by Its M.D.) Vs. Presiding Officer, L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ1102Mad
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petition is filed against the order of the Labour Court, dated October 16, 2003, made in I.D. No. 29 of 2000 in respect of the preliminary issue as to whether the enquiry has been conducted in a fair and proper manner and o ultimately giving a finding that the enquiry has not been conducted in a fair and proper manner.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner put in issue the order on the ground that while deciding the issue on a preliminary issue, the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and given a finding that the relevant clause of the Standing Orders under which the employee has been chargesheeted was not mentioned in the . chargesheet and that when it was contended that the petitioner was placed under suspension from December 10, 1998 to January 12, 1999, it was not clear as to whether the petitioner was working during the period relying on the documents, which has been marked as Exhibit M12. Learned counsel very seriously argued that if ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R. Madanagopal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC434
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above civil revision petition has been filed against the order and decretal order dated 19.1.2004 made in M.P. No. 206 of 2004 in O.P. No. 4949 of 2000 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2. The subject matter is that the respondents herein filed a petition in M.C.O.P. No. 4949 of 2000 before the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 1.75 crores approximately, and while the O.P. was under process, the second respondent/petitioner herein has filed a petition under Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking to issue subpoena to summon Dr. Mayilvahanan, working at Appollo Speciality Hospital, to give evidence in the M.A.C.T.O.P. Cases, as he is the person who had given treatment to the claimants, and since the same was dismissed, the petitioner has come forward to file the above civil revision petition.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents herein were treated at Appollo S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »